The Instigator
CatholicTraditionalist
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
funwiththoughts
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and the eternal security doctrine are both false

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
CatholicTraditionalist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,889 times Debate No: 37189
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

CatholicTraditionalist

Pro

Most Protestants(NonCatholics who claim to be Christians) believe in "once saved always saved"(OSAS) or eternal security. They believe that a man who believes in Jesus cannot lose his eternal salvation. These ideas are simply false and completely contrary to the teaching of the Bible.
funwiththoughts

Con

I accept. BOP is on you.
Debate Round No. 1
CatholicTraditionalist

Pro

Great, I'm glad you are willing to debate this very serious topic. I look forward to refuting your arguments.

As I said before, These ideas of OSAS(Once Saved Always Saved) and eternal security are false and completely contrary to the teaching of the Bible. Let"s look at the proof. After that, I will respond to the Con's objections. I will use the 1611 King James Version of the Bible, which is a famous Protestant translation.

Note: If even just one passage from the Bible refutes OSAS and eternal security, then OSAS and eternal security are objectively false. I will therefore present that passage from the bible....

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
funwiththoughts

Con

1. That passage only says that he that endures shall be saved. It does not say anything about those who don't endure.

2. My opponent takes the passage out-of-context. The passage is part of a group of instructions given by Jesus to the Apostles, and does not necessarily apply to the world as a whole.

3. The passage could be referring to being saved from death, or several other things, not necessarily from Hell.

4. My opponent has not proven that the Bible is true or that the afterlife exists in the first place.

Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 2
CatholicTraditionalist

Pro

the Con said, "1. That passage only says that he that endures shall be saved. It does not say anything about those who don't endure."

Logically, if those who endure till the end will be saved, then those who do not endure will not be saved.

the Con said, "2. My opponent takes the passage out-of-context. The passage is part of a group of instructions given by Jesus to the Apostles, and does not necessarily apply to the world as a whole."

If Jesus told just one man that he must endureth till the end to be saved, then obviously that would apply to all men because Jesus is making a statement of "FACT". For example, if I tell one man that he must travel to China to get to China, then obviously that means all men must travel to China to get to China because the FACT is that nobody outside of China can get to China unless they travel to it. Therefore I am not taking that passage out of context, but instead you are doing so since you are claiming that the information Jesus is giving to his Apostles only applies to his Apostles with regards to Matthew 10:22. Yet Jesus never claims that Matthew 10:22 only refers to his Apostles alone. So you are reading between the lines and claiming something that is not there.

the Con said, "3. The passage could be referring to being saved from death, or several other things, not necessarily from Hell."

All the Apostles were martyred(meaning murdered for preaching Jesus' Gospel) except Judas who died from committing suicide and John who died in old age. So therefore Jesus obviously was not telling his Apostles that they would all be saved from "physical death". Plus, its illogical to even claim Jesus was referring to one being saved from "physical death" because Jesus was speaking about the end of one's lifetime which is "physical death" and therefore that means that at "physical death" that individual would then be saved because he endured till the end.

the Con said, "4. My opponent has not proven that the Bible is true or that the afterlife exists in the first place."

This debate is not titled "Is the Bible true?" and it is not titled "Is there an afterlife?". Why did you accept the debate challenge since you don't hold to the protestant belief that the Bible is true and that there is an afterlife???? This proves that you are of bad will and a liar.

As for those watching this debate. As you can see, I have responded to each objection given by my opponent. Now lets see if my opponent will answer the following question I pose to him or her..........

1. Is the protestant doctrines of Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and eternal security both objective truths?
funwiththoughts

Con

"Logically, if those who endure till the end will be saved, then those who do not endure will not be saved."

Huh? I don't follow you. If those who are left-handed can play Go Fish, that doesn't mean those who are right-handed can't play Go Fish.

"If Jesus told just one man that he must endureth [sic] till the end to be saved, then obviously that would apply to all men because Jesus is making a statement of "FACT"."

But if you look at the whole chapter, you will see that Jesus is NOT making a statement of fact, he is giving instructions. If I tell one man, "make me some chicken", that does not mean I want everyone on Earth to make me chicken.

"This debate is not titled "Is the Bible true?" and it is not titled "Is there an afterlife?". Why did you accept the debate challenge since you don't hold to the protestant belief that the Bible is true and that there is an afterlife????"

The debate is not titled "Are protestants right?" either. But you are right, I should have been more clear on that point. You said in the opening that the debate was over whether a man who once believed in Jesus could lose their eternal salvation. If there is no afterlife, then there is no eternal salvation to lose. Ergo, no they cannot.

"1. Is the protestant doctrines of Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and eternal security both objective truths?"

According to the wording you laid out? I believe they are. I cannot prove that, but like I said BOP is on you.
Debate Round No. 3
CatholicTraditionalist

Pro

the Con said, "If there is no afterlife, then there is no eternal salvation to lose. Ergo, no they cannot."

The Con obviously does not believe in an after life. Therefore the Con did not accept this debate challenge in good faith, because obviously I was seeking to debate a protestant who holds to the belief of Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and eternal security as I laid out in my opening statement.

My question to the Con was, 1. Is the protestant doctrines of Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and eternal security both objective truths? The Con answered by saying, "I believe they are."

Notice that Con just lied. He claimed that he believes the Protestant understanding of OSAS and eternal security are "true". The problem is that this Protestant doctrine claims that through the Lord, who is Christ Jesus, a believer becomes justified by faith alone and cannot lose their justification even if they sin. Therefore that justified believer remains saved from going to hell and can look forward to one day going to Heaven. Con does not believe any of this because he has admitted that nobody receives salvation in the 1st place, because he does not believe in God and does not believe in a heaven and a hell.
funwiththoughts

Con

"Therefore the Con did not accept this debate challenge in good faith, because obviously I was seeking to debate a protestant who holds to the belief of Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and eternal security as I laid out in my opening statement."

