The scriptures teach that a child of God can't fall (eternal security or "once saved always saved")

I want my opponent to know that my case is strong, and you know that. I think my opponent is confused with the text he made as example in here here’s what he said: "There is no indication that spiritual death is in view here. In fact, there's a good example of Christians committing a sin that leads to death in Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10). These two lied to the Holy Spirit and were struck dead. There is no indication they lost their salvation, but they died physically for their sin. " i thought your proof text was First John 5:16. pls. before you make your arguments please make sure of your statements. See your first argument. Further, you say about certain things that "under circumstances unconfessed sins will be forgiven". Keytar, your statement was just an assertion, if you want to persuade me pls. put your proof text regarding this matter. Further my opponent says that even you can willfully walk away from your salvation you won't "lose it" Well, based in the propsition, There is a difference in the Bible in "falling" and "falling away. " When one leaves his faith in Christ and simply falls short, we may restore him (Gal.6:1; Jas.5:19-20). But if one goes so far that he cannot be restored, he is said to "fall away" (Heb.6:4-6), and it is "impossible. .to renew them unto repentance". Along with many other passages, Paul warns about falling (I Cor.10:12-13), which if man could not fall these warnings would be unneccessary! Not only can Christians fall from the grace of God, the Galatians did fall from grace (Gal.5:4, 7; See: II Pet.2:10-22). Again, the old Baptist theory of "never saved in the first place" We have already shown that some Christians fell away. But one cannot fall away from something which was never possessed. But since you certainly don’t believe this you would revert again to the other. Lastly, my opponent fails to understand the main point of my argument. He doesn't acknowledge the statements like: "can i fall off the roof of a building if I have never been on that building", "a ship cannot crash (be shipwrecked) if it never began the journey and strayed off course. ", and "You cannot fall from grace if you never had grace (Galatians 5:4). Paul warned of it. Why would he warn us of a danger that did not exist? " I hope my opponent will reply to these statements. Because he has left these unnoticed. My opponent still argues that simon was not saved that moment when he was baptized, he argues that he did not understand what it meant to be saved. Keytarhero, that was after he was saved, not before he were saved if you'll study Acts 8: 13-24 you will find out. He says sin separates us from God. Then he says we cannot be separated from God. You cannot be separated from somewhere you have not been. For sin to separate us, as he says, then it is necessary that we were already in that position, which he denies. As i have studied the context, "disqualified" can also be used, the greek word of the text in I Cor. 9:27 is "adokimos". Here's what most scholars say about "adokimos": adokimos ad-ok'-ee-mos (as a negative particle); unapproved, that is, rejected; by implication worthless (literally or morally): - castaway, rejected, reprobate. But I will now go the main point, Paul implies, if such earnest, self-denying watchfulness over himself be needed still, with all his labors for others, to make his own calling sure, much more is the same needed by the Corinthians, instead of their going, as they do, to the extreme limit of Christian liberty. At last you admitted that you do not consider better than Paul, and therefore i conclude that a child of God can fall from grace. And again and again my opponent insists that Hymenaeus and Alexander were never saved in the first place. One cannot thrust from him, and make shipwreck of the Faith, if he is not in the Faith (I Tim. 1:19). The best I can say is that a command is always a command. It is to be obeyed. God will not be spurious in giving commands that cannot be obeyed or that do not matter. His position on 2nd Corinthians 6:1 does not make sense. It disproves for him the very thing he is trying to prove. Philippians 2:12 begins with a conjunction. Therefore, it necessarily ties to the previous verses. In the previous verses, it speaks of every knee bowing and every tongue confessing. This is not going to happen at any time other than Judgment Day. At Judgment Day, it will be too late to strengthen faith as he suggests. You will either be lost or saved, right then, and there is no more chance. There are not people that will be a little saved or a lot saved as his position dictates. So, any making sure is obtaining salvation and not strengthening it. He has the cart before the horse in Acts 13:43. God working within them means nothing more than God's grace continuing in them. He is taking a clausal noun and making it the subject of the statement. God's grace is not what continues in this context (even though it does), what continues is the implied subject of the passage, "You. " In English, when commands are given, the verb (such as continue in this case) is listed first in the statement, with the understanding that the audience is the subject and expected to react. Simon had to pray. But, if his heart was not really in it, then the prayer would be unheard. That is where the realm of possibility enters the picture. Peter was warning Simon that his actions needed to mirror his words. He says sin separates us from God. Then he says we cannot be separated from God. You cannot be separated from somewhere you have not been. For sin to separate us, as he says, then it is necessary that we were already in that position, which he denies. The Calvinists take half Scriptures to support their fantasies, but do not dare look at context or complete passages because it will destroy them. Closing statements:Keytarhero, It sounds to me as if you are not approaching this to hear anything. It sounds as if your one mouth is open and your two ears are closed. Questions:1. Show scriptural references that advocate "eternal Securtiy"2. Can one fall away from something he does not have? Sources:1. The Spiritual Sword2. Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary