The Instigator
aceofelves
Pro (for)
Winning
66 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
42 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
Pro Tied Con
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: 2/17/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,582 times Debate No: 2722
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (43)
Votes (27)

 

aceofelves

Pro

The bible teaches that once a person truely comes to know Christ, they will not be denied their salvation. This is a fundamental Christian belief.

Please attempt to prove me wrong.
Tatarize

Con

Despite the fundamental nature of the belief or how whether such a concept is contained in the Bible: those things do not establish something as true.

Christ, the Bible, Christianity, salvation, God... please show that these things are valid prior to using them as premises to other conclusions.

If, for example, God does not exist and the Bible is simply an group of writings from a few thousand years ago without any bearing on reality, how is salvation established, much less a permanent salvation?

---

Furthermore, your argument that OSAS is established by the Bible is even on weaker grounds than just being propped up by an unsupported book. The Bible speaks often of people losing their faith. Matthew 13:18-23, the parable of the sewer of seeds: those without roots quickly fall away. Mark 13:13, stand firm to the end for salvation. 1 Corinthians 3:16, you are the Temple of God and if you defile yourself God will destroy you. 2 Peter 1:10, make your calling and election sure. 1 John 2:24, if you continue to believe you'll continue to be saved. James 1:13-14, God never tempts you away and if you are tempted and drawn away it is your own lust.

Matthew 24:13,24,25 ; Luke 8:5-8,11-15 ; 12:45,46 ; 14:34,35 ; 15:13,21,24 ; 22:31,32 ; Romans 11:17-22 ; 1 Corinthians 3:16,17 ; 9:27 ; 10:1-12 ; 11:31,32 ; 15:1,2 ; Galatians 5:4,7 ; Philippians 2:12,13 ; Colossians 1:22,23 ; 1 Thessalonians 3:5,8 ; and 2 Thessalonians 2:3 ; 1 Timothy 1:5-7 ; 3:6,7 ; 4:1 ; 5:12,15 ; 6:10,20,21 ; 2 Timothy 2:15,17,18 ; 3:14,15 ; 4:3,4 ; Hebrews 2:1-3 ; 3:12-14,18 ; 4:1,11-13 ; 6:4-6 ; 10:26,29,38 ; 12:15-17 ; and James 1:14,15 ; 5:19,20 ; 1 Peter 1:9 ; 2 Peter 1:10 ; 2:15,16,20,21 ; 3:17,18
1 John 2:24,25,28 ; Revelation 2:5,10,11 ; 3:1-5,16 ; and 22:19.

If you prove the validity of the Bible and existence of God; My arguments against the topic will largely come from the above scriptures for phase two.

So your task is two fold.
* Prove the existence of God and validity of the Bible, existence of salvation and Messiah-ship of Jesus.
* Present some argument as to why this silly doctrine isn't Biblical when the text of the Bible seems to clearly disagree.

---

Also, on strictly practical terms, if you actually believe in Jesus... what's the point afterwards? Why not just start doing blow and hookers? You're already saved from that point onward. I actually know a several atheists who fell away from such beliefs. You're telling me that although they spend their lives supporting a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, stem cell research, and arguing that the Bible is simply fiction that they still go to heaven?
Debate Round No. 1
aceofelves

Pro

"So your task is twofold.
* Prove the existence of God and validity of the Bible, existence of salvation and Messiah-ship of Jesus."

I expected this to be an inter-christian debate, as the argument is strictly within the bounds of the Bible, as Salvation would be a non-issue if God didn't exist. Let's please assume that the Bible is in fact 100% true, which would relieve me of waging two huge arguments in 2 rounds. We can have another debate on your first asterisk later. If you will temporarily concede this, we shall move onward in the argument.

So, now that the issue is essentially one fold only:
" * Present some argument as to why this silly doctrine isn't Biblical when the text of the Bible seems to clearly disagree. "

Okay, as you have haphazardly listed multiple verses, my first job is largely to explain each verse in the way it was intended. Defense before offense.

