The Donahue - Morrison Debate
on "Once Saved, Always Saved?"
Patrick Donahues Third Affirmative
My
friend Steve begins his last rebuttal by expressing surprise that someone could actually
believe exactly what the Bible says that God is no respecter of persons (Acts
10:34) and that Jesus is the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey
Him (Hebrews 5:9). Steves
expressed attitude here is the fruit of the once saved always saved doctrine. A Christian really doesnt have to obey God
(Matthew 7:21); he can just live any old way he wants to.
I wonder if Steve believes that a Christian can quit abiding in the teaching
of Christ (the truth of the gospel, Galatians 2:14) as Peter did and not have God (II John
verse 9), but still be saved?
Next,
Steve wants to know if a Christian commits willful sin, will he lose his salvation? Hebrews 10:26 answers Steves question
precisely by saying if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of
the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.
Steve
asked about what a Christian must do in order to receive forgiveness for his sins. Acts 8:22 and I John 1:9 answer this question, and
they do not state that a once born again Christian needs to be born again again. The scriptures teach he doesnt need to be
re-baptized.
Steve
presents what he feels is a dilemma about a Christian sinning fifteen times and then Steve
presents a solution to the dilemma. He gives
no proof for the validity of his solution, but only asserts it is so. Evidently he feels the Bible solution is too hard,
therefore he must make up his own solution. Gods
solution is that we must repent of our sins in order to be forgiven of them (Luke 13:3,
Acts 17:30, Acts 2:38, 8:22). Is there
anything unclear about those four passages?
Steve
wonders about the possibility of re-election if my position is true, but all I
have to do is call the readers attention to II Peter 1:10 which reads,
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election
sure
. If we cant lose our
election, then that verse makes no sense whatsoever.
Steve
asserts that II Corinthians 13:5 teaches his position, but it teaches the very opposite. Why would a Christian need to examine
yourselves, whether ye be in the faith if it is impossible to lose your faith once
you have it? Hebrews 3:12 explicitly says
that a brother can change and become an unbeliever, departing from the living
God. You see, this subject is not hard
to understand. The Bible is simple and plain
on the matter.
I
replied in detail to Colossians 1:23 and I John 2:19 in my last article, so there is no
need to repeat myself since Steve chose not to respond to my replies. We agree with Steve on Matthew 7:23 that
counterfeit Christians were never saved to begin with.
Steve
refers to the seal of the Holy Spirit that
God gives faithful Christians, but fails to recognize that a seal can be broken (Matthew
27:66ff). Steve ignored my point on Jude
verse 21 which reads, Keep yourselves in the love of God
. This shows Gods seal can be broken if we
want out. God does not force us to love Him.
Steve
responds to I Corinthians 9:25-27 but ignores the main point, that Paul recognized that if
he didnt live the Christ-like life, he would become a reprobate
(rejected by God).
On
an altogether different issue, Steve asserts that Cornelius was saved before he was
baptized in water, but the text never says or implies that.
I wonder if Steve thinks that Saul was saved in I Samuel 19 while he was
plotting to kill Gods anointed David, simply because Saul had a miraculous measure
of the Spirit?
Steve
asserts that if a brother loses his salvation he would not be a brother
anymore, but it is only assertion. We gave
many passages in my last affirmative that clearly show this assertion is incorrect. Steves response to those passages was
basically that when the Bible calls a someone a brother, he might not really be a brother. This is tantamount to questioning the inspiration
of the scriptures. Steves correctly
points out that the Bible talks about false brethren, and men who are brethren because
they are of the same Jewish race, but none of the proof texts I gave fit into either of
those categories. The examples I gave of
people who fell away are called brother in the sense of brother in
Christ. Steve in effect says that God
is not telling us the truth when he tells us these people are brethren. I urge the reader to accept what God says. He is never wrong.
When God says someone is a brother (in Christ), God is right. It is easy to uphold the once saved always
saved position or another other false position if you just say the Bible is wrong
whenever it contradicts your position. That
is the tact that Steve has chosen to take.
On
the question of do we presently possess eternal life, I agree with the Bible that we do
(John 3:36), and I disagree with the quotes you supplied from Walter Scott, M.H. Tucker,
and Tom Warren on this detail. Like I said in
my last article, eternal and un-lose-able are two different
concepts.
Steve
now admits that his argument on faith in Acts 8:13 was incorrect, but still
holds to his position on the passage by ignoring my argument on the word also
in the verse. Go back and read what I said. The word also proves Simon was saved just
like the other Samaritans. And Steve already
agrees with the rest of the passage (verses 20-23) which teaches that Simon was
subsequently lost. Saved, then lost; Simon
proves my position on this issue.
