A believer in Jesus can get to Heaven, even if he does not repent of their sins.

1500

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Description

The debate is to resolve the question whether or not someone who claims to believe in Jesus is automatically assured of Heaven, no matter whether they live a righteous life or one of total debauchery.

Round 1

06.10.2023 01:03AM

Con

Yo special shoutout to my opponent for being a man and accepting my debate challenge, unlike most Andersonites out there. Mad respect bro

Anyhow, moving on.

My opponent is a follower of "Pastor" Steven Anderson, the leader of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Phoenix, Arizona, who holds to the belief of eternal security, known as "once saved, always saved" - that a believer cannot lose their salvation after having accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts. I quote from this sermon of his: (source https://twitter.com/AnimeBibleVerse/status/1666183239227064320)

"There are hundreds of verses in the Bible that tell you what you have to do to be saved; and it's believe on the Lord Jesus Christ... whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life... you see, salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ... He did all the work for salvation. We don't have to work our way in. We don't have to do our own works, turn a new leaf, or stop sinning; look, we just have to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved."

As a Christian, I want to make this clear: yes, it is absolutely necessary to profess Christ as Lord and Saviour. No argument from me. He is "the way, truth and the life" (St. John 14:6), of which "without faith (in Him) it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6). However, as a follower of Mr. Anderson my opponent contends defends also what exists in the last sentence: as long as if someone believes in Him, then they are secured of their place in Heaven - even if they persist in their sin. In the following video (source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PffhcV-xBks), he clarifies thus:

"Let's say you do something bad after you believe in Jesus Christ... to do something as extreme as to commit murder. Obviously... that's gonna make God angry and He's gonna punish you, but it will come in this lifetime... but... a child of God is always a child of God."

Notice what's absent from this declaration: eternal punishment in Hell, repentance from sin, and seeking forgiveness and God's mercy. Is this Biblical? Far from it; "whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin." (St. John 8:34) - in other words, they are "of the devil", as 1 John 3:8 states.

Rather, what does Jesus say in Scripture? Well, in St. Luke 18, we read of a certain rich man who asks this very question - "Good master, what must I do to possess everlasting life (a.k.a entry into Heaven)?". Does Jesus tell him to just believe in Him and do nothing more? No. He lays out the absolute necessity of following the commandments (St. Luke 18:20). When St. Mary Magdalene was about to be stoned for her adultery, what does he instruct her to do? "Go, and now sin no more." (St. John 8:11). To His Apostles, He makes this clear: "If you love me, keep my commandments." (St. John 14:15) - a few verses after saying that they must believe in Him. There are many others I can point to, but I will leave it here for brevity's sake.

We can see through these examples that Christ DOES NOT DEMAND ONLY SUBMISSION OF BELIEF. Faith requires action; loving your neighbour, abhorrence of sin, and seeking righteousness to the very best of our ability - "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect" (St. Matthew 5:48). And what of those who are believers who persist in sin, and yet are assured of Heaven as "Pastor" Anderson claims? Of their fate Christ answers:

"The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the just shine as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father." (St. Matthew 13:41-43)

This is God Himself speaking to us in His Word! He makes it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that we believe in Him and strive to walk the talk! And you, if you claim to be Christian, ARE BOUND TO OBEY THIS. Not some wacked-up theology of a random Arizona "pastor" that merely cherry-picks specific verses without looking at the full scope of Jesus Christ's life and ministry, twisting a "gospel" that leaves it possible that the worst, unrepentant sinners in history Heaven-bound. This theology Christ either into a liar at worst, or severely schizophrenic at best; therefore His message is in vain. It renders the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes as merely optional counsels, completely worthless in practice.

Perhaps, my opponent will counter with the example of the Good Thief, who, yes, was saved despite being a robber. This example does not suffice; one thing that is there was sorrow for his sins, and Christ's forgiveness. Without that, he would have been no better than the thief on Christ's left hand at the crucifixion. It was a last-minute, extraordinary conversion that should NOT be used as a justifying excuse to live dissolute and hold out hope for an Anderson-style "faith alone" shtick.

Note also that this is not a works-based system. The Catholic Faith has NEVER TAUGHT that good works BY THEMSELVES SAVE; only good works done for extending God's glory, and influenced through His grace, do. Therefore, someone who does a billion good things yet indulges in adultery on the occasional without aversion, WILL NOT INHERIT HEAVEN. So please, do not attempt to lay this accusation because it is simply false.

To summarize, from the examples in Scripture we see:

* Faith in Jesus is absolutely necessary

* This faith must be put into practice, and Christ makes it clear that this is a must in St. Luke 18:18-30. We must do good for His glory only, not just to appear as a good person

* Those who love sin, and refuse to part from it, are Hell-bound. It is mandatory for a Christian to absolutely hate sin, with no exception and have no part in it

My opponent's job is now to show where in Scripture that the unrighteous will inherit a place in Heaven, absurd as it sounds. For example, show me one character in Scripture who lived a profusely dissolute life who is in Heaven. I won't be holding my breath!

(Btw, New York Jets fan? My condolences)

06.10.2023 03:06AM

Pro

My argument for faith based salvation and once saved is very simple: it comes straight from the Bible.

And furthermore, this isn't the tale of "one crazy pastor in Arizona." It's the foundation of what all Protestants believe, which is by far the biggest demonization of Christianity in America (about double the number of Catholics).

