The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
pivot
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

a person cannot know they are saved - they must entertain the possibility of error

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
dairygirl4u2c
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 483 times Debate No: 60003
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

a person cannot know they are saved - they must entertain the possiblity of error

edit: i realized that "knownig you are saved" is a subconcept of 'once saved always saved". if you think the one or the other, the other comes naturally. but as to always saved, we'd have to entertain the possibiity of lsoing one's salvation.

John appears to have taught you can known your are saved.
1 John 5
"13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life."

St. Paul did not lack any confidence in his salvation toward the end of his life.
' For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:6-8)

2 Peter 1:
10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; 11 so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

here Paul seems to say "as far as i know i'm good. but that doesn't mean i'm good. only god knows"

1 Cor. 4:3 It does not concern me in the least that I be judged by you or any human tribunal; I do not even pass judgment on myself; 4 I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord."

Council of Trent teaches you cannot know that you are saved...
"since no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God. [Council of Trent, Sixth Session] "

the only way to reconcile what the bible says is to take the least common denominator.... that 'when you know you are saved' you must admit it is subject to error.

"10 I want to know Christ"yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.

12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. Phil 3:7-14 "

Matthew 24:13 says, "but the one that stands firm to the end will be saved".

And the seeds thtat grew on rocky soil and didn't grow properly is like the man who heard the word then let it go.

2 Peter 2:20-21
20For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of [our] Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first. 21 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them.

"But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway." (1Cor 9:27). And again: "Wherefore he who thinks that he stands, let him take heed lest he fall." (1 Cor 10:12)
pivot

Con

Will my opponent please give some sort of a definition as to what 'salvation' is. How can one argue about losing something if they don't even know what it is that they were to have lost? In mathematics 2 + 2 = 4. But X + Y = 4 may or may not be correct depending on the values given to the variables. Define the variable 'salvation' then we can see if an 'error' has been made. Example-

1) In Roman terms salvation is baptism by a priest sprinkling water on the person to receive salvation.
2) In Baptist' terms salvation is repeating the sinner's prayer.
3) In modern terms salvation is an experience.

And the list continues on and on. Also, some groups believe that a person who 'becomes' saved has a personality change.

Dear opponent, give even just a short take on what salvation is then we can have a real debate.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i dont think a definition was necessary. almost every in reality takes salvation, at least in this context, to mean being in a state where you will go to heaven when you die
pivot

Con

Thank you for the clarification. And since the subject as defined by you is so broad as to be impossible to debate all inclusive and since your opening is New Testament based I take it that when we add-

"Your New Testament opening argument # 1" + "Your definition argument #2" = salvation: (X + Y = S)

Now we must be brief because of the limit of 2 postings left with limited amount of characters per posting. So I will choose to only debate 1 person listed in your opening as to the subject of Christian New Testament Salvation-

Saul of Tarsus better know to modern Christians as Paul

Saul of Tarsus was a first century Jerusalem bureaucrat Pharisee whose job was that of persecuting the early Christian Church. In keeping with Pro's definition of salvation in posting number 2 and since the New Testament had as yet not been written we can say that Saul of Tarsus thought that by persecuting the early Christian Church that he, Saul of Tarsus was doing a great service for the God of the Old Testament and therefore believed strongly that he was going to go to heaven, i.e. Pro's definition of Salvation in posting number 2 minus the Christian part in Pro's posting number 1 since the New Testament had not yet been written. Now the question is-

Was it possible that Saul of Tarsus made an error concerning salvation, that Saul of Tarsus was not going to go to heaven after all? Or better yet, that Saul of Tarsus was going to lose his Old Testament salvation? So let us examine the account of Saul of Tarsus meeting Jesus of Nazareth on the Damascus Road-

1) Saul of Tarsus was struck blind
2) Saul of Tarsus had to ask who it was that Saul of Tarsus was speaking to
3) Saul of Tarsus had to be led into town by unbelievers in Christ because he was left blind by the person Saul of Tarsus spoke to

What does this meeting between Saul of Tarsus and Jesus signify? Does it mean concerning Christian New Testament Salvation-

A) Blindness, not knowing who you are talking to, having to have non-believers lead you away
or
B) This meeting between Jesus and Saul of Tarsus did not produce Christian Salvation

If example A) is true then are there any other examples of someone coming into contact with Jesus and being struck blind, left wondering whom they are talking to and being left in the care of unbelievers, and that person who is blinded declared Saved in the Christian meaning of the word?
Answer: No there are no other examples in all of the New Testament

If example B) is true then are there any other examples of someone coming into contact with Jesus who simply come away from the contact and is not Saved in the Christian meaning of the word?
Answer: Yes there are many examples of people coming into contact with Jesus and leaving Him without Christian Salvation both in the New Testament and throughout history.

Conclusion of analysis of Saul of Tarsus losing his Old Testament Salvation after meeting Jesus is that Saul of Tarsus remained an Old Testament believer. Saul of Tarsus did not become a Christian during his meeting with Jesus Christ.

Therefore-
By Pro's opening argument and definition of salvation, Saul of Tarsus did not lose his Old Testament salvation.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con argues Paul didn't lose his old testament salvation. the debate is about knowing whether you are saved. clearly con is going on some tangents that really have to do with this debate.
pivot

Con

Pro did not prove that Paul was a New Testament believer. It was left to Con to prove that no salvation was lost by the opening and 2nd posting of Pro. This was accomplished. Now Pro wants Con to prove that Con is not going off in a tangent.

Pro if you want to debate the salvation of Saul/Paul or anyone else, you first must prove that Saul/Paul or anyone else had/have salvation to lose.

Saul of Tarsus did not lose his Old Testament Salvation. But Pro lost this debate.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by pivot 2 years ago
pivot
I will use logic
Posted by creationtruth 2 years ago
creationtruth
On what grounds are you arguing this, based on scripture, logic, or both?
Posted by Badi-Nontheist 2 years ago
Badi-Nontheist
Agree
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
dairygirl4u2cpivotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to prove pro wrong as con pointed out last round.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
dairygirl4u2cpivotTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro offered solid biblical evidence, and con made no attempt to refute it. Therefore, it has been dropped/accepted. So arguments to pro. Con offered no sources. Pro didn't capitalize.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
dairygirl4u2cpivotTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm nulling this vote. Pro did not fulfill her BoP, but Con's argument was so off the proverbial rails as to make me not think it proper to award him points, either. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.