The Instigator
countrylover
Con (against)
Losing
37 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Pro (for)
Winning
46 Points

Once Saved Always Saved

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,214 times Debate No: 379
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (25)

 

countrylover

Con

I am against OSAS..cause it totally goes against what the Bible says...The Bible says that many are called but few are chosen....if you was to acctually read the Bible it would be hard to come up with a believe that once you are saved..that you will ALWAYS be saved....and the verse that says "he will never leave you or forsake you" does not tell me that i can never backslide....he wont leave us...we leave him...if we abanden him .he will abanden us......man is pridefull enough...if a person was to believe OSAS it would be harder for him to regret or be sorry for any wrong that he does....he may ask forgivness but wont be forgivin cause he aint really sorry in his heart....it would be easier to look down at peaple..a person who believes OSAS wont take correction..will be stubbern and never grow in his walk with the lord....the Bible says to STRIVE to enter in at the STRAIGHT gate....and that many will try and not be able to enter.....why would you have to strive for something that will automatically be yours without effort....the Bible says to sit down and count the cost and see if you are willing to pay the price and pick up your cross to follow jesus.....the Bible says that there will come a time when man will not endure sound doctrine but have itching ears and go to where they teach what they wanna hear...WHAT BETTER THING TO HEAR THEN OSAS?.....What better thing would your flesh wanna hear..then the subjust of you getting away with evrything.....some will say that if a person dont make it to heaven then they must of never truly gotten saved...i disagree with that...yes the person may not of really truly been saved...but on the other hand he could of been saved and gotton lukewarm or backslidden....the 10 Virgins of the Bible were ALL saved...the 5 foolish were saved also....they were foolish cause they let there oil run out...you cant run out of something you never had...even the 7 churches in revelation shows that you can be heavenbound at the moment and still not make it to heaven.
Tatarize

Pro

Let me be clear, the idea of "Once Saved Always Saved" does not allow for the argument that if you were ever a good Christian you are thusly considered a good Christian all your life. Rather, it is the case that such individuals were never saved. From the position of eternity: you can only be saved or not saved.

Allow me to be clear, I am arguing in favor of the second point of Five Point Calvinism: Unconditional election. At the time you are born, and prior to your birth, God knows exactly how you will act and exactly what the end result of your life will be. You may struggle with your faith and ultimately become and atheist. However, that does not at any time imply that you were Saved. You were always going to lose your faith and become an atheist. Likewise you might be born a heathen and through some events find a faith in God and become saved and die saved. You were you were only saved once and it was before you were born. Once you were saved, you were always saved. Once Saved Always Saved.

There is strong Biblical support for this:

* Romans 9:15-16: "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."
* Ephesians 1:4-5: "even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,"
* Ephesians 1:11: "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,"

You argue that from a utility point of view OSAS is immoral, and though it is a tangent, allow me to rebut that as well. You argue that OSAS implies that a person can, as a "saved" person just say 'screw it and do whatever immoral things they want'. However, if that is the case then they were never really saved in the first place. I will further argue (note that this argument is not principle to the topic at hand) that belief of temporary salvation is more immoral than OSAS. What if a person becomes saved, yet, you have a good idea that they will, in due course, backslide and lose their salvation? I argue that in such a case a moral action would be to put a bullet in their head after they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. They will promptly go to heaven. Whereas you will need to quickly ask for forgiveness for this act. But, overall, this would be morally acceptable. You would very directly be turning what is only a temporary salvation into a permanent one.

Where are Andrea Yates' children? Heaven or Hell?
If they had been allowed to grow up beyond childhood, would this result have been assured? Could they have backslid?
If you accept that idea of temporary salvation you must accept that Andrea Yates' actions were moral, that the murder of her children was, given the situation, a better result than allowing them to be corrupted and sent to hell forever.