You never said I had to be Protestant. You can't just make new rules in the middle. If I had known I had to be Protestant to debate I wouldn't have accepted.

"My question to the Con was, 1. Is the protestant doctrines of Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and eternal security both objective truths? The Con answered by saying, "I believe they are.""

Technically true but dishonestly phrased. I said that ACCORDING TO THE WORDING YOU LAID OUT, yes they are. And the wording you laid out only said that someone who believes in Jesus cannot lose eternal salvation. You didn't say in the opening that I had to believe believers would go to Heaven. Had I known this was a requirement, I would not have accepted to begin with. So I am not lying but rather going on incomplete information.

Also, you did not address anything I said about the passage itself, so extend all arguments regarding the passage itself.
Debate Round No. 4
CatholicTraditionalist

Pro

Any honest person following this debate knows that I was seeking to debate someone who holds to the "Protestant understanding" of Once Saved, Always Saved(OSAS). The Con does not hold to the Protestant understanding of OSAS. Therefore the Con is of bad will and simply a liar. In fact, the Con admits on his own profile that he is an atheist. This debate was therefore wasted. I look forward to having this debate later with someone who is serious about the topic and who holds to the Protestant doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved.
funwiththoughts

Con

Well, if you wanted to have this argument with a Protestant, then why didn't you say you had to be a Protestant to accept? If you had done that, I wouldn't have accepted. You only told me after I had accepted, so how was I supposed to know? You can't just make up new rules in the middle. Not everything works out the way you hope it will in life. And also I am only following what you said in your opening.

And these last two rounds have in fact been wasted by you since you have not posted any rebuttals and instead have simply called me a liar simply for going off incomplete information. So extend all arguments.

But I feel the need to point out one more thing, given that my opponent has already stopped countering: Jesus could not have been stating a fact that applies to everyone. After all, not everyone is universally hated, even during their own life. However, the Apostles certainly were hated by all or nearly all men at least during their own lives. So, either the passage is referring only to the people Jesus was telling it to, or Jesus was wrong, which would be impossible since he is omniscient.
BOP has not been met. Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by josjohis 3 years ago
josjohis
I cannot decide for either side. Although one side "seems" to have argued better, it was not convincing enough due to a preconceived bias.
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
Sojourner: Yeah, I realized that didn't make sense so I dropped it.
Posted by Sojourner 4 years ago
Sojourner
Fun: For example, your claim that Jesus may have been referring to physical death. Pro addressed this, and you then seemed to have dropped it.
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
Sojourner, I can understand why you would see my arguments as disingenuous, but which of my opponent's rebuttals did you think were not adequately refuted?
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
BTW, if you're going to insult me, at least try being clever with it instead of just repeating "you are of bad will and a liar" over and over again.
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
Also, the arguments in that video you showed are completely cliched and have been debunked time and time again.
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
The passage you quoted clearly refers to be saved from something-it seems that you believe it means being saved from Hell (salvation), which seems to be the most logical explanation. And why didn't you bring this up during the debate? You did NOT make it clear that you wanted to debate someone with Protestant understanding, you only said it was something "many Protestants believe"-note "many", i. e. not all, which would seem to mean it is not a Protestant doctrine. Yet again you change the game in your favor, and call me a liar simply for going off incomplete information.
Posted by CatholicTraditionalist 4 years ago
CatholicTraditionalist
funwiththoughts said, "playing devil's advocate" is a thing, y'know."

The problem with that funwiththoughts is that you didn't play devil's advocate either. Instead you claimed one does not receive salvation in the 1st place to lose it. So you were therefore not defending the Protestant doctrinal understanding of the Once Saved Always Saved(OSAS) and eternal security positions.

Again, the Protestant doctrinal view of OSAS and eternal security is that one "DOES OBTAIN SALVATION" and cannot lose that salvation which they "HAVE". Also, I made it clear in my opening statement that I was looking to debate the "Protestant understanding of OSAS". Therefore since you yourself rejected the Protestant understanding of OSAS by claiming there is no salvation to lose in the 1st place, then you actually threw away the debate and made my case. You see, we Catholics also do not believe there is any Salvation acquired during our lifetimes by which it can be lost, which is why we reject OSAS. So I thank you for agreeing with my position in the debate and not the Protestant position that I was against.

However, I still wanted to debate a person that held to the Protestant view of OSAS, or at least someone who would defend the Protestant view of OSAS, which you failed to do. Therefore you did not play devil's advocate in favor of the Protestant view, but instead you agreed with the Catholic view.

Nonetheless, you are clearly a person of bad will and a liar. I urge you to watch these two Youtube videos which proves the existence of God since you are an atheist.....
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
BTW, CatholicTraditionalist: "playing devil's advocate" is a thing, y'know.
Posted by funwiththoughts 4 years ago
funwiththoughts
lolzors93: Will have to take a look at those, thanks for the info.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 4 years ago
Sojourner
CatholicTraditionalistfunwiththoughtsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because I feel that Con was somewhat disingenuous. The debate was clearly about the Protestant doctrine of OSAS, and Con wanted to argue about the truth of the Bible and the afterlife. Arguments to Pro because he adequately argued Pro?s contentions 1 through 4. Although, Pro allowed himself to get somewhat side-tracked, the above contentions were not effectively refuted.