Once Saved, Always Saved

To answer your request: No. I'm going to need some reason to accept the first part of this argument before moving on to the second part. If you were arguing Captain Picard was/is the best captain in Star Fleet that "strictly within the bounds" of Star Trek canon would be a clear and acceptable assumption. However, that isn't the argument at hand, you actually believe the Bible and believe salvation exists. You are in favor of the premise that salvation is one and always because you believe the bible to be 100% accurate. You aren't arguing that this is true within Christian myth. You are arguing that this is true... period. I, however, disagree with this premise because I think your book is exactly as real as Star Trek and a fraction as interesting. Why isn't this all just silly unevidenced nonsense? I'm entertained to hear that you expected an inter-Christian debate. I'm glad to know that non-Christians are basically chopped liver to you. Free free to post that as a requirement in your next debate, it wasn't a requirement here. There's no reason to suppose that the Bible is 1% true much less 100% true. What about the parts which clearly contradict the other parts? Are both assumption suppose to be accepted as true? Wouldn't my examples of people falling away from belief and losing salvation be true? Wouldn't your examples of people falling away and not losing salvation also be true? Or are we relying on a different understanding of 100%. You can go ahead and declare anybody who "falls away" to have never really believed in the first place. Sure, you can hear and believe and have no roots and fall away... but that's because you never really heard or believed? This belief seems pretty common within Christian circles. I know a good number of atheists who were exceedingly devout Christians before losing their faith. Many people simply suggest that they didn't *REALLY* believe in a fairly insulting manner. In Islam, for contrast, it's commonly understood that you can stop believing. Apostasy is, by Sharia law, punished by death unless they start believing again. But, at the very least, they don't pretend it's otherwise. Christians either whitewash the past and declare apostates previous false Christians or say that regardless that they spend their days talking about how false religion is and how nonsensical the scripture, convoluted the apologetics, and silly the beliefs... they are still saved. What establishes salvation is possible in the first place? A dusty book and pleas for an extremely odd assumption aside how is this even plausible? If I telepathically communicate to a first-century wish-granting zombie Jew and communicate my love in a pure form then I may partake of the bounty enjoyed when he, as God, donned a baby suit, hung around for a while, and sacrificed Himself to Himself to forgive me for somebody else's wrongdoing? Blood sacrifice to forgive me is bad enough. Blood sacrifice to forgive me for something I didn't do is downright absurd! And, to top it off, the evidence strongly shows that this thing these other people did... never really happened in the first place! I wonder, would you prefer Jesus have not died for your sins? If you'd prefer your salvation, how far would you go? Would you nail him up yourself if it means you'd spend eternity in paradise? It it were remotely a plausible assumption to make, I'd be happy to make it. I can't see how the assumption is plausible much less able to be established. Salvation is unevidenced nonsensical wishful thinking.