You are saved once, before you are born. The elected will go to heaven, they are saved once and saved always. Furthermore, the idea of temporary salvation is not only extra-biblical but completely immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
countrylover

Con

God can tell the future.....that doensnt mean he changes the future....every man has a free will and uses it...however it ends up bieng in the end...would be what god would know from the start....so a person can still choose rather they want to live for god or not...and if that person don't make it to heaven..it was not because they wasnt destined to go..it was because that they did not have faith and live for him...salvation is for EVERYONE not just "certain" peaple..and as for the children..you ask if they was in heaven or hell....im not the judge...God is...he knows the hearts of those children and HE is the ones that determen where each child goes.....if the children was to grow up...rather or not they go to heaven would be if they was to give there life to the the lord....evryone is born a sinner...the children may of went to heaven..but god is the judge...we are held accountable by what we know...and who is either one of us..to assume anything of anyone of the kids aint for us to know....we all all born into sin...and when and if a child should be held accountable for there salvation is for God to judge...He is the one that knows the hearts of us all......and unlike what you assume i believe....i am not for suicide or murder of anyone.
Tatarize

Pro

If, as you say, "God can tell the future", then when you have a choice to do A or B, and God knows which you will choose then you don't really have a choice. If God knows you will do A, you will do A, regardless of how free your will may be. If I know exactly what you will do in the omnipotent sense, then you have no choice in the matter. You have done nothing to refute my argument against free will. You have in fact, given good reasons to deny the propositions (God can tell the future and god knows what you will do). Secondly, you have given no reason or Biblical response to my very clear Biblical notes that the Bible says people are, as the Calvinists claim, elected to salvation.

Declaring something false does not qualify as an argument.

You claim that salvation is for people who choose to live for God, however you conceded that "God can tell the future". So, even if one wishes to ignore the above argument, that free will doesn't exist, you would need to accept that when you have a choice between A and B, God will know which you choose. Now, if this choice is to choose if "they want to live for god" then God will know what choice they will make. Even ignoring the issue of free will, this is a distinction without a difference. You will do what God knows you will do. In either case, God knows who is saved and who isn't saved. As such, your salvation is known in advance. As such, your salvation is predetermined. As such, you are not saved repeatedly after each backslide. You are either saved or not saved.

Secondly, even under your claim of temporary salvation, the very temporary nature of it shows that it is not salvation. If you were saved, you would not be going to hell. The idea that you could be "saved" and eventually end up in hell is incoherent. Salvation is the freedom from torture or punishment into a state of Grace. You can be saved in the sense that "if you died now you would go to heaven" but not in the sense that you are currently dead. Given this, you can only be saved once, and as heaven is for an eternity that salvation is for "always".

The tangential argument of morality is not principle to the argument at hand. However to say that it is not your judgment to make is correct, however you make the exact judgment in your opening argument. You hold that OSAS is morally ambiguous because it allows this that and the other. Why do you have no right to judge when I offer a counter argument, but every right to judge when you put forth your argument? My argument was not that murder is acceptable, rather that if you held that Salvation is temporary and one may backslide, considering the eternity of pain and torture, the moral thing to do is to murder a potential backslider before they can backslide. Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. If you could be spared the fires of hell and granted eternal grace by being shot in the head by a friend, would you want that? If you could spare a friend the fires of hell by shooting him in the head, should you not do that unto him?

You have failed to provide a cogent argument in favor of free will.
I have provided an argument against free will, both Biblically and logically.
I have refuted your claims against immorality of OSAS.
I have argued that temporary salvation is both incoherent and immoral.

All of your claims are refuted. None of my claims have been refuted.
Debate Round No. 2
countrylover

Con

I would never favor that someone be shot...you are talking as if I would know that there heavenbound or something...I NEVER assume that ANYONE is heavenbound....and 2..i know that murder is murder...so for you to assume that killing someone who ya think is heavenbound would be moral..thats all on you.....as for me i dont get my believe by just a few verses but the whole pic....there is not 1 verses in the Bible that you can use to show me that OSAS is right.....oh...by the way...why would you be "for" something that you done believe?...your a athiest...you think God alone is as fake as a cartoon...i could go on debating and throwing verses at ya on what the bible says...but you aint for either side really....and to what you say about predestination.....so far you have talked as if there are certain peaple that are destined to go to heaven while the others are hellbound and cant be saved....that alone will go against what the bible says..and the verses you are trying to use..you dont even understand
Tatarize

Pro

You cannot truly know if somebody is saved, in the temporary sense, this is true. And that ambiguity is perhaps an apt reason not to put the bullet in their heads. However, it does hold true that "saved people" are not saved until they are saved and dead. As such, they can only ever be saved once. They are either saved or not saved. Please, note, the argument against temporary salvation is a secondary one, and your objection is simply epistemological. Moreover, it supports my argument. If accepting Jesus as some point makes a person saved, then you can put a bullet in their head. If that is the qualification for salvation, it is finished. However, if their salvation is not temporary... that is the reason you cannot know.

