once saved v 'never saved to begin with' shows that a person can never know another's heart
Debate Rounds (3)
was hitler one who if he was ever 'saved' is still saved despite his crimes? only God knows.
was hitler one who was never saved to begin with? only God knows.
A person's "heart" (in figurative/symbolic language) is their motives for their actions.
There have been instances where people have confessed their motives for their actions to others, proving that it is not in fact possible to know someone's heart if they be brutally honest and tell you.
Also, what if somebody reads your mind with futuristic technology? Then they could definitely know your heart.
If by "heart" you mean whether or not they are saved, that too can be determined by "looking at their fruits". If their fruit is anger, jealously, hatred, lust, immortality, and other evil stuff, then one may question whether or not they are saved, though they may want to escape the cycle of sin and live a Holy life and just can't by their own doing.
However, if a person confesses themselves to be a Christian and their "fruit" matches up with what is called the "Fruits of The Spirit", then they are probably Christians who have a personal relationship with Christ.
I await my opponent's response.
judging fruits alone isn't enough. we have to know the heart, or we know nothing. we can have good guesses but that's it
i could gave an example of someone falling away who was never christian to begin with. but theyre's also people who fall away cause they were good but then became bad. ...
a chrisitan can lose his standing.
1 John 5:11-17
"If you see a Christian brother or sister sinning in a way that does not lead to death, you should pray, and God will give that person life. But there is a sin that leads to death, and I am not saying you should pray for those who commit it. All wicked actions are sin, but not every sin leads to death."
i also gave the example of the word taking root in someone but then they fell away cause they were in bad soil. "18 "Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 22 The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. 23 But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.""
i could go on and on with versesthat show losing yoru standing.
with hitler, or that man who seemed zeolous for God but then turned into an atheist, we don't know their heart. we can see that they are probably nt in favor with God. but to sin means to intentionally, do, what you know, is wrong. these guys may be following their conscious and we can't judge, or even characterize. only God can.
plus forr a lot of average joes christian what can we conclude? sme might have a better heart than a lot of christians but they might not. how do we know if they were never saved to begin with o whether they saved all alrong? conside that evenchristians struggle with say masturabation, sex before marriage, anger problems, hatred, drunkenness, marital infidelity..... christians make mistakes, but so do people who pose as christians but were never christian to begin with. it's not our plance to know a person's heart.
Nice try, but my opponent used the word "never" in making the debate title. Therefore, if I show that mind reading technology which allows a person to know someone's mind down to their subconscious thoughts (therefore their "heart") will exist or will probably exist in the future, then I will have won this debate.
Let us examine such technology in its current state. Here's some technological breakthroughs that have come to pass in recent years.
It is likely that this technology, currently in its primitive state, will eventually grow more advanced, as technology habitually does, until eventually we can read a person's thoughts.
That is all from me, as I have casted sufficient doubt on the claims of my opponent, who clearly has the burden of proof in this debate. May I suggest to him/her that one should not use terms like "always" or "all" or "never" in creating a debate title, as it only increases your Burden of Proof?
Anyway, I enjoyed raising my ELO...er, that is, debating my opponent, but in the end, he/she made a claim that he/she simply could not defend. Vote for Con!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|
Reasons for voting decision: The comment about ELO at the end was a bit uncalled for. I'm not sure if it "really" warrants conduct, but it's close enough and the debate's arguments points seem clear enough that it's worth putting, though I am at least slightly on the fence about it. But fundamentally, Pro's arguments did not really support the motion in any substantive fashion. Pro never really connected how "once saved v never saved to begin with shows that a person can never know another's heart". Pro seemed to focus on whether we could ever know another's heart, not on how the OS v NSTBW showed that we can't. Plus, Con showed that it's at least possible that we might be able to read minds some day, in which case it might be possible to know what's in their heart. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.