Galatians
5:4
Back
to my original arguments, Steve admits that Galatians 5:4 is referring to Christians, but
he evidently thinks such a Christian can be saved even though Christ shall profit
him nothing. I am amazed that someone
who believes the Bible can think that a person can be saved without benefiting from Christ
and His death.
Revelation
3:5
Revelation
3:5 clearly shows it is possible for a persons name to be erased from the book of
life, which would have to mean a saved person losing his salvation, but for whatever
reason, many will just not accept this plain teaching.
James
5:19-20
Steves answer to James 5:19-20 is that
the people who erred from the truth here and potentially lost their soul to death were not
really brethren. Again that is equivalent to
rejecting the inspiration of the scriptures because the Bible says they were brethren. It doesnt say they were false brethren and
Steve would admit it is not talking about brethren in the sense of nationality, but they
were brethren in Christ. We human beings
might assume someone is a brother and not know for sure, but God wrote this. He knows. He
doesnt have to assume or guess. And he
says such a brother can possibly err from the truth and lose his soul. I believe what James 5:19-20 says because the
Bible in inerrant.
I beg the reader to accept
what God says in I Corinthians 8:11. A
brother (God said he was a brother, and God should know) can perish (be
condemned according to the parallel verse, Rom 14:23).
II
Peter 2:20-22
Look
with an open mind at II Peter 2:20-22. If
someone has escaped the sins of the world through the knowledge of the Lord,
wouldnt you say that would have to be a person who has become a Christian? But if that same person turns back to the worldly
life and God says his fate is worse than one who was never saved to begin with, isnt
it clear that Christian is now lost again?
II
Peter 1:9-11
II Peter 1:9 is talking about a person who was purged from his old sin. But Steve said this text is talking about a person who was never saved to begin with. Isnt this another case where Steve is saying that God is wrong? Consider this picture of Steve arguing with God. God first says a certain person was purged from his old sins. Steve respectfully says to God, you are mistaken, you just thought they were purged from their sins. God replies . How do you think God would reply to Steve? Verses 10-11 go on to present the possibility that this person would fall and lose his entrance into the everlasting kingdom if he doesnt put on (live) what we call the Christian graces.
Hebrews
3:12
I
repeat my question, if God himself says the people of Hebrews 3:12 were holy
brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling (verse 1), just
why doesnt Steve believe it is really so? Doesnt
Steve believe that God wrote the Bible? Please
answer for us Steve. And, just like it is
impossible to depart from Atlanta if you never were there to begin with, it is impossible
to depart from the living God if you never were with Him (saved) to begin
with.
John
15:2,6
I
ask Steve again in regard to John 15:2-6, can a person be clean through the
word, if he has not really become a Christian?
Since when are non-Christians clean from their sin? And
since when are counterfeit Christians in Christ as this passage depicts?
I
Timothy 5:12
In
I Timothy 5 Paul is discussing a group of widows among the Christians that would be
specially cared for benevolently. Pauls
instruction goes further to say that the younger widows should not be taken into this
number. His reason is that they should marry
(verse 14) lest they wax wanton against (turn away from) Christ
Having
condemnation (the KJV uses a stronger word here), because they have cast off their first
faith. These young widows were clearly
Christians, but Paul recognized the possibility that they might cast off their faith and
be condemned. Clearly it is possible then for
a Christian to lose her faith and be lost.
Luke
8:13
We
are presented the possibility in Luke 8:13 that someone can become a believer, and in time
of temptation fall away. It
wont do for Steve to respond that these people never really believed or had a
false/pretended belief; God said that they did believe.
And we can be 100% sure He is right about it.
Furthermore, their falling away proves the same can happen to any Christian today. Verses like this are why I take the position I do
in this debate. It is much easier just to
believe what the texts clearly say than to work and work to avoid their plain meaning.
Conclusion
The reader should
consider again the following question: Who in
this debate is just accepting the plain meaning of the Biblical texts, and who is working
real hard to explain away (get around) their plain meaning? Steve concludes his article by saying about me,
If a persons
theology has no place for a Christian being born again and being transformed when they
believe
. Not only do I believe
that a Christian is someone who is born again and transformed, I believe that he must
be transformed. Steves position is that
being transformed into a new creature is optional.
--Patrick T. Donahue
CLICK HERE TO GET BACK TO THE INDEX OF LINKS FOR THIS DEBATE
CLICK HERE FOR THE NEXT SPEECH IN THE DISCUSSION
Email the Editor at teacher@religiousinstructor.com
| CURRENT ISSUE | MAIN PAGE | BACK ISSUES | DISCUSSION PAGE |
| SPECIAL STUDIES | SERMON OUTLINES |