You argue that your beliefs are not drawn from a couple verses and yet the entire Bible. This is an acceptable view. However, where do you get this view from in the entire Bible? I'll concede that perhaps some passage here or there may be taken out of context and may not be acceptable for an argument. However, where is the refutation? Free Will is a doctrine which was invented out of nothing, whole-cloth, in the 14th century. There is little to no Biblical evidence for it, and absolutely none cited by you. You have done nothing to refute the Calvinist view. I only cited a few, and those were not refuted. I am to believe that though the Bible says it, you hold it as false for some reason? Where was this support you suggested existed? The entire Bible asserts the doctrine of Free Will? Where? How? I read it and saw a lot of counter-evidence to this claim, from God "hardening the Pharaoh's heart" to change his mind to the cited quotes about divine election.

* John 15:16: "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."
* Acts 13:48: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."
* Philippians 1:29: "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake"
* 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5: "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake."
* 2 Thessalonians 2:13: "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."
* 2 Timothy 1:9: "who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,"

Predestination establishes that a person is only saved once. The eternity of heaven shows that it is a salvation which lasts "always". You are Once Saved Always Saved, and you don't really know until you're dead. You are only Saved, when you're dead and saved.

I took the for side of the argument and argued it. I have not been dishonest. I have accepted, for the sake of debate, the existence of God as well as the truth of the Bible. I do not need to accept something to argue in favor of it. Your note that I am an atheist is true and yet irrelevant. Yes, I am an atheist. I believe that gods are, your God included, more fake than cartoons (I can actually see cartoons!), however this has nothing to do with the argument. My points stand on their own merits. This comment is simply an ad hominem.

My arguments about predestinations are taken from Calvinism. The Calvinist arguments are Biblically grounded and on much more firm ground than the bland assertion that free will exists. Calvinism is consistent as well as Biblically supported. The Bible speaks volumes of the fact that people are "elected" to accept God, and you yourself have admitted that God knows who will and will not be saved. You are misrepresented the second point of Five Point Calvinism. It is not that people are doomed from the outset and cannot be saved. It is that salvation has nothing to do with you and that God elects those who are saved. It is for the mercy of God by which people are given grace (the Bible says exactly that). It is God's Judgment.

You asserted many things. However, you never sought to establish any of them. I presented a cogent argument, with Biblical verses in support, you asserted your assertion with more assertions. I established my points, you failed to establish your points. Once Saved Always Saved. You may be backsliding all your life, but salvation isn't a temporary thing, it is, by definition, eternal. You are not saved, until you are saved and dead. That is salvation. That is the only salvation. That is the eternal salvation, the one salvation: Once Saved Always Saved.

You have neither presented a cogent argument for your case, nor have you refuted my argument. I have met the burden of proof, and have presented arguments which you have failed to respond, or address in a cogent manner. You have made assertions and put forward fallacy. Your argument cannot succeed.

Thank you for your topic and argument.
Have a good day.
Tatarize.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by aremisasling 9 years ago
aremisasling
As a matter of fact, it matters quite a bit. Your opponent put forth actual Biblical cites as well as a valid and long-standing interpretation of the word as it stands. It is your responsibility to answer this with better than 'I know the Bible and I think I'm right.' If you think he's quoting out of context, demonstrate that. Give the context and show why his interpretation was wrong. If you think his statements are counter to the rest of the bible, give some examples of places in the bible that show he is wrong.

He has demonstrated that he has read the bible and what was right in front of his face didn't agree with what you say should be there.

He's not asking you to use anything other than the Bible to debate this Bible topic. He's just asking for more than a spiritual instinct or what you've been told. He may be an atheist, but there are plenty of Calvinists out there that would be thoroughly unconvinced by your arguments, especially with no Biblical citation whatsoever. Without a demonstration of some kind of knowledge on the biblical view on this subject, you are no more (in fact quite a bit less) convincing than anyone else, Christian, Atheist, or otherwise.

You DO have to convince other people on this site. That's the point. That's why there is a dissenting opinion at all. This is not your personal blog. This is not a myspace poll, this is a place where two people who disagree are supposed to make the best case they can for their views.

I'll quote FAQ number one for the site:

"# What is an online debate?

An online debate is where one member challenges another to discuss a topic, pointing out facts and arguing points to support their side of the argument."

You can defend a biblical topic with biblical sources. It's done everyday all over the world. There have been some very fine scholarly defenses for both your argument and your opponent's by prominent figures in the christian movement. All we ask is you try to do the same.