The most famous Bible verse of all time is John: 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life."

The verse makes it crystal clear that whoever believes in Jesus shall have everlasting life.

This is confirmed in Acts 16:30–31. "And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

Furthermore, the Bible says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

This lays out salvation in the most simple terms. Salvation is by grace through faith, not of yourselves or works, lest any man should boast.

Since salvation is by grace, it has nothing to do with what you do. Grace is God's mercy.

If you had to do good deeds or work for salvation, it wouldn't be a "gift." In fact, Romans 6:23 shows there's only one thing you can work for, and that's death (for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord).

Again, salvation is called a gift in contrast to what death is (what you earned in this life).

So all non-believers in Christ can only earn death through their actions.

And once again in Romans 4, it clearly states you are saved through faith and not works. (What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." For the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, for the one who does not work but trusts God, who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.)

Here again, it's stressed that faith without works is credited as righteousness, and Abraham was a saved man not by his works but by his faith.

King David himself is even quoted as saying God credits righteousness apart from works.

The biggest difference I have with my opponent is that he believes salvation can be taken away due to how you act, and the Bible is directly opposed to that.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say this, and Catholics only believe this because they read verses out of context.

First, I want to make it clear that God states explicitly that "there is not a just man upon earth that doeth and sinneth not."

In Romans 3, it claims, "None is righteous, no, not one."

So the idea that you can make yourself sinless is crazy.

In James 4:17, it states, "To him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is a sin."

My opponent makes the claim one must "repent" in order to keep salvation, but that's such a foolish concept.

Let's say you're on the road and see a broken car on the side of the road and don't stop to help that person. That is considered a sin because "to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is a sin."

And let's say five minutes later you get into a car crash and die.

Does the Bible really say you're going to hell because you didn't "repent" of that sin?

Of course not.

It would be impossible to repent of all your sins the second you committed them.

I want to go back to salvation being called a gift over and over in the Bible (for the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord).

If I give you a gift, can I ask for that gift back? No, because that wouldn't make it a gift. Just like if you had to work for a gift, it wouldn't be a gift.

Furthermore, Romans 6:23 states that salvation is an eternal gift.

How many times do you have to receive an eternal gift? Just once!

Once you truly put your faith in Jesus and "confess with your mouth the Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9).

Going even further, Jesus said the following in John 10:28–29: "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."

Jesus gives people "eternal life" and says, "They shall never perish, nor shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

And further, "and no man is able to pluck them out of my father's hand."

So once you're saved, you're given eternal life, and it is impossible to lose that.

Because "no man is able to pluck them out of my father's hand."

Again, salvation is a gift that can be received through faith and this is all by God's grace.

You can't possibly be so good that you earn salvation without faith, and you can't be so bad that God will abandon you after you're saved.

The Bible specifically states that God "will never leave you nor forsake you." Deuteronomy 31:8

Lastly, on this topic, Jesus claims he will tell a certain group of people who claim to be his followers that he "never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7).

Let's look at the whole verse to see who these people are that are being refuted by Jesus in Matthew 7:21–23: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father, which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Some of these people are telling Jesus about their "wonderful works."

They're expecting salvation because of their works, and Jesus tells them to get away from him.

My opponent willl point to "doeth the will of my father" to mean you need to do God's will to get into Heaven. This is true but what is God's will? To put your faith in Jesus! This is why people will be denied heaven who expect to get in because of their faith AND works.

So, what does works have to do in the grand scheme of things?

The Bible clearly states that salvation is a free gift and that your works will get you rewards in heaven (Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust do corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust do corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal; Matthew 6:19–21).

We all get to heaven but there's a heirarchy in heaven. Those with greater works will be rewarded more.

In Mathew 5:19-20 it states "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:"

So you can clearly break God's Commandments and get into heaven. You're just the "least"

You might be asking what happens when a person who is saved sins and that's a good question.

A person is punished for their sins in this world, and any saved person who sins will be punished now, but it won't affect their afterlife.

Let's look at King David as an example, from whom Jesus descended.

Kind David had his best friend killed and then raped his wife.

It really doesn't get much worse than that in terms of sin.

But did David lose his salvation and then earn it back? Of course not; his salvation was never lost.

He was severely punished, though, and according to 2 Samuel 12:10, it led to the deaths of three of his sons.

My opponent will try to make the claim that David "repented of his sin" and that's how he got his salvation back, but that simply isn't true.

David was a sinner, but he still had faith in God, which led him to ask God to "restore to me the joy of your salvation."

Notice he didn't ask to be saved again; he was asking to feel the joy of salvation again.

And it was stated in Romans 4:6 that "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works."

So David knows full and well that salvation is seperate from works!

Many people will make outrageous claims like "Oh, so a serial killer can get into heaven," and to be completely honest, that's what my opponent believes.

My opponent mentioned the thief on the cross and claims that because he "repented," he was allowed into heaven.

And my question to my opponent is, "Do you believe a serial killer can repent of their sins and go to heaven?

The Bible teaches that people can lose their chance at salvation while alive (Romans 4).

These are known as reprobates. People that God is so displeased with that he washes his hands of them: "God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves."

