Eternal Security is a True Christian Doctrine

Prosperity Gospel Okay, I concede due to the scripture you gave that being martyred is a kind of blessing. And that those that suffer are receiving a kind of blessing because of it. But my opponent still left unanswered the point about Richard Dawkins, who lives a pretty blessed life of fame, influence, and wealth. Though suffering is in itself a kind of blessing, its not the only kind. Some of the people god blesses he blesses in a more obvious way such as king Solomon who lived in a time of peace, had much wealth, his kingdom very prosperous, ect …. Richard Dawkins is exactly the type of person we are debating over whether they would be saved or not. He had faith at one time and was a professing Christian, and now he is one of Atheism biggest and most well known advocates. And he is blessed in the obvious king Solomon sense. But by Pro’s case he has made about the house that burns down Richard Dawkins should not be living in any kind of blessing from God, for his house he built is made of cheap material even though its on good foundation. He should barely be escaping the fire in this life by Pro’s arguments. But that’s not the case, he’s famous, respected, and wealthy. Templeton Pro simply restated his speculative case about Templeton’s emotional outbreak, and even conceded there’s no way to prove what he believes about Templeton’s heart and did not even address my alternative explanations about faith being what outlast your whimsical emotions, thus Pro has dropped his case about Templeton. So I see no need to revisit this issue this round. Sin of Apostasy Pro makes it out as if I have argued Apostasy under two deferent definitions. I have not. My point about apostasy from the very beginning has not been that it can’t be forgiven, I’ve never made a case its unforgivable or that an atheist convert cant convert back. How it is different is not that it’s somehow a worse degree of sin or deserves punishment more than others or something crazy like that. As Pro stated; it’s all sin in God’s eyes just the same. But apostasy by definition is rejecting that which you have to accept to be saved, the name of Jesus. Those that are saved must rely on Christ to save them, not themselves. Richard Dawkins does not do this today. Years ago he did but he does not now. The term Aion My opponent dropped this part of my argument, leaving it uncontended. He further stated his own teaching about how to understand eternity, but he did not make any authoritative connection between that interpretation and the what the Greek term for it was meant to mean in Greek back in the day. The Car Parable John MacArthur once said when talking about Jesus parable of the Ten Virgins, how it’s a mistake when people try and scrutinize to parable to represent more than the point it was overall meant to make. Sometimes a oil lamp is just an oil lamp, it does not need to represent faith, belief, grace or anything at all for the parable to tell the main point ‘the bridegroom might delay, be prepared to wait, and keep watching. My point I made with the example where pro sells me a car is not a parable where I represent man and Pro is God, or the car is salvation, or my soul, or the money is my will, or my works, ect. That’s why I said to assume Pro was selling me a dodge viper. Not God, so that you understand my point about promises and lying. Are you a liar when you don’t follow through with what you signed to do on a contract that I myself nullified? No, that’s absurd, I am the one that lied, I am the one that changed my mind about parting with my money. Not giving me a car does not make you a liar. If I should take comparing salvation to the covenant between car dealer and buyer, then the dodge viper is something we could never buy. We flat out don’t have the money and could never come up with it. But thankfully, the son of god is willing to pay for it for us and will co-sign on the deal. But it just does not work without his signature. We can’t opt to have him removed as cosigner and still expect the car. The purchase was made under his name. It just does not work without it or with any other name. Greater than God Pro restated we have free will to reject God even after we are saved, it just holds no power over our salvation. He has already conceded we can reject salvation initially and it affect our salvation, just not after we are given it and because of this I win this debate. I argued if our will has power over our salvation in the beginning (and does not challenge the power of God then) then there’s no reason to think it does not after salvation (or to think it would all of a sudden challenge Gods power then either). Pro did not address that case at all and dropped it. To be consistent about free will not holding power over whether we are saved or not or it would make us out to be greater than God, you would have to agree the same about the initial salvation. That somehow our will being able to reject it made us greater than God so we must not have true power to resist god’s salvation. Pro conceded though that that’s not the case, we have will from god then before salvation and that will affects our salvation. Pro also did not reject my case that Christians still very much do have will to resist God’s will after salvation because we still sin. That will is not over ridden. So Pro has conceded… A) Our Free Will determines our salvation before we are saved B) We still have that Free Will after we save, we still sin. It follows from A and B that we have salvation affecting Free Will after we are saved. Conclusion: 1) Pro dropped his case about Templeton, conceding his beliefs can not be proven to support his case 2) Pro dropped his case about the Greek word Aion, conceding its not relevant to the debate. 3) Pro conceded we have Free Will from God initially, and that Free Will affects our salvation 4) Pro conceded we have Free Will later on as well, after salvation. 5) My argument about Richard Dawkins being blessed has been left unchallenged thus it refutes his case about the fire burning down the house representing blessings in this life 6) I refuted the case about the double crucifixion last round with an understanding of apostasy that even pro says he’s been arguing under. 7) I’ve shown the cancellation of a contract on our part does not make the other person a liar. 8) I’ve shown how logically it would not make us greater than god if we lose our salvation after apostasy. I’d like to end this debate with a reading from Hebrews 6 that Pro skipped in the first round verses 1-3 “Therefore, let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And we will do this, if God permits.” When we are saved we need to press on toward perfection, growing in the grace of sanctification. For that which does not grow dies, so we must keep vigilant to not turn from the justifying/regenerative grace we already know because Satan does not let up on his attacks just because were under that grace now (1 Peter 5: 8) ‘Discipline yourselves, keep alert. Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around looking for someone to devour.’ I thank my opponent for this excellent debate. He too has been very challenging and respectful throughout it. If there is an example of how 2 Christians in disagreement should debate, this debate would be an example of that.