" Matthew 13:18-23, the parable of the sewer of seeds: those without roots quickly fall away. " This is clearly not anything challenging eternal security. Those WITHOUT roots refers to those who arent even saved yet. As stated in my initial argument, once one has TRULY come to Christ, he shall not be denied salvation. The last verse in the passage you mentioned, Matthew 13:23, says "...this is the man who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit." in this particular parable, only the last man was ever truly saved. read it again.

"1 Corinthians 3:16" You misquoted this. You actually combined and misinterpreted verses 16-17. it says ~~Do you not know that you are a temple of God?... If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. ~~ This is saying if SOMEONE destroys US (the temple of God) HE will be destroyed. Not "if we defile ourselves, he would destroy us." Plus, even if this could be interpreted that way, Destroyed does not indicate taking away salvation, simple ending life on earth.

"1 John 2:24" ~~Make sure that the message you heard from the beginning lives in you. If that message lives in you, you will also live in the Son and in the Father. ~~ Carefully read this. Like 2 Peter 1:10, it says be sure you're a Christian. If the message is living in you, you will be saved. It doesn't say be sure the message keeps living in you. All translations agree. See: http://bible.cc...

"James 1:13-14" God doesn't tempt us. If we are tempted, and it leads to lust, it is our own sin, and as the bible clearly teaches, sin leads to death. But Christ brings life. Death does not imply loss of salvation. The lost will go to hell for their sins. the elect are forgiven for their sins.

"Matthew 24:13,24,25." Verse 13 states an obvious fact, If you endure, you will be saved. Well all those who are truly saved will endure, as I will show later when i get to post MY verses. 24 and 25 refer to the end times when there will be very persuasive liars who will attempt to lead people astray. many of those who thought they were christians will be lead away. the actual elect will not. this verse says "if possible, lead the elect astray" but it is in fact impossible. The verse doesnt say the elect WILL be led astray.

"Luke 8:5-8,11-15 " this is luke's telling of Mat 13:18-23. I've already rebutted this. See above.

"Luke 12:45,46" Be sure to read the verse before and after this. It is saying those who know are familiar with the bible/will of God but continue to ignore it will be punished more than those who disobey "in ignorance." nothing about losing salvation here.

"Luke 14: 34-35" if we live worldly lives, we lose our good influence and are essentially useless for leading the lost to Christ (christians often call this "losing your witness). however, these people's salvation is not at stake.

"Luke 15:13,21,24 certainly doesn't refer to losing salvation. we ARENT worthy of being called God's children. That's the beauty of Christianity. The son was lost as in he was unsaved, then he was brought home (saved). not referring to eternal security or lack thereof.

You have listed so many irrelevant verses (to this issue) it's taking forever.
"Luke 22:31,32" irrelevant. "Romans 9, 10, and 11" are taking about Jews and Gentiles. The Jews were the first, the Gentiles came after. Not referring to loss of salvation. Many of the "if's" are theoretical and wont occur.

Your 1st Cor passages are all either irrelevant or support my side of the argument, (eg. 1 cor 10:12). Gal says "would be" not "are." Your Phil passage is irrelevant. The Coll passage is similar to those rebutted above. Remember, you have to be truly saved to never be lost. those who come close but not all the way can fall away. 1st Thess, ditto. 2nd Thess, ditto, your 1st timothy passages are again irrelevant or referring to those not fully saved or hypothetical situations. 2nd tim verses were all referring to those not yet saved. Your Hebs passages are all as above except chapter 6, which i will have to get to later. The James passages are reiterations of others i have rebutted. Lol, the 1st peter passage simply says the word salvation but does not refer to losing it at all. the 2nd peter passages again are about those not ever actually saved. 1st john was already talked about, or a reiteration of it. the Revelation passages are irrelevant.