Furthermore, the Bible states that these people are "filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, and maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, and malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God; despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things; disobedient to parents;

Without understanding, covenantbreakers are without natural affection, implacable, and unmerciful." Romans 1:29-31.

So you can lose your salvation while alive.

You just can't lose it once you have it because it's an eternal gift.

So just to recap:

1) Salvation is a gift from God that you get through salvation and God's grace (Ephesians 2:8).

2) And once you genuinely put your faith in Jesus, you're saved for life because God said he will never abandon you and no man shall pluck you from his hand.

Round 2

06.11.2023 09:01PM

Con

Cool stuff.

First of all, I want to make it clear again that Catholics DO BELIEVE that works by themselves do nothing toward salvation. Therefore my opponent's first point is not an argument. We're not Pelagians who believe that salvation can come merely through individual effort. The Council of Trent for example condemns the idea of mere works-based salvation:

"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."

My opponent makes note of faith alone being the central idea behind Protestantism. While not wrong, the way he and "Pastor" Anderson describe it goes well beyond what the original Protestants taught! Here is what one "faith alone" site says concerning that subject (source: https://www.gotquestions.org/salvation-faith-alone.html)

"There are a few Bible passages that, at first glance, seem to teach salvation through faith plus works. One such is James 2:24, which appears to say that justification is by faith plus works: “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.”... Genuine faith in Christ, James says, will produce a changed life and result in good works (James 2:20–26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his or her life... Salvation comes by God’s grace through faith, and that faith is made manifest in good works. The works follow the faith and are a proof of it."

Claiming Mr. Anderson's understanding of faith alone is well inline with mainstream Protestantism. To fire back with my opponent's words, the claim is "such a foolish concept"

Regarding salvation:

"The biggest difference I have with my opponent is that he believes salvation can be taken away due to how you act, and the Bible is directly opposed to that. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this, and Catholics only believe this because they read verses out of context."

He proves this by pulling out Romans 4:1-5 - and already his argument makes a severe flaw in distinction. You see, he skews the the Biblical definition of salvation with another one: justification. We see in Scripture the word "justified" is distinguished in term from "salvation". Justification entails:

"...(having) peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access through faith into this grace, wherein we stand, and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God." (Romans 5:1-2)

From here, we see justification is a transition from a state of sin to becoming a child of God. It is also described as thus in Ephesians:

"To put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who is corrupted according to the desire of error. 23And be renewed in spirit of your mind: And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth." (Ephesians 4:22-24)

In "being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting" (Titus 3:7). A heir to something means that he is in line to obtain something, but has not yet received it (such as the crown prince of a kingdom). Justification is the first step to salvation (life everlasting)! What do you do to achieve the latter? I'm sure my opponent has read the following verses in some form or shape:

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13)

"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming." (2 Timothy 4:7-8)

"...every tongue should confess... the Lord Jesus Christ... with fear and trembling work out your salvation" (Philippians 2:9-12)

"For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting. And in doing good, let us not fail. For in due time we shall reap, not failing. Therefore, whilst we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith." (Galatians 6:8-10)

"My dear children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue, but in deed and in truth." (1 John 3:18).

My opponent (and "Pastor" Anderson) fail to recognize this since they do the very thing that they accuse Catholics of: pulling verses out of context. Burden of proof is on my opponent to scope through the verses I listed and show which ones I pulled out of context. That aside, meanwhile my opponent:

* Whips out Acts 16:30-31 or Ephesians 2:8-9 as some sort of endgame, but fails to read the parts that come after them. Acts 16:32 shows that the full Gospel was preached afterwards, meaning that there's more to just simple profession - and Ephesians 2:10, unless if you're illiterate, sounds a lot like a synergy between faith/works, eh?

* Cites verses that misses one key word: "alone" (or similar) to support his position. Sure, faith is a requirement, but the only one? No! As the Gospels and the later Epistles demonstrate when read in full. It's like a shopping list - all items listed there are expedient.

* In using St. Matthew 7:21-23, my opponent says that "the will of my father" equates to putting faith in Jesus, without citation outside of his own ipse dixit. Uh huh. Actually, he'll probably point to St. John 6:38-40 without looking deeper at other verses like 1 Thessalonians 4:3, which explains God's will is for our sanctification, and not harmonize them.

What faith alone fails to do is account for the Scriptures as a whole, and reads the verses in contradiction rather than harmony with one another. According to this system, either the Scriptures are schizophrenic in and of themselves - maybe we should have listened to that Arab warmonger/fornicator/pedophile who saw an angel - he knows the truth! - or my opponent and "Pastor" Anderson are the ones that make a serious error in reading it.

In equating justification with salvation, my opponent logically concludes that it is foolish to repent or have aversion to sin since we cannot avoid it. He goes on to present a false dilemma of a serial killer. Obviously his response to that will be "uhhh he was never saved in the first place so no duhhh". We in the business call this a "no true scotsman" fallacy. Can a serial killer turn from sin and reach Heaven? Why not? St. Paul himself murdered Christians and eventually became one of the greatest missionaries of early Christianity. Likewise, it's entirely possible that a serial killer shows true contrition for his sins, and be justified in Christ. He'll have to do a long penance and undergo a change in life and mindset, but if he succeeds at this and keeps it up, then he can go to Heaven.

Remember the loving words of Christ: "I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance." (St. Luke 5:32).

