CreateDebate


Debate Info

29
21
Saved by Grace Legalism will save you
Debate Score:50
Arguments:61
Total Votes:50
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Saved by Grace (21)
 
 Legalism will save you (21)

Debate Creator

brontoraptor(28599) pic



Phariseeism will not save you according to the Bible, only Grace

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'"
LUKE 18:13

"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted." LUKE 18:14

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" EPHESIANS 2:8

"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand." JOHN 10:28


"You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." GALATIANS 5:4

Saved by Grace

Side Score: 29
VS.

Legalism will save you

Side Score: 21
3 points

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Phariseeism

Basically following the letter of religious law is not as important as following the spirit of it. Which means most of the holy rollers on this site telling the rest of us we're going to hell based on this or that are actually the ones practicing Pharaseeism. Meanwhile the people trying to play nice and show any compassion are more in line with the spirit of what religion is about.

Side: Saved by Grace

for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." ROMANS 10:13

Side: Saved by Grace

He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering." MARK 5:34

Side: Saved by Grace

Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." LUKE 23:42

Jesus answered him, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." LUKE 23:43

Side: Saved by Grace

"Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." JOHN 9:41

Side: Saved by Grace
NowASaint(1380) Clarified Banned
1 point

Oh? So you claim to be blind so you are not guilty? Is that how it works? You claim ignorance as an excuse?

Side: Saved by Grace
1 point

Partly. Everyone is ignorant about something. Even Christ's apostles were confused and asking questions much of the time. They were also flawed men, but faithful men. Christ didn't ask Peter about his goodness or his righteousness but one simple question. "Do you love me?"

Side: Legalism will save you
1 point

I am wrong on my assessment that your icon is an unholy picture and using it to promote your name is an unholy thing to do?

Really?

Do you have chapter and verse which says it's ok to promote yourself under the name of a hybrid animal and an icon of a red eyed demonic looking character?

Side: Saved by Grace
1 point

Nope. But I do have verses about grace and the weightier matters of the law.

Side: Legalism will save you

8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me." 2 CORINTHIANS 12:8-9

Side: Saved by Grace
NowASaint(1380) Clarified Banned
1 point

Do you have chapter and verse which says it's ok to promote yourself under the name of a hybrid animal and an icon of a red eyed demonic looking character?

Side: Saved by Grace
1 point

It's an emperial guard from Star Wars, not a demonic character.

Side: Legalism will save you
1 point

It's an emperial guard from Star Wars, not a demonic character.

Side: Legalism will save you
NowASaint(1380) Clarified Banned
1 point

that weakness was a physical weakness, Paul never made excuses for sin, never made excuses for his faults.

Show me one place where Paul boasted of being weak toward any ungodly or unholy behavior or action. You can't do it. Any time Paul mentioned something he did wrong it was always portrayed as sin, and in the passage you quote Paul is portraying his request that God remove the thorn in his flesh as a sinful request. The correct word their is "infirmities", referring to physical weakness, and in verse ten it is elaborated on with "in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake".....all physical conditions of weakness Paul had to endure obeying God and God's grace is what enabled Paul to endure that thorn in His flesh and be obedient, be holy, carry his cross and deny himself of ungodliness and worldly lusts, to be holy in all manner of conversation.

The way you are twisting the word "infirmities" into weaknesses, you are making excuses for sins of unbridled emotion....and the passage you are quoting has nothing to do with emotional weakness except that it results in Paul's longing to be holy in the midst of troubles.

You need to quit listening to your grace heresy teachers and do a topical Bible study of holiness. Paul was a holy man, yet you say you know no holy man. You are trying to change Paul into an emotionally weak man like yourself, making excuses for your faults.

Side: Saved by Grace
2 points

You'll have to quote me making excuses for sins and faults. I have not. You do greatly error. Everyone longs to be holy, but if you are obsessed with "being holy", thinking you have obtained your own holiness, then you have made Christ into a liar, the same Christ that said "no man is good."

If you are accusing me of "being impolite", you must realize that we are both paddling that boat together, and then must convince yourself that telling it like it is, is a sin. If it is, Christ sinned, which is not the case. He himself said that "with man it is impossible".

Side: Saved by Grace
1 point

Well he did murder Christians in mass "in the name of God"........

And literally referred to himself as "the chief of all sinners".

Christ didn't give the shpeel about those who "have been forgiven much love much" for pointless grins.

He said the woman who had "many sins" was forgiven because? She loved well.

He had mercy on the woman adulterer for no particular reason. He just said I don't condemn you.

Hell is still hot, but the way out isn't burdensome. Legalism is burdensome.

Side: Legalism will save you
NowASaint(1380) Clarified Banned
1 point

that weakness was a physical weakness, Paul never made excuses for sin, never made excuses for his faults.

Show me one place where Paul boasted of being weak toward any ungodly or unholy behavior or action. You can't do it. Any time Paul mentioned something he did wrong it was always portrayed as sin, and in the passage you quote Paul is portraying his request that God remove the thorn in his flesh as a sinful request. The correct word their is "infirmities", referring to physical weakness, and in verse ten it is elaborated on with "in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake".....all physical conditions of weakness Paul had to endure obeying God and God's grace is what enabled Paul to endure that thorn in His flesh and be obedient, be holy, carry his cross and deny himself of ungodliness and worldly lusts, to be holy in all manner of conversation.

The way you are twisting the word "infirmities" into weaknesses, you are making excuses for sins of unbridled emotion....and the passage you are quoting has nothing to do with emotional weakness except that it results in Paul's longing to be holy in the midst of troubles.

You need to quit listening to your grace heresy teachers and do a topical Bible study of holiness. Paul was a holy man, yet you say you know no holy man. You are trying to change Paul into an emotionally weak man like yourself, making excuses for your faults.

Side: Saved by Grace
2 points

In your other thread you posted that I was a demon. That's probably not a particularly holy accusation to make toward someone that confesses that Jesus is the Son of God and looks to Him for guidance, and if it is not true, then you are teetering on the unforgivable sin, so beware. Nevertheless, the bigger fallacy was most likely you blocking me from your debate, then attacking me multiple times in very nasty ways, knowing that I could not respond. If that's what "holy" looks like, I'm sure that it's most likely not what most reasonable people would want to take part in or be a part of.

Side: Saved by Grace
1 point

I portray what I do wrong as sin. You've created a strawman to knock down that doesn't exist. I don't have any "sinning is okay" posts or threads.

Side: Saved by Grace

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former." MATTHEW 23:23

Side: Saved by Grace

Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful." HEBREWS 10:23

Side: Saved by Grace
NowASaint(1380) Disputed Banned
1 point

Hold unswervingly, or what God calls "hold fast.......without wavering" is a an exhortation to live a holy life, "hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering,....".

If you will read the rest of the chapter, which apparently you have never done, you will see the verse you quoted is part of a long dissertation on living a holy life in obedience to God.

Verse 36, central to the passage states "For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise".

Sure you can spend your days playing dungeons and dragons and masking yourself behind an icon pic of a black robed demon and actually be saved and receive the promise of Heaven but that is not being patient in obedience to God to do His will. His grace enables you to do His will, His will is that you obey Him in everything you say, do, and think and that will require you name your sins, confess them, and forsake them and never make excuses for them by saying things like "nobody is perfect, I'm only human, we all have faults". God does not buy excuses. If He did, why would he have had to punish Adam and Eve?

Side: Legalism will save you
1 point

So name us one person that you've seen lead a holy, perfect life.

Side: Saved by Grace

"If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself." 2 TIMOTHY 2:13

Side: Saved by Grace
NowASaint(1380) Clarified Banned
1 point

Again here you are twisting this passage into an excuse for sin. The Bible never gives excuses for sin in any form, no matter if you call it faults, weaknesses, being human, or whatever.

I know you just want to waste your time in ungodly entertainments and that's why you are trying to justify yourself.

Side: Saved by Grace
1 point

You'll have to show us the ungodly entertainments, otherwise you are baring false witness. No one is making excuses for sin, only saying your sins and mistakes will not damn you to eternal fire, per your being faithful to God/Christ and making a conscious effort for the last to be more than the first, and His being faithful to you per his own promise.

Also as far as you know, I could have gotten saved a month ago, and your expectance for me to be the Apostle Paul would be unfounded and even illogical and unreasonable. You come to Christ where you are at, not where NowASaint claims to be at.

Side: Legalism will save you
1 point

Nope. Still no excuses have been given for a sin. Your conscience will try to lead you away per the spirit. When you fail, he's still faithful. I don't need a "license to sin" to be imperfect and seek redemption at the cross.

Side: Legalism will save you
NowASaint(1380) Clarified Banned
1 point

You forgot the beginning of chapter 2, ".......be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. The kind of grace you are inventing is grace for being in the world, indulging in worldly entertainments and activities which are in the world, of the world, by the world, and for the world. The grace you are inventing is not God's grace. God's grace is for obeying Him.

"...be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus" is a command for us to obey, it is not a permission slip for not being holy in things we say, do, think, or in places we go.

Side: Saved by Grace
1 point

You have attacked and insulted me. I have not made any on you, thus this debate is turning South, per your own definitions and claims. I have seen you refer to others as "idiots" and other such terms, which to call another a "fool" endangers one to hellfire according to the Bible.

Nevertheless, I do not go anywhere ungodly, say anything worse than you, and you have no idea as to what I think because you are not omniscient.

Side: Legalism will save you
1 point

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." MATTHEW 5:22

Side: Legalism will save you
1 point

No. Actually it says you are saved by grace through faith, not that you are alive because of grace.

Side: Legalism will save you
1 point

Your argument suggests that God is like a father who "loves His children unconditionally"...as long as they mind. That would refute Christ's teaching and his attitudes towards "sinners" when on the Earth.

Side: Legalism will save you
1 point

"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

1 John 4:8

Side: Legalism will save you
1 point

"Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins."

1 Peter 4:8

Side: Saved by Grace
1 point

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

1 Corinthains 13:2

Side: Legalism will save you

At least laws exist. They do more to save people than religion ever will. Because religions promises are empty while laws have real, tangible effects in reality and we can actually enforce them .

on a side note the entire left side of this debate is quite comical. The bickering over minor religious points that ultimately mean nothing. As if one side is right and the other is wrong when the entire debate rests on a false premise that god exists. Its akin to arguing what color a unicorns horn is.

Side: Legalism will save you
1 point

Laws will? Who's laws, manmade laws like the ones they had in Nazi Germany? Or do you mean the laws in Communist China? Uh huh, they worked out great for everyone. Maybe you meant the laws preventing Trump from keeping Islamic extremists out of the United States... Many laws in human history were used to oppress, shut up, or kill people. If those laws are all you have, you still die in the end. Convince yourself of that being beneficial to someone...

If you found the left side of this debate "comical", then that means you actually took the time to read an entire debate called "Phariseeism will not save you according to the Bible, only Grace", and as an unbelieving Atheist...Ahem.. I digress.

I know the militant Atheist apologetics sites tell you to use the word "unicorn" as often as you can, I know, I've read them, but when you assert that a magical nothing manifested everything, unicorn comparisons are logically invalid. Why? Because a unicorn is a strawman argument, and would simply be a horse that evolved a horn, if you are a Darwinist, so it's actually your clan's creature and has a possibility of existence, according to yourselves....

What I and NowASaint did was debate. That's what you do on a debate forum. That's kind of the whole point. And... you added nothing to the topic at hand., so off ya go.

Side: Saved by Grace
AveSatanas(4443) Disputed
1 point

Laws will? Who's laws, manmade laws like the ones they had in Nazi Germany? Or do you mean the laws in Communist China? Uh huh, they worked out great for everyone.

Not all laws are good. But seeing as the world came together to destroy nazi germany id say there was a pretty large consensus that what they were doing was bad. Barely anyone endorsed it.

As for china communism is an economic system apart from moral types of laws. But again, very few people endorse those views.

Maybe you meant the laws preventing Trump from keeping Islamic extremists out of the United States... Many laws in human history were used to oppress, shut up, or kill people. If those laws are all you have, you still die in the end. Convince yourself of that being beneficial to someone...

If you found the left side of this debate "comical", then that means you actually took the time to read an entire debate called "Phariseeism will not save you according to the Bible, only Grace", and as an unbelieving Atheist...Ahem.. I digress.

Not all laws are good. but the laws we make are all we have.

I know the militant Atheist apologetics sites tell you to use the word "unicorn" as often as you can, I know, I've read them, but when you assert that a magical nothing manifested everything, unicorn comparisons are logically invalid. Why?

Lmao militant atheist sites. Like what? i havent gone to any type of atheist site in years. back when i was like 16 i went on a blog or two but i was mostly on this site. And theyre only militant from your perspective. Are they shooting anyone or forcing them to convert? No. We just argue against your bullshit. Sorry you dont like that.

Unicorn is just an easy analogy that i can assume youll understand. I could use anything else and its the same argument. Magic teapot behind jupiter. leprechauns. whatever.

I didnt assert that at all, nor does it refute my opinion. It doesnt render anything i said invalid.

Because a unicorn is a strawman argument, and would simply be a horse that evolved a horn, if you are a Darwinist, so it's actually your clan's creature and has a possibility of existence, according to yourselves....

No its not its an analogy. I said your argument is LIKE arguing over the color of a unicorns horn. Not that that is what youre literally arguing about.

I mean, if a horse developed a horn from a mutation and it served a significant benefit then sure it would evolve to have horns eventually over a long time. So thats not even impossible. But for the most part horses are domesticated and are being artificially selected by us based on the traits we want. Its the same with how we domesitcated and breeded dogs. So we probably wouldnt be selecting for a horn trait and even if we did it would take an incredibly long time to do. We do breed for things like hair length and stuff like that which can change in a shorter time span and is more closely tied to genetics than mutation.

What I and NowASaint did was debate. That's what you do on a debate forum. That's kind of the whole point. And... you added nothing to the topic at hand., so off ya go.

I didnt say it wasnt a debate i said it was a silly debate.

Side: Legalism will save you