A Christian Cannot Lose His Salvation

1. Con would be right in saying that I do not accept the said definition. Are we supposed to take the dictionary definition for granted and disregard what the Bible says? (This is especially considering that we are talking in Scriptural terms.) Con implies that someone whoprofesses belief in Christ's teachings is automatically a Christian. If that's the case, then Con should read Matthew 15:8-9, which says, "8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Here, we see the implication that these people profess belief in Jesus' teachings, but in actuality, they worship Him in vain. If Con uses the dictionary definition, then he would erroneously be categorizing these false believers as Christian. So, once again, we can see that a profession of faith does not always have to legitimate. Simply put, it is fine that my opponent brought up a dictionary definition, but he was supposed to think about its accuracy in terms of Scripture. We must also notice that Con did not answer the question, "Did Charles Templeton believe in any of the essential doctrines?" He also said that Templeton's life and words gave every evidence of solid faith, and that he was active in evangelism. To this, I bring up 2 Corinthians 11:15, which says, "Therefore it is no great thing if his [Satan's] ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (I am not saying Templeton was unsaved; he could have been a mere backslider. I am just bringing up points that question his faith.) So far, its validity seems to be a bit empty, and the burden of proof for that still remains on Con. Going back to the point, Templeton could have been a spiritually blind man who led other spiritually blind people (Matthew 15:14). Here, we can see that Con's claim about his life and words do not mean much based on 2 Corinthians 11, nor does it mean much if he was active and effective WHILE BEING blind.2. Now, Con did not actually refute the content of what I said about the "blotting out" part. He also makes an appeal to popularity, as well as an appeal to authority. So, I repeat, were David's enemies believers? If that was the case, then perhaps you could have been right. 3. This man was said to be a believer, though. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that he used to repent in his previous times. He then became unrepentant about his sexual relations with his father's wife. This can be cross-referenced with Rev. 2:5, which says, "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." This can apply to that man, who was supposed to do the first works (like repenting). True, verse 4 talks about forsaking the love one had at first, but that's not the same as forsaking faith. For example, a believer can initially be very enthusiastic with fervent prayer. Then, he can get lazier and less enthusiastic (and in the worst case, eventually unrepentant). In this sense, he would be forsaking the love he had at first, but does this mean he abandoned the faith?4. Con makes a straw-man argument here. He quotes only one part of what I said, changing the whole meaning of what I wrote. So, I will repeat the essential part here:Is there a middle ground/a lukewarm position in an eternal sense? Is it possible for one to be not saved and to be not unsaved at the same time?Indeed, I have redefined a word differently from the dictionary definition. Again, however, it must considered that the definition is not in harmony with what Scripture says (therefore justifying my redefinition and usage of semantics). If a Christian is someone who professes to believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, then Con's argument is unfortunately pregnant with the incorrect notion that false apostles/deceitful workers disguising as apostles of Christ (see 2 Corinthians 11:13) are also Christian (since a profession can be either false or true [1]). Rev 3:11-12Verse 11 can be related to James 1:12, which says, "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him." It must be noted that God promises it to those who love Him. "The emphasis of the passage (James 1:1-12) is perseverance under trial. The main point of the verse is that the believer will be blessed by persevering under trial" (2). Plus, the Greek word for crown is a reference to rewards, not salvation (3). From James 1:12, we can also conclude that Rev. 3:12 talks about the perseverance, because the man who endures temptation would CERTAINLY get the crown of life when he is tried as James wrote (for the endurance has to do with overcoming).5. Notice that Matthew 18:23 (KJV) says, "Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants." Since it is settling accounts with servants/believers, we know that they would only get judged for their rewards instead of salvation (4). Since that is the case, it is safe to say that the "handed over to the torturers" part must be the disciplining of believers for their sins (5). If this refers to salvation being lost, then how could such people be referred to as servants anymore? 6. In an earthly sense, there is a process of salvation. However, Con should have seen that I was talking about it in an eternal sense. If one dies and goes to heaven, then that means he believed in Jesus and got saved. If one goes to hell, then he did not believe in Him. There is nothing else here. If someone is about to be saved, but then dies, then he would go to hell (because he was ultimately unsaved).Con needs to remember what "no one" means. No one means not anyone (6), and not anyone means not even us. Peter denied Jesus three times at one point (see John 18:15-27). Did that make him an unbeliever? Moreover, we must think about the Prodigal Son (see Luke 15:11-31) if we are talking about those going astray. Considering this, the said "forsaking" does not prove that they lost their salvation. Con must prove that they lost their salvation to support his position on this. Furthermore, verses 20-21 talk about the knowledge. Knowledge of the Lord does not mean necessarily mean saved. Like I said previously, one can go to a godly church and listen to mighty sermons, read a lot of Scripture, witness the Holy Spirit's work in people, and still be entangled by the worldly defilements. So, it would have been better for them to not have known the right way instead of rejecting the information from church. Con still ignores the fact that my "knowledge" argument applies to Hebrews 10:26-27.True, Hebrews 2 talks about salvation and His message. However, Con still fails to prove that it's about drifting away from faith. I repeat, the same book talks about knowledge. Considering this, we can still ask the same question, "How will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?" regarding those who were never saved in the first place.Finally, I think 1 Timothy 4 and Luke 8 can be answered with Hebrews 6:4-6. Verse 4 says that people just tasted the heavenly gift, meaning that it is temporary faith (7). Since it is temporary, it must come as no surprise that they fall away from the "faith", or that they "believe" for a while, not bringing any fruit to maturity.ConclusionOnce again, I would like to thank Con for accepting this debate. I want to thank him for debating with me until the end. Please vote fairly, everyone.Sources:1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2. http://www.godandscience.org... 3. Ibid.4. Ibid.5. http://www.gotquestions.org... 6. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 7. http://carm.org...