The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Once Saved Always Saved

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 841 times Debate No: 43224
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




I contend that man can lose his salvation.
This is a debate for whoever considers the bible divinely inspired scripture.
First round is acceptance.


Regardless of whether or not the Bible is "divinely inspired," I will prove that it is impossible for God (Yahweh/Yeshua) to remove someone's salvation.

I accept the debate, and wish the best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank BucketHead for accepting this debate. Hopefully we can have a spirited one, heh heh.

I was planning on having this debate be entirely scripture based. But, based on Pro's response, it is clear that he plans to use a different angle to prove man cannot lose his salvation. So I have decided to separate my argument into two parts.
Part A will provide biblical contradiction to "Once saved always saved".

Part B will provide logical contradiction to "Once saved always saved".
On with the debate!

Part A
A verse that directly addresses this concept can be found at Ezekiel 33:13
"Though I say to the virtuous man that he shall surely live, if he then presumes on his virtue and does wrong, none of his virtuous deeds shall be remembered; because of the wrong he has done, he shall die."

And then, we have John 15:10
"If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's cmmandments and remain in his love."
I would like to emphasize the word "remain" here. What does it imply? It implies that the people whom Jesus was speaking to were already in his love. And if they keep his commandments, they will remain in his love. This also implies that they can fall out of Jesus' love if they don't keep his commandments. And without Christ, can we enter heaven? Not according to John 14:6
"Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

The final submission for this part of my argument comes from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved, neither fornicatrs nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Nobody is sinnless, and therefore we all have the potential to commit anyone of these sins. And if a person who is presumably "saved" commits one of the sins that scripture here tells us will condemn him, "none of his virtuous deeds shall be remembered; because of the wrong he has done, he shall die."

Part B

Man has free will. We witness it everytime we make even the smallest decision in our lives, and I even demonstrated it when I decided to create this debate. Because of this free will, man can decide to either commit good deeds, or bad deeds (obviously the line isn't always so broad) And if man so choses, he can attempt to get as far away as possible from God. God, who alows free will, sends them to the place where there is no sign of him, Hell.

Obviously this is where the conflict comes into play. I have gathered from Pro's previous debate (and the fact that he has the logo literally stapled to his icon) that he is a proponent of "The Basement Philosophy"
And, considering that he is arguing Pro for "Once saved always saved" I'm assuming he is going to argue that God is "All Powerful and All Loving" and therefore free will would still exist, but God would forgive us regardless of our choices.

Now I, being a Christian, believe that God is all powerful and all loving. But I simply don't follow the logic train here. But let's say for instance that God does forgive us regardless of our choices. Would there actually be any sin in the world? I mean, after all, if there is no chance of any of us getting into Hell, what's the devil doing trying in the first place? Surely he has realized that even when the rapists and murderers die and don't get sent into Hell, he's pry just wasting his time isn't he? Therefore, God cannot forgive us regardless of our choices. But if Pro still cliams that he can, he has to either
a)Claim that once you are saved you become sinnless, which goes directly in contradiction of Romans 3:23. Not to mention we see Christians fall from grace everyday.
b)Claim that there is no devil, in which case it begs the question as to why an all loving God would create a world where there is evil.
c)Claim God is all powerful and neutral, but that would mean that people can be sent to both Heaven and Hell.

Over to you BucketHead!


I would like to thank my opponent for this interesting debate; may we arrive at truth.

Part A

Ezekiel 33:13
It is save to say that in this verse, Ezekiel is prophesying about the arrival of the Son of Man. Nonetheless, if we take a closer look at the Hebrew words that were used, we can clearly see that Ezekiel is referring to physical death- denouncing my opponent's argument.

The word for "death" in this verse is the Hebrew word, muwth. Like most Hebrew words, it is both vague and specific in that it accurately portrays its meaning- according to the context of the verse. In this case, muwth means "literal death[4]." There is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that it is referring to "spiritual death," which is what my opponent is arguing for. Now if we look at a verse that specifically relates to spiritual death:

"But those who fail to find me harm themselves; all who hate me love death." (Proverbs 8:36)

"Death" in this verse is characterised by the Hebrew word, maveth. Maveth means "personified state of death, or place of death[4]." In which case, if my opponent wishes to believe that Ezekiel 33:13 refers to salvation loss, he will need to prove that muwth does not mean "literal death," and that maveth should not have to be used in its place.

John 15:10
In this case, the Greek word, Meno, is used for "remain." Considering the context of the verse (Jesus is talking to the disciples about what has just happened with Judas Iscariot and others like him. Judas had attached himself to Jesus, but did not produce fruit and did not abide in Christ. He was a disciple only outwardly and the fact that he was not a disciple inwardly was shown by his lack of fruit-bearing[1]), Meno is better represented by the word, "abide[5]." What are the differences?

Remain - to stay in the same place or with the same person or group[2]
Abide - to accept or bear[2]

This verse takes on a whole new meaning when we use "abide" in place of "remain." As such, resisting the choice to accept/abide in Jesus love has no impact on salvation.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

This verse is taken out of context. It doesn't refer to everyone, specifically, those who are not already saved. My opponent then attempts to reconcile this point, by referring back to the verse in Ezekial. I have already dismantled this argument. This verse proves nothing.

