A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

Let me remind the audience that "con" accepted not only the proposition but also the defined terms: "I will define the terms: A saved person: one who is saved, not lost A Christian: synonym for "saved person" or child of God May sin: the possibility exists that this person may believe or commit acts contrary to God's law Eternally lost: eventually wind up in hell" Con accepted all this before agreeing and in consideration of agreeing, and yet con: 1. Does not accept the term "saved". He believes there is nothing from which to be saved. 2. Does not accept the term "lost". He believes there is nothing from which to be lost. 3. Does not accept the term "Christian" as defined because he does not accept the term "saved person". 4. Does not accept the term "Christian" as defined because he does not accept the term "child of God." 5. Does not accept the term "may sin" because he does not believe God has a law. 6. Does not accept the term "eternally lost" because he does not accept any concept of Hell. As best I can tell, he accepted a debate and yet does not accept the definition of any key term. That's singularly odd - perhaps a tad dishonest. Not only that, but I said in the opening comments, "I am arguing against the typical Baptist position of "once saved, always saved." Since con surely knew that he was accepting a debate in which pro would submit arguments against Baptist position, why would con make a mockery of the debate system by not even feigning a shadow of an attempt to answer. I might well have reworded the proposition, "The Bible teaches that ..... " but con would most likely have accepted, then just denied that the Bible teaches anything because it is a humanly-concocted fairy tale. He says, "Pro quotes the Bible a lot without any warrant as to why we should believe it's true." Ya think maybe that's because pro did just what pro said she would do: argue "against the typical Baptist position"? He says, "My opponent must prove that (1) Hell exists, and (2) it's possible for a Christian to eventually wind up there." Ummm ... not only that! It seems to me that to satisfy you, I'd have to "prove" every key word - including Christian, saved, God, sin, eternal, and lost." In other words, you are not trying to debate the topic, you are wanting to debate each and every term, beginning with Hell. Well, "saved" implies "heaven", and you could just as well want proof that "heaven" exists .. or "God", for the matter. To summarize, con is nothing more than an atheist/agnostic/infidel (he hasn't said) trolling around under the "Religion" section, agreeing to debate religious topics, then asking for proof that God, heaven, and hell exist and, of course, never really getting to the proposition - and he never intended to. Then with a flourish and a sneer, he'll conclude (as he did), "My opponent cannot use the Bible as evidence to prove the resolution until she has proven the Bible should actually be taken seriously as being factually correct (good luck)." Well, I'll have to: for me to come onto a debate site, religion section, Christian topic pretty much implies references to the Bible, don't you think? For me to post such a proposition on a debate site, religion section with a Christian topic and NOT use the Bible would be intellectual dishonesty - and that would make two of us. I can't imagine lurking on a "science" site, accepting a debate, and discussing religion - while not accepting a single definition of a single term: it's not the place for it, even some little one-by-four sophomores at a Theology School might do it. If so, they are in error - and they are wasting people's time. Likewise, a few little upspurts who have passed a few science classes and think they are the next Darwin sometimes do the same thing on "religion" sites. Go figure. Bottom line: you shouldn't have accepted. You agree to no definition of terms. You might be happier in the Science section.