Let me explain Rev 3:16 because it is often brought up in debates concerning salvation. Spit you out of my Mouth DOES not indicate a loss of salvation. something unpleasant tasting is spit out of the mouth. it indicates God's displeasure in mediocre christians.

"Rev 22:18-19" The word of God is living and cannot be destroyed or altered, it's impossible, so you could say that warning is unnecessary.

"Hebrews Six" If we could lose our salvation, then it would be lost forever, because Christ only died once. Hebrews 6:4-6 is an often misunderstood passage, which strongly supports the doctrine of eternal security in two ways: it implies that Christ's sacrifice must be sufficient for all sins, and states that if it were possible for a person to lose their salvation, it would be forever lost. According to this passage, if a person could do something that cost them their salvation (which they cannot), then it would be "impossible" for them to be re-redeemed.

So all these verses have been addressed. they are either irrelevant or taken out of context. re mention any that you feel are very significant and that i should further address.

Now for MY verses that i would like you to address:
John 10:27-29. No man can pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Romans 8:35-39 NOTHING can separate us from God.
Romans 11:29 God's calling is irrevocable.
John 6:37-39 I shall not cast any out.
Ephesians 1:13-14 We are sealed with the Holy Spirit, now possessions of God.
Jude 1:24-25 God keeps us from stumbling away.
1 Peter 1:3-5 Our salvation can never perish, spoil, or fade.

Believers are born again (regenerated) when they believe (John 3:3; Titus 3:5). For a Christian to lose his salvation, he would have to be un-regenerated. The Bible gives no evidence that the new birth can be taken away. (d) The Holy Spirit indwells all believers (John 14:17; Romans 8:9) and baptizes all believers into the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13). For a believer to become unsaved, he would have to be "un-indwelt" and detached from the Body of Christ.

I might add that, in Biblical times, those who were adopted could never be disowned, unlike regular children, who could be disowned. once we are adopted into God's family, we're always in it.

As far as your last "practical" argument: if you're truly saved, you want want to use God as a credit card. It's something the Spirit does within you, and frankly, without that, it's hard to comprehend all this.

I'm out of room to type, so I'll have to stop here. The Bible offers many more supporting passages, though. Please be open-minded on this.
Tatarize

Con

To answer your request: No. I'm going to need some reason to accept the first part of this argument before moving on to the second part.

If you were arguing Captain Picard was/is the best captain in Star Fleet that "strictly within the bounds" of Star Trek canon would be a clear and acceptable assumption. However, that isn't the argument at hand, you actually believe the Bible and believe salvation exists. You are in favor of the premise that salvation is one and always because you believe the bible to be 100% accurate. You aren't arguing that this is true within Christian myth. You are arguing that this is true... period.

I, however, disagree with this premise because I think your book is exactly as real as Star Trek and a fraction as interesting. Why isn't this all just silly unevidenced nonsense?

I'm entertained to hear that you expected an inter-Christian debate. I'm glad to know that non-Christians are basically chopped liver to you. Free free to post that as a requirement in your next debate, it wasn't a requirement here.

There's no reason to suppose that the Bible is 1% true much less 100% true. What about the parts which clearly contradict the other parts? Are both assumption suppose to be accepted as true? Wouldn't my examples of people falling away from belief and losing salvation be true? Wouldn't your examples of people falling away and not losing salvation also be true? Or are we relying on a different understanding of 100%.

You can go ahead and declare anybody who "falls away" to have never really believed in the first place. Sure, you can hear and believe and have no roots and fall away... but that's because you never really heard or believed? This belief seems pretty common within Christian circles. I know a good number of atheists who were exceedingly devout Christians before losing their faith. Many people simply suggest that they didn't *REALLY* believe in a fairly insulting manner.

In Islam, for contrast, it's commonly understood that you can stop believing. Apostasy is, by Sharia law, punished by death unless they start believing again. But, at the very least, they don't pretend it's otherwise.

