A Christian Cannot Lose His Salvation

The Situations Firstly did Charles Templeton believe in any of the essential doctrines (1)? If he denied even one of them, then he was not saved to begin with. However, there is no proof that Charles believed in any of the said doctrines, so I ask Con to substantiate that example in the next round. It must also be considered that people who make a profession of faith can still commit terrible actions, whether they believe in all the essential doctrines or not. We must keep in mind that a profession can either be false or true. For false professions, we can refer to the case of Roman Catholics (they, as a whole, believe in faith and works for salvation, so they are outside the Christian faith [2]). (Keep in mind Con's sixth source contains many cases which revolve around Roman Catholic authorities). Now, those who truly profess faith in Jesus can also commit terrible actions (such as Saul, David, Peter and Paul). "Some scriptures for PRO to consider" It must be noted that the said instances of "blotting out" were references to physical life (the book of life in this case was the record of the living), as opposed to an eternal one (3). Pro erroneously makes a mistake by referring to Psalm 69. If Con says that the book was a reference to eternal life, then he would be incorrectly assuming that David's enemies were believers. To support this even further, David wrote, "let them not come into thy righteousness. " If their names were written in the Lamb's book of life, then they would have already come into His righteousness. Likewise, those verses from Exodus also refer to physical life being taken away. God refused when Moses asked for his life to be taken away; God did promise to take the lives of those who sinned against Him (see Exod. 32:30-35, Deut. 2:14-16) [4]. Since it has been established that these refer to physical life, then I would like to ask Con why he thinks Ezekiel 3:20-21 refers to eternal death. In fact, the word for saved in these verses actually means things along the lines of "delivered", "snatched away", and "rescued" (5). I would also like to say that Ezekiel 18:24-26 refers to death in the physical sense as well for iniquities. Moreover, it must come to mind that cases of God taking away lives for sins are mentioned in the New Testament, such as the death of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10 and the man unrepentantly having sexual relations with his father's wife (1 Cor. 5:1-5). (This furthers my "physical death" point. ) Moving on, Con brings up Matthew 7:21-23. This, however, helps my case instead of Con's, because Jesus said "I never knew you". Here, Jesus made the clear implication that such people were never saved to begin with, because, well, He did not know them at any point. -As for Rev. 2:3-5, this is connected to the case of the aforementioned man who had relations with his mother. He did not repent, and as a result, the Lord took his life away. -For verse 10, notice how it says, "Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer:" The Lord tells us not to be afraid of anything that we are going to suffer, and that includes the maintaining of salvation. However, if one were able to lose his salvation, then that opens up the tendency for fear. However, that would not be consistent with the Lord's message about not fearing. If someone is once saved and forever saved, then that person literally has nothing to fear. - Rev. 2:25-26, 3:2-3, 3:11-12 are in harmony with Ephesians 4:30, which says that "ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. " Considering this, we know that the person does all these overcoming, repenting and keeping of the other mighty works because he is sealed unto the day of redemption. If we are sealed unto the day of redemption, then that means we are forever saved. If that is not true, then would we really be sealed unto the said day? Furthermore, Rev 3:15-16 must be talking about those who never were saved to begin with. One is either saved, or not saved. These verses talk about the middle ground, or the "lukewarm" position, which, again, is unbelief in essence (because, again, one is either saved or not saved). Additionally, Con brings up warning about actions from Matthew 18:32-35, but this is non-sequitur. If the verses talked about the loss of salvation, then this could not have been non-sequitur. Unfortunately, these verses are about having compassion upon others. Therefore, I ask Con to elaborate on this for the next round. Refuting Refutations1. Con says, "Safety is from outside attack, not from turning away or falling away or abandoning Christ. " If that was the case, then he misses the part where Jesus said, "no one will snatch them out of My hand. " Here, "no one" means not even we could snatch ourselves out of His hand (6). So, the only conclusion left behind here is that people are either never saved to begin with, or were saved at one point and will be that way forever.2. As previously established, the point is that if God is the one keeping us, then we would not even be able to take ourselves out of His hand. However, the doctrine that you're arguing for makes the implication that one maintains his own salvation (7). After all, he is the one striving to remain in the faith with his own efforts, right? (This is given that the Eternal Security doctrine says that not even the believers could take themselves out of His hand. The doctrine you are arguing for implies that the believer could do the aforementioned action. The believer, therefore, would be striving to stay in the faith and not become an unbeliever. ) Simply put, the point is that the believer has an option to abandon Christ. Of course, it is not the SAME as saying that (please do notice that I never said it was the same), but we must notice that points like these are furthering the evidence that salvation cannot be lost (so that the doctrine you are arguing for could be negated).3. The idea here is that the believer would not be snatched out of His hand, and that He is SEALED unto the day of redemption. What Con must see here is that the believer cannot even leave the Lord's hand, LET ALONE be forsaken or left behind by the Lord. 4. Now, Con makes the presumption that Esau was saved. However, in order to for Con's position to be supported, he must argue that Esau was saved to begin with. How do you know this? We must also notice that Con arbitrarily presumed that the "drifting away" was a reference to drifting away from faith. This is talking about drifting away from the Truth despite the knowledge. Having knowledge or "enlightenment" is not always the same as being saved (8). The same book reveals how people were fallen away in chapter 6, which in turn supports my interpretation of Hebrews 2. One can go to church and get a lot of knowledge, and witness the Holy Spirit's work in believers. Yet, despite the knowledge, one can reject. So, this is not the same as losing one's salvation (9). Remember that the same argument about "knowledge" applies to 2 Peter 2:17-21, too. I have provided an explanation for Hebrews 10:26-31 above as well. ConclusionI am waiting for my opponent to post his next argument. I pray that we will both learn something through these exchanges of words. God bless. References1. . http://carm.org...2. . http://carm.org... 3. . http://books.google.com... 4. Ibid.5. . https://bible.org... 6. . http://www.learnthebible.org... 7. . http://carm.org... 8. . http://carm.org... 9. Ibid.