That's exactly what King David did. When he killed his friend and raped his wife, he became on the road to Hell. It was only after he begged God "Have mercy on me... according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my iniquity." (Psalm 50:3) and had to suffer God's justice for it. We say that he left the state of sin, and became justified. He still had to suffer penance for it (the loss of his sons), but was not saved yet until he passed the judgement of God after this earthly life.

Ultimately, OSAS not only misconstrues terminology as I have demonstrated, but also breeds illogical statements like this eminent gem:

"The Bible teaches that people can lose their chance at salvation while alive (Romans 4)... So you can lose your salvation while alive. You just can't lose it once you have it because it's an eternal gift."

To quote NBA star Russell Westbrook: "What? Bro, what are you talking about, man?"

To conclude

1) Justification =/= salvation. Justification entails a change of spiritual state, salvation is the endgame of justification.

2) We must continue to live in Christ and in doing so, we will gain salvation by entrance to God's kingdom.

3) Faith is one of many Biblical requirements to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

I now ask my opponent to answer the following:

1) Find someone in Scripture who lived a dissolute life, never repented of their sin (or did penance for it), and still went to Heaven. Surely, if OSAS is Biblical, then the Bible should demonstrate this!

2) Find a verse that explicitly states belief ALONE (or a similar word) suffices. So for example, St. John 3:16 doesn't count.

3) If it's true that all we had to do was believe in Christ, then why was this not made obvious from the start? God instituting the Ten Commandments, Jesus speaking of obedience to the commandments for eternal life (St. Luke 18:18-21), telling them to keep His commandments (St. John 14:15-17), the damnation of the unrepentant goats (St. Matthew 25:31-46), God's judgements against the wicked in the Psalms - all those meant nothing? Or do you insinuate the Bible contains unnecessary info?

4) You previously stated that a "saved" (actually, justified) person could go to a strip club and on death, get to Heaven without repenting of that. If I believe Jesus Christ is Lord, can I go to a strip club without worry? If yes, then it's ok to be a hypocrite? If no, does that not contradict your previous assertion?

I await your response. I won't be holding my breath for #1 and #2!

06.12.2023 06:59AM

Pro

Frist I want to start off saying this is a debate over once saved, always saved - not Pastor Steven Anderson. Additionally, the agreement was Bible verses only.

In your last argument you posted links not from the Bible and quoted people that weren't from the Bible. We agreed we wouldn't do that.

So back to the debate.

My Catholic opponent smugly stated in the last section that he "won't be holding his breath" that I wouldn't be able to prove that I couldn't "find someone from scripture who lived a dissolute life, never repented of their sin and still went to heaven.

I've been most excited about debunking the Catholic idea of "repenting from all sin."

The whole reason I took this debate was to completely destroy this idea and bury it.

The reason Catholics get scripture so wrong is they make assumptions about verses that aren't true.

I want to point out the term "repent from your sins" is found nowhere in the Bible.

Catholics just assume the word "repent" means "repent from all your sins" and that's not true.

And we know this because God is the one who repents the most in the Bible! God repents more than 30 times in the Bible.

"And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Exodus 32:14

"And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them." Judges 2:18

"The LORD repented for this: It shall not be, saith the LORD." Amos 7:3

"It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king." 1 Samuel 15:11

So I'd like to ask my opponent what sins was God repenting from in these verses?

The answer is he wasn't "repenting from sins" because God is perfect and doesn't sin.

In fact, in Exodus 13:17 the verse talks about the newly freed Hebrew repenting TOWARDS sin.

So it should be crystal clear "repent" doesn't mean "repent from all sins."

Because:

1) God repented more than anyone else

2) Repenting can mean going towards sin

So what does repent actually mean? It just means to turn and change direction. And in many instances has nothing to do with sin.

At this point my Catholic opponent might feel a little wounded because he's probably now noticing for this first time "repent" doesn't mean "repent from all sins."

But if my Catholic opponnent is like any other Catholic I've debated, he'll have some verses that have to do with repenting and salvation to fall back on.

I've thoroughly debunked the idea that "repent" means "repent from your sins" and it simply means to turn.

Now I will be giving proper context to Bible verses dealing with salvation and repenting.

Afterwards. it should be 100% crystal clear that when repenting is mentioned with salvation it doesn't mean "repent from all your sins."

In Acts 17:30 there's the following verse "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent."

This is a popular verse Catholics like to say proves you must "repent of all your sins" to be saved.

But when in context it's clear that's not what's going on in this Bible verse.

Acts 17 is about Paul visiting a Greek Temple in Athena.

In the Temple there's altars to all the Gods the Greeks believed in and Paul says "For as I passed by and beheld your devotions."

And there was an altar there with the following description "To The Unknown God"

This means the Greeks have an altar that specifically is for God's they don't know about. They're essentially hedging their bets that there might be other Gods.

The Bible makes it crystal clear that "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."

If you're worshipping other Gods, are you putting your faith in Jesus?

Of course not!

So what is Paul saying the Greeks need to repent from (turn from) in order to be saved?

They need to turn from worshipping false idols and put all their faith in Jesus.

Notice repent here doesn't mean "all sins."

It's just in this case the Greeks are doing something that's preventing them from getting saved. So they need to repent (turn) from that single thing to get saved.

Nowhere in this verse is indicated at all that the Greeks need to "repent from all sins." Just one thing specifically.