Christians either whitewash the past and declare apostates previous false Christians or say that regardless that they spend their days talking about how false religion is and how nonsensical the scripture, convoluted the apologetics, and silly the beliefs... they are still saved.

What establishes salvation is possible in the first place? A dusty book and pleas for an extremely odd assumption aside how is this even plausible? If I telepathically communicate to a first-century wish-granting zombie Jew and communicate my love in a pure form then I may partake of the bounty enjoyed when he, as God, donned a baby suit, hung around for a while, and sacrificed Himself to Himself to forgive me for somebody else's wrongdoing? Blood sacrifice to forgive me is bad enough. Blood sacrifice to forgive me for something I didn't do is downright absurd! And, to top it off, the evidence strongly shows that this thing these other people did... never really happened in the first place!

I wonder, would you prefer Jesus have not died for your sins? If you'd prefer your salvation, how far would you go? Would you nail him up yourself if it means you'd spend eternity in paradise?

It it were remotely a plausible assumption to make, I'd be happy to make it. I can't see how the assumption is plausible much less able to be established.

Salvation is unevidenced nonsensical wishful thinking.
Debate Round No. 2
aceofelves

Pro

My oponent has failed to refute any of my assertions. He is not arguing against what I am supporting in this debate. He needs to refute my points in his final argument or I will have clearly won the debate.

>> I'm entertained to hear that you expected an inter-Christian debate. I'm glad to know that non-Christians are basically chopped liver to you. Feel free to post that as a requirement in your next debate, it wasn't a requirement here. <<

Perhaps you didn't read my opening argument. You must have just saw a Christianity-oriented debate and jumped at the chance to further argue against Christianity in order to make you feel better about not believe in Christ. Atheism is just a way for a person to feel in control, when in fact life is fully under the constraint of God's will.

Here's my opening argument again. Actually read it this time:
>> The Bible teaches that once a person truly comes to know Christ, they will not be denied their salvation. This is a fundamental Christian belief. <<

I clearly stated that the Bible teaches eternal security. NOTHING was mentioned about salvation through Christ being the only way. My debate is whether or not one can lose their salvation after they have been saved through what the Bible teaches.

Your job would therefore be to prove that the Bible doesn't teach eternal security. We can have a debate on the validity of Scripture another time, but it is unnecessary to talk about it right now. I think you have no idea how to refute my position except by screaming "nonsense!"

How absurd of you to think that every time I have a debate, I'm required to want equally to debate a Christian or a non-Christian. I've debated Christians and non-Christians, and for this particular debate, I just expected a Christian from another denomination (such as a Methodist) to came and argue in favor of falling from grace.

I'm glad you know so much about the Bible and care to discuss it. I immediately embraced the idea of debating you, however I felt like expressing my surprise, that's all.

You failed to rebut any of my scripture references, after I tediously read through all the passages you supplied, many of which were irrelevant to the argument.

Anybody who reads the open argument of this debate will clearly see that the debate is about whether or not the Bible teaches that once a person is saved, they're always saved.

Please prove to me that the Bible teaches otherwise, after explaining the numerous verses that clearly back up my belief.

>> I wonder, would you prefer Jesus have not died for your sins? If you'd prefer your salvation, how far would you go? Would you nail him up yourself if it means you'd spend eternity in paradise? <<

I'm so eternally thankful that Jesus willingly died for my sins as well as for all the sins of the elect. There was no other way to do it, and Jesus has ZERO regrets for doing what He did. I'm sure you and I both would do anything for those we love. And He is LOVE, and He loves us all unconditionally so the choice was obvious for Him. Wouldn't you die for you best friend, for your mom, for everyone you know, if it meant saving them all. And anyways, He knew full well (the whole omniscient thing) that He'd rise again in three days, defeating death. God's plan for Salvation is the most beautiful thing in history, everyone Jesus saves are eternally, inexpressibly grateful.

Your job is to prove that Jesus' redeeming grace can someone be removed from a person, that they could be un-regenerated and un-indwelt. The Bible communicates that this is impossible.

