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

it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible to say that some nonchristians can be 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 59701
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible to say that some nonchristians can be saved

there are four major points in the bible that i can think of regarding salvation of nonchristians.

one is around John 3:16 where it says something to the effect of... "for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not parish, but have ever lasting life. for God did not send his son to condemn the world, but that that world should be saved through him. and those who do not believe stand already condemned. and this is the condemnation, that God sent the light, but the people rejected the light because their ways were dark".

one is in a different spot in John where he says something to the effect of "unless you believe that I AM he, you will die in your sins".

one is at the end of Mark, where he says "go forth baptizing people in the name of the father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. those who believe and are baptize will be saved, those who don't, will be condemned".

and there are a few spots in the nongospels part of the new testament, where it says things like "those who engage in immorality will be thrown in along with unbelievers".

the way to interpret these verses. the first three verses here have a presupposition to condemnation.... rejecting Jesus. And, the first example gave a very specific response on that rejection.... rejecting cause your ways are dark. the last verse gives the indication that 'nonbelievers are condemned". but, if you read the verses holistically, a nonbeliever could and should be considered someone who rejects Jesus, and the least common denominator of all the verses indicates that that rejection should include rejecting Jesus cause your ways are dark.

so we see that non only could a hypothetical man on an island who has never heard of Jesus be saved, so could so many people who reject Jesus, but reject him for reasons other than their ways being dark.

indeed, an englightened mind who rejects the truth, has trouble in store for him.


The bible is very clear. Jesus said in Mark 16 that whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved and whoever does not shall be damned.

The bible also says in acts when the Jews asked what must they do to be saved he told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for their sins.

Jesus expresses through the gospels that if you believe on Him as the scripture says, out of your belly shall flow rivers of living water, which He spoke of the Holy Spirit, the bible says that if you do not have the Spirit of Christ then you are none of His.

It says that we are saved by grace through faith in Romans

Also says that there must be a confession of the mouth and believing in the heart to be saved.

Non Christians cannot be saved without Christ, you must accept His redemptive work
Debate Round No. 1


to be sure, there are many examples where Jesus says "i am the only way to be saved" and such as that. but that doesn't mean nonchristians are necessarily damned. any salvation they achieve is through Jesus. and there are plenty of verses that say if you do beleive, you are saved.... but that doesn't necessarily mean if you don't believe you are condemned.

we have to look at the verses that specifically say how they are NOT saved, how they are condemned.... and when we do that, we run into the verses i gave. and those give the idea of rejecting JEsus cause your ways are dark.



Your response doesn't make much sense. It's like you're saying that if I call something red, it doesn't necessarily mean it's only red. You cannot read something where Jesus says he's the only way and try and say otherwise. It's like you're implying that there is another way when scriptures say that there isn't. If you can give me text that explains and gives credibility to what your saying then you will have won. Moreover, I don't believe that you can properly win an argument by telling me what the Bible doesn't say. Unless you have scriptural proof that completely blows mine out of the water I'm going to have to conclude that you're just making things up and twisting things in order to win. I must see consistency in what you say so that your point can be proven so far I see nothing
Debate Round No. 2


linate forfeited this round.


IAmThatIAm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by gordonjames 7 years ago
I'm confused.

"Saved", in evangelical circles usually refers to the change that happens when you go from
- LOST / disobedient / unbelief / hostile to God . . . .
- REDEEMED / obedient / believing / child of God . . .

There are many more words that try to explain some aspect of this change from the old sinful nature to having the Holy Spirit live within.


In that understanding, only "non Christians" or unbelievers get saved when they are given the gift of faith in Jesus.

That makes me think that your question is more about
- can people receive "eternal life" without being part of a traditional Christian church?

That is an interesting Question, to which I answer - "God can do anything he likes."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides forfeited the final round--and Pro didn't really respond to Con's rebuttal case. As such, arguments to Con. Pro might have done better without the forfeit, though--one more response could conceivably have gotten a win, if it was sufficient. But then, Con would have also had a chance to rebut that, so we can't know. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.