Aremis
Posted by countrylover 9 years ago
countrylover
i dont have to convince anyone....this a debate about a Bible topic...if you or someone else base your opinion from something else then the Bible..then what you say wouldnt matter much...who reads the Bible?...most likely christians..ect...so again..if they was serious about this topic and was to read the Bible for themselves then i wont have to say much..it right in front of there face.
Posted by aremisasling 9 years ago
aremisasling
I do have a soul in my wordview, I said exactly that. I said that in my pagan soul I am a polythiest, a reincarnationist and a believer in the divinity of nature. I also assumed that you are unlikely to like the sort of things I would say from my soul, and therefore and argument from the soul is not perticularly valid.

And if here is not 'Thee (sic) real world' then what world is here and why aren't you living in the real world? And how, in my statement am I belittling myself? And furthermore, if you are aware that you are on a debate site (not YOUR site, BTW), why are you thouroughlly uninterested in actually reading a dissenting opinion or answering any plain and simple questions?

Seriously, debate or quit whining. And quit skewing the statistics in favor of people who never bother to actually put forth any kind of argument. I assure you Mr. CL is never going to convince anyone who disagrees with him based on the 'arguments' he made. This is a place for intelligent debate, not bald-faced assertions based on beliefs or gut-feelings.

Aremis
Posted by ruth421963 9 years ago
ruth421963
I'm fully aware of my site, don't start jumping
on me for your lack of "SOUL"..BC without that "YOU
HAVE NOTHING..HERE OR IN THEE REAL WORLD.
DON'T EVER TRY AND TAKE ME DOWN TO YOUR LEVEL..
BELITTLE YOURSELF WITH YOUR TIME, NOT MINE!
Ruth
Posted by aremisasling 9 years ago
aremisasling
What CL spoke with was not his soul, it was with his total lack of respect for the concept of debate. He came in with a preconcieved notion and did nothing but say 'you're wrong' as a refutation. If bringing up counterarguments is too edumacated and lawyer-like for you, you are on entirely the wrong site. Debate suggests that you at least on some level believe that you could be proven wrong, even if that is unlikely in your opinion. If not, then it's not a debate, it's a bald-faced assertion. Check the URL of the site you're on before you 'speak with your soul.'

When I speak from my soul it's all about polytheism, reincarnation and the cycles of life, but I guarantee you wouldn't be voting for me no matter how much of my soul I threw into it.

The people who voted for his side of the debate have an equally poorly formed concept of debate.

Aremis
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
ROFL!

You lose because you're smart and talk like a jerk! How dare you come off like you know what you're talking about? You sounded too smart and too reasonable to win! Sure you cited the Bible and noted Calvinist theology as your source, but you could just be making that all up!
Posted by ruth421963 9 years ago
ruth421963
I felt CountryLover made a few
good points without coming off like
a guy tossing around a few ideas and stats.
I also feel that is how "CL" won. He spoke
with his soul and you spoke as a lawyer.
Hope, Peace & Happiness,
Ruth
Posted by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
Your arrogance precedes you. There are ways in which one can argue without sounding pompous to which I believe you articulate yourself in your arguments. Both of you failed to mention where you gathered your sources and for all we know you made it up. Furthermore, just because you cite the Bible passage by picking tidbits here and there, does not make it correct. Like any book or any speech, you can distory the truth when you apply only selective learning to your methodology.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
I figured the Bible was a stipulation of the debate. I put forward actual parts of the Bible to support my argument. He put forward nothing. *sigh*

I'm still astounded anybody could vote for him. He didn't debate anything, he said some stuff which I completely rebutted.
Posted by shorty 9 years ago
shorty
theres nothing hard about this debate...are you both going by the Bible?...well if ya are...I agree with countrylover..if i was to have a bible and not of been influinced by anyone...and read and learnd the bible from what it says and not make it mean what others tells me it means...i would have a hard time believeing that i can so easily be heavenbound...its nice for the ears...but it just dont line up with the bible
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
countryloverTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
countryloverTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
countryloverTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Simon76 9 years ago
Simon76
countryloverTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by rober623 9 years ago
rober623
countryloverTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by joze14rock 9 years ago
joze14rock
countryloverTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
countryloverTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by Catholicdude15 9 years ago
Catholicdude15
countryloverTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Vote Placed by Rillion 9 years ago
Rillion
countryloverTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by ruth421963 9 years ago
ruth421963
countryloverTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30