Again, here are some of the verses you need to explain as you failed to explain them last time:

John 10:27-29. No man can pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Romans 8:35-39 NOTHING can separate us from God.
Romans 11:29 God's calling is irrevocable.
John 6:37-39 I shall not cast any out.
Ephesians 1:13-14 We are sealed with the Holy Spirit, now possessions of God.
Jude 1:24-25 God keeps us from stumbling away.
1 Peter 1:3-5 Our salvation can never perish, spoil, or fade.

Once again, your job is to prove that the BIBLE does not teach eternal security.
Tatarize

Con

All of your assertions are relying on this premise that the Bible isn't a farce. I simply asked for some evidence here before moving on to the next step. Your assertions have no weight whatsoever there is no foundation to the idea of salvation. You yourself see the truth to this as you noted in round 2: "as Salvation would be a non-issue if God didn't exist." -- Well, what is there to suggest that God exists and that salvation is an issue at all?

You could argue that Goblins are green but unless Goblins exist you're sunk.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. There's nothing making me feel in control of my life other than the control I have from time to time.

You clearly did suggest that the Bible taught something, that doesn't make it true. The Bible also teaches that plants predate the sun, snakes eat dust, and insects have four legs... that doesn't make any of that true. Being part of a book, doesn't make anything true. Where I don't disagree that the Bible might say that, I disagree with the topic on the grounds that being once saved is completely unestablished as is being always saved.

If you gain your salvation in the first place it's all a moot point. I see nothing to assume the former is established why then the latter.

What part of numerous examples of people falling away makes falling away not a plausible argument.

-- "We can have a debate on the validity of Scripture another time, but it is unnecessary to talk about it right now."
-- I disagree. The topic cannot be true without the validity of scripture. It's a valid point to the debate.

-- "How absurd of you to think that every time I have a debate, I'm required to want equally to debate a Christian or a non-Christian."
-- Well, if you want to assume the truth of the Bible, you should state that in your opening remark. Because, without that assumption, you have nothing to debate and no external support for any of your points at all. Without the assumption that that book is valid, your entire religion crumbles. And because there's no external evidence for the validity of your religion... it all appears to be predicated on a very far-fetched assumption. If you want to debate within that assumption, you should obviously state that. Without the assumption, you can't establish any of it as true. Or if you can, you didn't bother to try.

I accept that the Bible is contradictory, so simply suggesting one thing, doesn't force one to believe the contrary is false. The point remains that there are a number of references to falling away and even if there are references to the elect, it doesn't negate the first point. I don't feel you did a good job refuting such a thing by pointing out that without roots you aren't really saved.

http://www.geocities.com...

You're entire debate is contingent on the truth of the Bible. That's not an assumption I am willing to accept at this time. If you check my debate history, you'll notice that I debated on this exact topic previously on the pro side against Countrylover and was more than willing to accept the truth of the Bible. However, without that requirement, I firmly disagree with the topic on the grounds that it's all made up.

-----

-- "There was no other way to do it, and Jesus has ZERO regrets for doing what He did."

An all powerful God was unable to just do it without the superfluous suicide? Also, 'myself myself, why have I forsaken myself' seems a little regrety to me.

I'd happily die for anybody if I get to spring back to life. That's not much of a sacrifice at all come to think of it.

-- "Once again, your job is to prove that the BIBLE does not teach eternal security."

No. My job is to prove that there is no eternal security. The Bible teaching it is a moot point of the Bible is full of crap. There's no argument here that the Bible isn't garbage, and no argument that actual salvation exists. There's no way you meet your burden here. You've established nothing.
Debate Round No. 3
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cmrnprk07 8 years ago
cmrnprk07
The instigator sets the parameters of the argument and subsequent debate. If the CON disagrees with those parameters, then CON shouldn't engage in the debate. Tatarize believes that he has the sole grasp on truth and cannot assume anything for arguments sake. The premise in a debate assumes a position that may, or may not, be fact. Tatarize, you accepted the debate, but you wanted only to further your biased conclusions and anti Christian position. You have clearly lost this debate!
Posted by brwarren1 8 years ago
brwarren1
If OSAS were true, then backsliding would be impossible, or would a better way of saying it be "falling away would be impossible"? Then how did Eve and Adam FALL AWAY?