It doesn't mean becoming perfect and stopping all sin because that would be impossible!

This is highlighted again 1 Thessalonians.

The Thessalonians were very similar to the Greeks in the last verse and worshipped false idols and Gods but they turned away from those idols and started worshipping the one true God.

Here's what Paul says about them "For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God"

The word "turn" is used here instead of "repent" because those two words are interchangeable.

Again, the focus is on a specific sin that was preventing their salvation - not on all sins.

Remember Jesus said in John 3 "you must be born again" to get into heaven. It doesn't say you must be born again and again and again and again and again like my opponent believes.

Salvation is a one time thing that happens when you "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" Acts 16:31.

I believe this explanation and accompying Bible verses thoroughly debunks the "repent of your sins" to be saved nonsense Catholics believe in.

My challenge for my opponent now it show me Bible verses that show repentence of ALL sin is needed for salvation.

They don't exist and the only verses my opponent will be able to find make wild assumptions or are out of context.

I spent a lot of time debunking the "repentence" nonsense because it need's be thorougly explained.

So my repsonses to the following challanges will be shorter because of the word count.

My answer: Rehab the Prostitute was saved and there's no indication she repented or changed her life. She simply believed in God "It was by faith that Rahab the prostitute was not destroyed with the people in her city who refused to obey God."

Saved by faith, not from turning from her life as a prostitute!

2) Find a verse that explicitly states belief ALONE (or a similar word) suffices. So for example, St. John 3:16 doesn't count.

My answer: This one is too easy: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works" Romans 4:5-6

My answer: Keeping the commandments isn't necessary for salvation but is necessary for order in this world. Remember Mathew 5:19 "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

You still get into heaven if you break the commandments. You'll be just known as the "least" in heaven.

Additionally, Luke 18:18-21 doesn't maintain that you need to keep all the commandments to get into heaven. He's showing the rich person that he has broken the commandments, which the rich main claimed he never did.

It is true that if you lived a perfect life like Jesus you could make it into heaven on your own merits. But it's impossible for men to do this. The rich man wanted to get into heaven on his merits and Jesus proved that would be impossible.

As far as St. Matthew 25:31-46 you're just making wild assumptions again.

It's said there that "but the righteous into life eternal." Well let's go back to Romans 4 to see who is considered righteous ""But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

The goats aren't going to hell for not repenting. It's for not having faith. Their sins aren't forgiven.

My answer: I never once said you can go to a strip club without worry. You're putting words in mouth. I said you won't lose your salvation. You still have to worry about God punishing you for this.

Remember James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

In your version of salvation you need to repent from "all of your sins to be saved" but that would be impossible.

Again, if you see someone broken down on the side of the road and don't help them, and then die in a car crash 5 minutes later, you have a sin you haven't repented of.

So my challenge back:

1) Tell me what "sins" God repented from

2) Find me a verse showing you need to repent from ALL sin to be saved, and not just sins that are specifically keeping a person from salvation like worshipping false Gods.

3) Answer whether you believe a person who doesn't help someone broken down on the side of the rode and dies 5 minutes later without "repenting" is going to hell.

Round 3

06.13.2023 05:42AM

Con

Being the final round (I regret not making this 4 rounds, pardon my short-sightedness), I will conclude by answering your questions and make a final statement.

The reason why I brought up the Council of Trent, GotQuestions and Steven Anderson is:

1. To disprove any impending accusation that Catholics believe in works-based salvation. It does nothing to advance any argument I make; it is purely introductory.

2. To show that your claim that your version of "faith alone" as being representative of Protestantism is not at all how they interpret it. By the way, that source quotes Bible too, so it counts.

3. YOUR PINNED TWEET IS A VIDEO OF STEVEN ANDERSON. As a follower of him, you represent what he teaches, and it is lawful to criticize his ideas therefore.

The purpose of my argument is to show that a believer in Jesus, if they wish to be saved, must strive to imitate Him. That means "pursue justice, godliness, faith, charity, patience, mildness" (1 Timothy 6:11) and hate the ways of sin; if they fall into the misfortune of committing it, do this - "Seek ye the Lord, while he may be found: call upon him, while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God: for he is bountiful to forgive." (Isaiah 55:6-7)

It is simply not true that these verses were referring to unbelievers; for if they were, neither St. Paul or Isaiah would have addressed these to their intended audience: people who knew God. Don't make that argument.

You also neither notice nor address that I have made a distinction between salvation, which comes at the end of life, and justification which is the process that prepares us for that; you still synonymize them with one another. Neither is justification being "born again and again and again and again and again", but instead it goes like this:

"To put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who is corrupted according to the desire of error. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind: And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth." (Ephesians 4:22-24)

Now, to your questions:

1. Am I aware of those verses? Yes. Atheists use them to "prove" that "uhhh sky daddy evil". Don't insult my intelligence by parroting the same retarded arguments as them. In addition, that is a loaded question based on a false premise. You and I both know God cannot generate evil. However, you beg the question that "repent" ONLY means "turning from". The Hebrew word for it, "nacham", has multiple meanings one of which is "regret". In the story of the Prophet Jonah, God also expresses the same thing. Since He knows the future based on what conditions occur, He knew what was in store for Nineveh if they did not cease their wickedness - and when Jonah came, and the Ninevites turned back to God, He made sure that the alternate result should they have not, did not happen. God was expressing his sorrow over the circumstances that had come over His people, in this verse and in those you provided.