Part B

This section is interesting; I will refute my opponent's arguments, then provide counter-arguments. Although it is unorthodox to assume an opponent's beliefs merely on their previous debates, I will allow my opponent the privilege of doing so.

"But let's say for instance that God does forgive us regardless of our choices. Would there actually be any sin in the world?"

Free will would always exist in a dimension ruled by an all-loving god. It is unlikely that sin would exist, as an all-powerful, all-loving god would override its existence. If it did exist, however, it would merely be because of God's choice to limit his own power.

"If there is no chance of any of us getting into Hell, what's the devil doing trying in the first place?"

It is my belief that there would be no "devil" in a world governed by an unconditionally loving deity. As "evil" is nothing more than the absence of goodness. Nevertheless, this point has no relevance within this debate.

A.) I would advise my opponent to read the following sentence in the same verse: "And all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." -Romans 3:24. No contradiction here. I find it safe to say that salvation is a gift/promise to those who have faith in Jesus (Eph. 2:8). This is a gift that God is unable to take back, as he would contradict himself. As God always keeps his promises (Deu. 7:9); he never changes his mind (Num. 23:19). Doing so would disable him from omniscience, and hence, godliness. I will address this in the future, in futher detail.

B.) Sure, I can claim that there is no devil- because I don't claim the scriptures to be inherent. Suffice it to say that, like I've stated before, I believe that an all loving God wouldn't create a world where there is evil. Yet, what does this have to do with the resolution at hand? It seems that my opponent is attacking the arguments of my previous debate: "Is God Evil?"

C.) Why can't I claim that? It would explain a lot of God's moral dilemmas within the Bible.

Ultimately, my opponent hasn't used logic to discount the resolution, rather, he used logic to discount the arguments of my previous debate. Let us bring our attention back to this debate, shall we?


I will prove that it is impossible for God to take back the gift of salvation, without the use scripture; as there are diverging views on whether or not scripture is a reliable source for argumentation.

Now, I am no scientist, but there are many philosophical and scientific theories as to whether or not the universe is a closed-system; meaning, a system that is isolated, or unaffected by an exterior source. Considering the Redshift theory and Hubble's Law, scientists have been able to estimate that the universe is constantly expanding at an exponential rate. The energy that is used for this expansion, originates from within the center- supposedly from the Big Bang. From a point of view regarding the laws of thermodynamics, the universe is most certainly a closed system as energy cannot be created or destroyed (within a closed system). Thus, energy simply travels within this system; it is harnessed within matter, in that it remains constant and travels at an infinite rate (according to the first law of thermodynamics).

Now if the universe is a closed system, this means that everything within this system must abide by the systems laws. This includes God.

Why does this include God? After all, isn't God omnipotent? He can do anything, right? Not exactly.

Omnipotence does not mean God can do anything, rather
, it describes the amount of God's power. God can do whatever is possible to be done. God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what is really possible. Simply put, God cannot make a contradiction[3].


Using logic, I have prove that God cannot create a contradiction and I have dismantled my opponents Biblical verses, which were his proposed arguments. I contend that God always keeps his promises; to do so otherwise would lead God to contradict himself- which he cannot do. Therefore, it is impossible for God to take back his promise of salvation to mankind. For God is omniscient, eternal and unchanging- and thus, incapable of changing his mind; regardless of Biblical evidence.

Onto Con.

[2] The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary
Debate Round No. 2


TheBigBambino forfeited this round.


Extend arguments and refutations.
Debate Round No. 3


I'd like to apologize for my lack of punctuality in the last round, though what I'm doing now is equally a sad.
I have to forfeit the debate due to time. I literally am waking up at 6 and not getting home until 11 until saturday. (i go to high school and work at mcdonalds).

I would love to try to do this debate again in the future, as pro has proven to be very knowledgable in this topic, which is a great "relief" from the indifference at my high school. Perhaps when spring break arrives? I'll probably be shutting down my account until then anyway.


I very much appreciate Con's honorable concession. I can certainly understand his busy schedule; I've had the same dilemma before. Nonetheless, I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

I look forward to debating you again on this topic, friend.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by bubbatheclown 4 years ago
"All sins shall be forgiven except for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."

-The Bible-
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 4 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is tied because Con gave a good reason for his forfeit and admitted it openly, so I will not count it against him. As for arguments, it was very hard to decide whose was better because I myself have never considered this before and don't really know the answer. I was not convinced by either side's biblical arguments because, like on many other issues, the Bible contradicts itself on this. As for the logic arguments, I found Pro's slightly more compelling. Sources also go to Pro because only he cited any.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 4 years ago
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:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for completing the debate properly. S&G goes to Pro. I found two spelling errors with Con and one grammar error with Pro. I thought Pro did a great job dismantling Con's quotes, he completely nullified that part. I felt he didn't fully refute Con's part B. After that, his arguments for the Pro position did not convince me. If Con had been able to fire back I think many of Pro's arguments would've lost(I'm not taking that into consideration, just using that to describe the strength of Pro's main arguments). So in the end I thought the arguments ended in a draw, as far as how convincing they were.