Once Saved Always Saved

Part A Ezekiel 33:13It is save to say that in this verse, Ezekiel is prophesying about the arrival of the Son of Man. Nonetheless, if we take a closer look at the Hebrew words that were used, we can clearly see that Ezekiel is referring to physical death- denouncing my opponent's argument. The word for "death" in this verse is the Hebrew word, muwth. Like most Hebrew words, it is both vague and specific in that it accurately portrays its meaning- according to the context of the verse. In this case, muwth means "literal death[4]. " There is no evidence whatsoever to conclude that it is referring to "spiritual death," which is what my opponent is arguing for. Now if we look at a verse that specifically relates to spiritual death: "But those who fail to find me harm themselves; all who hate me love death. " (Proverbs 8:36)"Death" in this verse is characterised by the Hebrew word, maveth. Maveth means "personified state of death, or place of death[4]. " In which case, if my opponent wishes to believe that Ezekiel 33:13 refers to salvation loss, he will need to prove that muwth does not mean "literal death," and that maveth should not have to be used in its place. John 15:10In this case, the Greek word, Meno, is used for "remain. " Considering the context of the verse (Jesus is talking to the disciples about what has just happened with Judas Iscariot and others like him. Judas had attached himself to Jesus, but did not produce fruit and did not abide in Christ. He was a disciple only outwardly and the fact that he was not a disciple inwardly was shown by his lack of fruit-bearing[1]), Meno is better represented by the word, "abide[5]. " What are the differences? Remain - to stay in the same place or with the same person or group[2]Abide - to accept or bear[2]This verse takes on a whole new meaning when we use "abide" in place of "remain. " As such, resisting the choice to accept/abide in Jesus love has no impact on salvation.1 Corinthians 6:9-10This verse is taken out of context. It doesn't refer to everyone, specifically, those who are not already saved. My opponent then attempts to reconcile this point, by referring back to the verse in Ezekial. I have already dismantled this argument. This verse proves nothing. Part BThis section is interesting; I will refute my opponent's arguments, then provide counter-arguments. Although it is unorthodox to assume an opponent's beliefs merely on their previous debates, I will allow my opponent the privilege of doing so. "But let's say for instance that God does forgive us regardless of our choices. Would there actually be any sin in the world? "Free will would always exist in a dimension ruled by an all-loving god. It is unlikely that sin would exist, as an all-powerful, all-loving god would override its existence. If it did exist, however, it would merely be because of God's choice to limit his own power. "If there is no chance of any of us getting into Hell, what's the devil doing trying in the first place? "It is my belief that there would be no "devil" in a world governed by an unconditionally loving deity. As "evil" is nothing more than the absence of goodness. Nevertheless, this point has no relevance within this debate. A. ) I would advise my opponent to read the following sentence in the same verse: "And all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. " -Romans 3:24. No contradiction here. I find it safe to say that salvation is a gift/promise to those who have faith in Jesus (Eph. 2:8). This is a gift that God is unable to take back, as he would contradict himself. As God always keeps his promises (Deu. 7:9); he never changes his mind (Num. 23:19). Doing so would disable him from omniscience, and hence, godliness. I will address this in the future, in futher detail. B. ) Sure, I can claim that there is no devil- because I don't claim the scriptures to be inherent. Suffice it to say that, like I've stated before, I believe that an all loving God wouldn't create a world where there is evil. Yet, what does this have to do with the resolution at hand? It seems that my opponent is attacking the arguments of my previous debate: "Is God Evil? "C. ) Why can't I claim that? It would explain a lot of God's moral dilemmas within the Bible. Ultimately, my opponent hasn't used logic to discount the resolution, rather, he used logic to discount the arguments of my previous debate. Let us bring our attention back to this debate, shall we? Rebuttal:I will prove that it is impossible for God to take back the gift of salvation, without the use scripture; as there are diverging views on whether or not scripture is a reliable source for argumentation. Now, I am no scientist, but there are many philosophical and scientific theories as to whether or not the universe is a closed-system; meaning, a system that is isolated, or unaffected by an exterior source. Considering the Redshift theory and Hubble's Law, scientists have been able to estimate that the universe is constantly expanding at an exponential rate. The energy that is used for this expansion, originates from within the center- supposedly from the Big Bang. From a point of view regarding the laws of thermodynamics, the universe is most certainly a closed system as energy cannot be created or destroyed (within a closed system). Thus, energy simply travels within this system; it is harnessed within matter, in that it remains constant and travels at an infinite rate (according to the first law of thermodynamics). Now if the universe is a closed system, this means that everything within this system must abide by the systems laws. This includes God. Why does this include God? After all, isn't God omnipotent? He can do anything, right? Not exactly. Omnipotence does not mean God can do anything, rather, it describes the amount of God's power. God can do whatever is possible to be done. God cannot, however, do that which is actually impossible. This is because true impossibility is not based on the amount of power one has, it is based on what is really possible. Simply put, God cannot make a contradiction[3]. Conclusion:Using logic, I have prove that God cannot create a contradiction and I have dismantled my opponents Biblical verses, which were his proposed arguments. I contend that God always keeps his promises; to do so otherwise would lead God to contradict himself- which he cannot do. Therefore, it is impossible for God to take back his promise of salvation to mankind. For God is omniscient, eternal and unchanging- and thus, incapable of changing his mind; regardless of Biblical evidence. Onto Con. [1] . http://www.titusinstitute.com...[2] The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary[3] . http://www.gotquestions.org...[4] . http://www.biblestudytools.com...[5] . http://www.blueletterbible.org...