2. In addition to the story of Jonah and my second paragraph, I would like to add the following:

"You that love the Lord, hate evil; the Lord preserveth the souls of his saints, He will deliver them out of the hand of the sinner." (Psalm 96:10)

"For the sorrow that is according to God worketh penance, steadfast unto salvation; but the sorrow of the world worketh death." (2 Corinthians 7:9-10)

3. If the person didn't help because he was like "haha man died lol", then he sins greviously, and if he does not realize this sooner, God will not have mercy on him; "as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me." (St. Matthew 25:40). Your question doesn't provide any additional context beyond that. But thank you for admitting that you implicitly acknowledge the existence of venial/mortal sins (a Catholic concept, need I say!) throughout your argument. I'm sure THAT will go down well with your other Protestant comrades!

Moving on to your answers.

Your answer to #1 is insufficient because it doesn't say either that Rahab went to Heaven, or Hell! Only that she was spared from God's wrath upon her city; nothing about her spiritual state.

We already determined that #2 concerned that works alone do not save, and has no bearing to "faith alone". I asked you to provide one that explicitly states "alone" (or a similar word); hence if it was a true endgame verse, it would say "his faith ALONE is counted for righteousness". Furthermore you reference this to say that the condemned goats did not have faith; this is simply not true when you READ THE PREVIOUS VERSES.

For #4 - "You still have to worry about God punishing you (in this life) for this". Translation: "Well yes, but actually no." Not the precise answer I was looking for. Answer clearly - CAN A SAVED PERSON GO TO A STRIP CLUB, YES OR NO? If yes, then it's ok to be a hypocrite, or scandalize a believer (St. Matthew 18:6)? If no, does that not contradict your assertion that one needs faith only?

Most concerning, however, is your response to #3:

"Keeping the commandments isn't necessary for salvation but is necessary for order in this world."

Ok. Riddle me this.

* You claim to believe that the Bible is the ultimate, infallible, divinely inspired, AUTHORITATIVE (that is, TO BE OBEYED) Word of God, right?

* You believe that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, and that His teaching - ALL OF IT - is truth and nothing but the truth, right?

* You claim that you love Jesus Christ, and uphold Him as the perfect role model and guide to life, right?

* You do believe that everything God does is that it may be expedient unto our salvation, right?

You will answer with "Yes" to these questions, but respectfully, that answer above shows that it's nothing but a bunch of horse turd.

* Moses, who spoke to God on the Israelites' behalf, says this upon handing them the Ten Commandments - "Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that the dread of him might be in you, and you should not sin." (Exodus 20:20) This completely disproves the idea that God's commandments are optional, and are to be taken seriously. Is this not clear enough?

* In St. Luke 18:18-21 you write that "He's showing the rich person that he has broken the commandments, which the rich main claimed he never did". You cite... YOUR OWN IPSE DIXIT; when it's clear this was in response to his question "What must I do to gain eternal life?" - a.k.a "How do I get to Heaven". Your assertion is just false and unsupported.

* I pointed out that Our Saviour said in St. John 14:15: "If ye love me, keep my commandments" and "Go and sin no more" (St. John 8:11). But you say, "Oh, he didn't really mean that." I thought the words of Scripture were, as many Protestants like you say, are plain as day - are you saying either they aren't, or you know more than our God who walked in the flesh?

I honestly don't know how you can argue that God's commandments are not necessary unto salvation, yet you insist on following the Bible as the sole teaching foundation of Christianity. Saying "we don't need to follow God's laws, but yet the Bible must be obeyed because it's God's word" is the most illogical thing I've ever heard, and you prove it by relentlessly ignoring Christ's order of pursuing holiness. I believe the following words can apply to people like you who dare to reduce His words to being optional, instead of principles that must guide our life.

"If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not. Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me? He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God." (St. John 8:42-47)

And if you can't see that after the examples I showed, I can't help you further - you need serious spiritual intervention, maybe a divine one even. Congratulations! You have shown that "once saved, always saved" is a teaching that does not logically abide by what Scripture says!

So, let us remember:

* The words of Christ must be understood in full - not certain verses read in isolation apart from the others, lest we lost the spirit and character of the Gospel

* Salvation only follows at the end of our life; it cannot be gained during it. Rather, justification comes before it, and this is a work that sanctifies us and makes us receptive to God's grace, and do what is pleasing to Him

* In doing what is pleasing to Him, one of these is to hate evil, and avoid sin to the best of our ability. And we must seek God's forgiveness and have our sins blotted before we meet God and go to Heaven

* The manifest weight of evidence points to the existence of living a holy life in accordance with the Spirit, and NOT, as my opponent insinuates, mere profession of Christ and doing nothing else.

Therefore, I still contend with the Bible that NO ONE, who "worketh abomination or maketh a lie", will inherit the kingdom of God, for as St. John says in Revelation: "There shall not enter into (Heaven) any thing defiled" (Revelation 21:26).

06.13.2023 01:50PM

Pro

Let the record show my opponent has devolved into insults because he can't answer any of the questions I posed.

Your respsonse to me debunking "repent of all of your sins" was one of the most pathetic things I have ever seen.