People fall for lies because they want to sometimes. One moment they are spiritual, the next they are material.

Being saved is necessarily a temporary condition until temptation no longer exists. Whoops! Lucifer was tempted and landed in the middle of that trap. As long as we are in this world, we must put on the whole armor of God. All who were accepted to be Christian were warned Paul watch out for Satan who is searching for whom he may devour. All of Paul's preaching and teaching exhorts his followers to be careful and live in the "Spirit".

Surely, Paul wasn't thinking that those babes in Christ that had to be fed milk, not meat, could let go of the life preserver! Was He?

BRWARREN
Posted by Novan_Leon 8 years ago
Novan_Leon
The problem, Tatarize, is that this is obviously an inter-Christian debate dependent on the acceptance of Christianity first, and that the Bible is the word of God second. You believe neither of these things, therefore you are unable to debate this topic.

As you well know, whether or not God, Christ and the Bible exist and are valid sources of information is irrelevant if your debating a concept entirely contained within these subjects! Accepting them is a prerequisite!

You have a definite tendency towards circular logic, don't you? *laughs*

Oh well, cheers!
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
I did not respond in the way ace expected, but my argument did address the topic and did undermine his argument in a very real way.

I don't think you're being thickheaded. I understand your point perfectly well. I do not believe you're right. I should not be bound to accepting that the Bible is valid. I change my mind quite often and asserting that I'm closed-minded is fairly insulting.

In round 1, I offered both arguments. Salvation pivots on the Bible and the Bible is not supported. As well as presenting a number of biblical references against OSAS. In round two, it was clear that the latter argument was a path to failure so I focused on the former argument as clearly correct, acceptable, and overwhelmingly undermining to my opponents position.
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
Tatarize, there is no arguing with you, because in your mind you are right, and there is nothing going to prove you wrong. You and I will NEVER see eye to eye, so I see no sense in continuing this discussion. I could go on, because the way I see it, you are avoiding my argument. You could go on because the way you see it, I am wrong and being thick-headed. I see no sense in continuing this discussion.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Yes, his entire argument is based on an unproven premise. You cannot prove salvation without first proving God. That's an underlying claim to the argument at hand. I would prefer to win the argument in the easiest and most sound way possible. Asserting salvation, from a biblical perspective, requires the Bible is not just trash. I need not disprove God to show that he has failed to meet his burden of proof.

There's a fairly significant bias towards a few topics, pro-god topics can easily win if they look remotely good (regardless how bad they are). I have, on occasion, trounced an opponent just to have them voted up for religious reasons. I can and do deny that there is a firm bias towards atheism, rather atheists tend to have better arguments for obvious reasons.

As for the SolaGratia debate, the existence of God actually matters to the debate topic. And truthfully it does boil down to that. Both topics are false which is why they are similar. That requires that the existence of God is pretty pivotal to the topic at hand.

The debates I present are often far more difficult than walking up to somebody who posts a silly debate topic, raising an insurmountable objection, and calling it a day. I'm still kind of annoyed I'm losing the 'mainstream religion compatible with evolution debate' though clearly the scoring is pretty fair.

I am Con on this topic, I was against Once Saved Always Saved and tore it down. The logical conclusion should be never saved. Done.
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
It undermines her argument? You cannot prove God does not exist, so whether or not God exists should not even be part of the debate.

I said you will not argue the other side in referance to this debate. I also said you have the debating skills to do so, implying that there is evidance.