To say people who were polytheistic were believers is an INCREDIBLE claim.

I knew debunking "repent of your sins" would trip you up but didn't expect it to be that bad.

And now wishing there were more rounds to the debate?

Yeah you know you're cooked.

I want everyone who's reading this debate to remember two things now.

My opponnent believes the two following things:

1) It's possible for a caninablistic, pedophile serial killer to get into heaven

2) A saved person who doesn't help someone with a flat tire will get sent to hell

I believe the opposite.

A cannibalistic pedophile serial killer has no chance of getting into heaven.

And a saved person who doesn't help with a flat tire will get into heaven.

That's really what this debate is about.

And the foolishness and craziness with Catholics doesn't stop there.

Catholics *literally* believe they're eating the body of Christ when they eat their bread at communion.

They *literally* believe they're drinking the blood of Christ when they drink wine at communion.

Catholics don't believe it's an analogy. They believe in transmutation where the bread and blood literally are these things.

This is just another example of the Catholic's absurd understanding of the Bible and constantly reading verses wrong.

Want more?

Jesus had this to say about prayer "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

So how do Catholics "repent of their sins?" By "vainly" repeating Hail Mary's for an arbitrary amount of time.

The Bible cleary states you should only pray to God "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly" Mathew 6:6

So who do Catholics pray to? Mary! A women with no special powers to grant prayer.

Their argument is they ask her to pray for on them but she's dead! She can't pray for anyone.

What does the Bible say about calling people father? "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." Mathew 23:9

So what do the Catholics call the leaders of their church? Father!

A Catholic will say well don't you call your own father, father? And I would say yes because he's my actual father!

What does the Bible say about church leaders that wear long robes and want to stand out from the crowd? "Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples, Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation." Luke 20:45-47

So what do Catholic priests do? Dress themselves in long robes to get the admiration from people.

Do Catholic leaders not sit in thrones with "the highest seats" in their cathedrals and in the Vatican?

The Bible clearly states men with long hair are shameful: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 1 Corinthians 11:14.

Walk into any Catholic church and what do you see? A long haired Jesus hanging from a cross.

The Bible explictly states not to create a big show about faith in Mathew 6:16-18 "Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;
18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly."

So what do Catholics do every ash wednesday? They walk around with ash crosses on their forehead to show everyone what good Catholics they are.

The Bible says "they have their reward" and it won't be rewards in heaven.

There's a million examples of this blatant hypocrisy with Catholics.

We won't even get into the rampant pedophilia and not allowing priests to get married, which is not somthing you'll find the Bible saying to do.

I won't mention how insane the idea of a Pope is, especially one that regurarly speaks against the Bible.

I won't get into the history of the Catholic church and all their bloodshed.

But I am genuilely concerned about your salvation and I'm concerned about the salvation of anyone who is reading this.

I can completely understand how you've been turned off by Christianity if all you know of it is Catholicism.

Catholicism is a complete joke and your instincts about Catholicism is correct.

But please understand Catholicism isn't Christianity.

In order to get into heaven you don't need to eat bread, drink wine, say hail marys, pray to dead women, call church leaders father, ignore pedophilia, or any of the other silly nonsense Catholics believe.

All you have to do is go to the most famous Bible verse of all time to see how to get saved "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

That's it.

There's nothing more to salvation than accepting the "free gift of God" that is "eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Roamns 6:23

Salvation is a gift that requires no work to be done on your part.

What you do in this world determines your status in heaven but won't effect your entry into heaven.

God LOVES you.

And if you put your faith into Jesus you become his CHILD "To all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” John 1:12.

This is what Jesus said about salvation and being childlike: "At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me."

Think about a small child in your life.

Do they need to work to earn your love? Of course not. You and I don't require little children to do anything for our love and protection.

And under no circustances would you EVER abandon your little child for what they've done.

You may punish them from time to time for their own benefit but they're still your child.

And what did God say about the rewards he has for his children?

"Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" Mathew 7:9-11

God is greater than any of us could possibly understand and he treats us better than any of us could possibly treat our own children.

If you and I, being evil, would NEVER abandon a small child for acting out, do you think God will abandon you after you've become his child?

Of course not.

The Bible promises if you genuilely put your faith in Jesus and believe he died for your sins and was resurrected, you are saved and become a child of God.

And you won't be sent to hell for not helping someone change their tire like my opponent believes.

If you're still not sure who has won this debate just remember: Catholics believe a wafer mass produced in some New Jersey factory somehow *literally* turns into the body of Christ.

If Catholics get confused about things like this, it's not a stretch to see how they could also get confused about salvation.

06.14.2023 09:55PM

#18

-->

@CathAni42

BTW, what do you Catholics think of Jack Chick or his biography of Alberto Riveria.

06.13.2023 07:40PM

#17

-->

@CathAni42

Point made. I will dig through what I have. I haven't looked at my books for a while, but I know that Jack Chick and Milton Carroll are not in the set.

06.13.2023 07:33PM

#16

-->

@DavidAZ

Would you accept if I brought up the National Enquirer or The Onion as a source to back up the existence of aliens on Mars? I don't think you would. You'd say "duhhh give me CNN or NASA u retard".

So my standard is historical sources from an accredited researcher of Christianity. An example would be Adrian Hastings' "World History of Christianity"; he was a historian with a degree from Worcester College in Oxford. Or Diarmaid McCulloch's (St. Cross' College, Oxford) book on such.

A Jewish-backed fraud like Jack Chick or his Mexican buddy, "Trail of Blood" by James Milton Carroll, or something similar DOES NOT COUNT.

06.13.2023 07:11PM

#15

-->

@CathAni42

So you are saying that if they are not sources approved from you, I can't claim them as sources?

Who or what would be a "reliable" source I can cite?

06.13.2023 04:04PM

#14

-->

@DavidAZ

I can almost guarantee you your sources are not by peer-reviewed historians. But that's fine with me if you don't want to engage further.

The point is if you cite smth as historical fact without backing it up, well... to quote Hitchens "Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". "Bigfoot is real" and "6 million Jews died in the Holocaust" would be valid historical facts even if they are kooky

06.13.2023 03:52PM

#13

-->

@CathAni42

I would rather run this in a forum or a debate, not in the comments section, but for sources I would have to dig through my books.

Give me some time for direct sources.

06.13.2023 03:42PM

#12

-->

@DavidAZ

I never said you were Jewish, I merely said that you make the same arguments as one would. Really? If it's so obvious then surely there should be a few peer-reviewed historical articles that speak to it. Provide or bust

Appreciate your objectivity in assessing the debate though, I can respect that.

06.13.2023 03:24PM

#11

-->

@dmrieger

That's just not true, unfortunately. All your leaders separated from the catholic church out of rebellion to it (which is understandable considering it's blatant misuse of the bible), but took with them all the catholic dogma of God and baptism. You, being a Baptist, are still considered a child of the "holy Roman empire" because of this.

06.13.2023 03:20PM

#10

-->

@CathAni42

I'm not Jewish and I didn't think I needed historical references for something so blatantly obvious. All the Catholic rites can be traced to pagan origins in the known world at the time from the reign of Constantine. He established the Catholic church as the dominant religion and made all paganism illegal. That's when the catholic church became filled with the pagan rites of candles, kissing statues, prayers to a mother God, the cross as a Christian symbol, long haired effeminate Jesus, etc, because the catholic church wanted to fill their coffers with the money of the pagan people. "Sure, you can come to church here. You kiss statues of dead relatives? No problem, we got one here for you, just pay your tithes and offerings. You pray to the virgin mother Isis? No problem! You can just call her Mary. Pay up! We'll keep your rites and save your life from that goofy emperor Constantine."

06.13.2023 02:52PM

-->

@CathAni42

I don't really think you refuted any of the verses or concepts I mentioned in any of my arguments. You didn't even attempt to engage with "repent of your sins." And you didn't engage with repenting meaning to go TOWARDS sin in some cases. Weak.

06.13.2023 02:09PM

-->

@dmrieger

Funny you say I'm cooked in your last "argument" (which hardly counts as a refutation)! The reality is, you haven't even bothered to defend against my charges that you pick-and-choose Scripture without harmonizing it 😂

Thanks for at least showing up to the debate, unlike most Andersonites I know! I intend to post this debate on Twitter (feel free to do so as well on your account). I hope you don't mind that.

06.13.2023 02:03PM

-->

@DavidAZ

Baptists are really the only demoniation that isn't associated with Catholicism. Protestants come from Catholicism. Baptists can trace their teachings before the Catholic Church and seperate from it.

06.13.2023 01:33PM

-->

@Intelligence_06

That's not an argument. That's like saying that just because there's a chance that you won't get caught for stealing, you can do it. Will you really take that gamble?

However, sin in and of itself is an action that causes spiritual wounding (Psalm 41:3-4), and as a result, depending on the gravity of it, can either diminish or separate our relationship with God. It is the second part that I am concerned with: hence, that whosoever continues to wilfully sin, and not repent - make amends of that relationship with God - no hope of Heaven is available for them.

Intelligence_06

06.13.2023 06:13AM

-->

@CathAni42

God can the same way a police officer can commit murder and arson. They can obviously do that, it is that they really, really don't want to do that, just that.

06.13.2023 06:07AM

-->

@Intelligence_06

Then why does He frequently warn of eternal punishment for the wicked all throughout Scripture? If as you say God can admit someone who died in a state of sin to Heaven, that leads to salient problems with what the fullness of Scripture teaches. Even if He could, it's an unwise gamble in light of the above.

06.13.2023 06:01AM

-->

@DavidAZ

Respectfully, you sound like a Jew here, claiming Christianity first started from a pagan source with no historical citation other than your own ipse dixit (or, maybe Dr. Fraudci's crack stash). You do know that the Jews of the Temple era (who were Christians) also had the same thing going on right?

06.12.2023 06:54PM

Ah. The blind leading the blind here. Catholics add so much to their doctrine. It came from so much pagan sources. Almost everything in the Catholic church came from a pagan source, from their garb, to their rites, to their prayers, genuflects etc.

However, Baptists are just daughters from that same Catholic church. Do you know how that is? Because they endorse the baptism of Father, Son, & Holy Ghost. Looks like a family squabble in this debate, the mother telling the daughters how to behave.

Intelligence_06

06.12.2023 03:46AM

“Can” implies the possibility or the possession of an ability, and by that, I firmly hold the PRO position in that of course God can do that(if God exists as said), God just chooses not to do, just like I can crash a car or kill myself, I just choose not to do that.