For some reason or another you chose not to do so in this debate. If God did not exist, one could still argue that if He did, he would save people with irrevocable salvation, so basically you CHOSE not to argue from the standpoint of a theist.

You are winning the votes because the majority of people on this site are biased Atheists or Agnostics, and most of the voters on this site are biased. They vote for the side they agree with rather then the side with better arguments. You cannot deny this.

You seem to enjoy choosing at random whether or not you want to argue the debate topic at hand. In your debate with SolaGratia you are not at all debating the topic YOU presented. You are trying to boil that debate down to whether or not God exists; exactly the same as you have done with this debate. SolaGratia is keeping to the topic presented in the title of the debate, while you are trying to attack the Theist position. If you want to debate whether or not God exists, start a debate that is titled "God does not exist", and be Pro. Until then, please stop twisting other peoples debates into whatever you want them to be.

You did not argue the topic of this debate, and you did not refute your opponents arguments. Rather, you asked for proof of a God. You were arguing for a totally different debate. If God does in fact exist, then all of your debates as an Atheist are lost. Does anyone try to morph your debates into whether or not there is a God? I'm not going to go through all fifty of your debates to find out, but I would assume not nearly as much as it happens to Theists.

The fact of the matter is this: You argued your own topic, not the topic in the title.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Certainly it is relevant to the topic! If false, then the topic falls through and fails horrifically. Therefore it is, by default a valid point to make.

If you wish examples of me arguing from the other side you'll note my first debate ever was on this exact topic. I was on the side of pro argued for Calvinism and accepted the Bible as part of the argument. Not because I really accepted the Bible but rather because without accepting the Bible the argument Pro must offer fails.

http://www.debate.org...

Also biblical literalism,

http://www.debate.org...

Etc.

The fact is, I have bothered to debate such things. And you're being a tad foolish to believe otherwise. The fact is, noting that the Bible is not proved and there is no God causes the above argument to fall like a house of cards. The fact clearly suggests that it was relevant. Notice how it was the only argument I offered and I'm winning on the score? That's because more people than not realize that my argument does very much so undermine Ace's argument.
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
I am sorry, let me reword. Whether or not God exists IS relevant, but not the topic being debated. If you are debating this topic, then you must, at least for the debate, take Gods existence as a given. Even if you do not believe in God, it is possible to argue as someone who does, especially you, because you seem to know your way around the Bible. You changed the debate topic on purpose.
Posted by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
A skilled debator can argue from a differant point of view then what he believes. The title of the debate was "Once saved always saved", and in accepting this debate, it is generally understood that you will debate the topic whether or not you will be playing the devils advocate.Whether or not God exists WAS NOT RELAVENT TO THIS DEBATE. Generally on this site I have seen people accepting debates on religion, and even though they do not believe the religion, they play the devils advocate and debate from a religious standpoint. If you were not willing to do this, then you should not have accepted this debate. The debate title was not "If there is a God, then once saved always saved", it was "Once saved always saved". You did not argue according to the debate, thus you lost whether or not you won the votes.

I willingly admit that you have the debating skills to argue from a diferant standpoint then what you believe, but you insist on making life difficult for Christians, so you will not. Christians have done nothing against you, but you (not all Atheists, but some, including you) try every way you can to make our lives difficult. So be it. We can't stop you, so go ahead and have your fun.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
aceofelvesTatarizeTied
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 country77 7 years ago
country77
aceofelvesTatarizeTied
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 thejudgeisgod 7 years ago
thejudgeisgod
aceofelvesTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Vote Placed by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
aceofelvesTatarizeTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
aceofelvesTatarizeTied
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 solo 8 years ago
solo
aceofelvesTatarizeTied
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 cmrnprk07 8 years ago
cmrnprk07
aceofelvesTatarizeTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
aceofelvesTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 brwarren1 8 years ago
brwarren1
aceofelvesTatarizeTied
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 lukepare 8 years ago
lukepare
aceofelvesTatarizeTied
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