The Great Once Saved Always Saved Debate | Pastor Tommy McMurtry vs. AK Richardson

Donny Budinsky hosts a debate on Once Saved Always Saved between Tommy McMurtry and AK Richardson. Is Once Saved Always Saved Biblical? And can a believer lose his salvation? These questions are engaged in this important and must-watch debate.

Debate Topic:
Once Saved Always Saved

Pastor Tommy McMurtry - Once Saved Always Saved

AK Richardson - Conditional Security

Moderator - Donny Budinsky

This debate is hosted by Standing For Truth Ministries.

Structure for Debate:
6 relevant passages are engaged in this debate. These 6 passages include 3 from each debater (3 OSAS and 3 conditional security/anti-OSAS).

5-minute opening statements for each passage/topic (6 passages in total). This time is used to exegete the passage being debated.

2-minute responses/rebuttals for each passage/topic.

10 minutes of discussion for each passage being debated.

5 minutes each for closing statements

Audience questions and answers.



Soteriology Debates and Discussions:

To Support the Ministry:

Standing For Truth Ministries OFFICIAL Website:

Support Standing For Truth:

Interviews Hosted by Standing For Truth:

Debates hosted/moderated by Standing For Truth:

DISCLAIMER - The views shared by guests on Standing For Truth are not necessarily representative of the views of Donny and Standing For Truth Ministries.

The Evolution CHALLENGE:

End Times Theology Dawn of the Antichrist (Book by Donny Budinsky):

The Endogenous Retrovirus Handbook (Dismantling the Best Evidence for Common Descent):

Special Creation UPDATED and EXPANDED:

[michaelelam]

The unbiblical gymnastics one must do to justify OSAS is amazing.

[histruthunfolding]

Not even the moderator of this debate knows how this debate is framed! Tommy has no idea about how to debate at all. AK, God bless you brother for your AMAZING patience.

[kac]

There is a very simple problem with the dogma of “once saved, always saved.” That problem is that it is just not biblical! The truth is, the dogma of “once saved, always saved” is part of the doctrines and commandments of men. Consider Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23 → Galatians 1:6-20 and II John 1:7-11!

[aussierob]

Why do we keep having these debates ? Once saved always saved is heresy. "Once saved, always saved is not Biblical . Do you know what the problem is ? IT IS THE REFORMATION.
The first person to espouse the idea of "Once saved, always saved" was John Calvin in the mid. 16th century Even Martin Luther did not subscribe to this teaching. Prior to Calvin, the unanimous consent of early Christians was that a person is capable of losing salvation by committing a grave sin, as John spoke about in 1.John 5:16-17
No suggestion of "once saved, always saved" cannot be found on the lips of any Christian before Calvin.

[joshuaharling]

I have never heard of either of these fellows, but I must say well done to AK, very politely and well articulated. Mr McMurtry on the other hand. It was frustrating to watch him try to deny and talk around Hebrews 10. It appeared that Mr McMurtry was having a different debate for most of the time. He regularly left the topic of "once saved always saved" and drifted off into arguments about faith vs works and if salvation is eternal or not. The few times he attempted to address the topic he lacked scriptural support and just imposed his own assertions. He seemed very confused at times when asked the same question he gave very different answers over and over, very inconsistent and incoherent. Also seemingly he has no concept of burden of proof, I hope he learns from this experience.

[Counterpoint_Apologetics]

Tommy doesn't understand the format of the debate and how affirmative position works. He needs to point to a passage that necessitates his position. Not simply possibly implies. Neutral and negative texts dont prove your affirmation that is needed to necessitate your position. That is the point of plausible alternative positions by the negative

[ThePipesz]

AK " Would the Holy Spirit allow you to sin?" Pastor Tommy McMurtry "well he does"
then later on he says in the hypothetically blowing up an orphanage, Pastor Tommy McMurtry "I believe the Holy Spirit would NOT allow me to do that"
WOW so which is it, does he allow you to sin or not?
Great Patience AK

[paulwiley]

I believe AK did a good job with the debate! A great quote from AK about not believing in a works salvation but in a faith salvation! We Christians don't just lose our freewill when we come to Christ. We can freely come to Him while we can also freely depart from Him according to Scripture like Hebrews 3:12-14. The Lord will not hold us hostages against our will if we so choose to leave Him to worship false gods.

[truthfirst]

Such a man will be saved, but so as through fire. (1 Cor. 3) Loss or REWARD, not loss of Salvation. And temporal loss of joy and fellowship. I am so glad Tommy mentioned imputed righteousness, SUCH a key point related to OSAS! Can you ever drink of the living water and then later thirst? NO!

[biblicaltheologyexegesisan]

McMurtry got owned by Gal 5
This guy is a typical eisegete he just reads into and over the text his osas

[Soonerguy]

Tommy being a KJV-onlyist blew up this debate before it even started honestly 🙄

[SteveMasslock]

I really didn't like the format. But with that said, I disagree adamantly with AK, but he did a better job. He was better prepared.

[JKV]

So if you are saved you cannot freely choose to Walk away? That takes away free will IMO…

[helgeevensen]

a good debate... but as usual each side starts the debate with their finished presuppositions... that is the nature of the standard debate format... but the result is often that each side is prooftexting their way through the debate and they are "bound" to their convictions all the way through... i think many would like to see a more objective discussion where both sides come to the discussion laying aside their own convictions, for the sake of discussion only, where each side "reset to zero" their conviction for the discussion and the discussion centers around as objectively as possible looking at the texts to try to sort out what the texts mean.... that could be very helpful for the listeners... another format than the more traditional debate format...

[Counterpoint_Apologetics]

I like this format Donny. Definitely do this style again.

[matthewbrown]

My thought of OSAS is a false doctrine. Like a christian man and women get a divorce and remarry to someone else is living in adultery. Christ preached this and so did Paul 1 Corinthian 7:39. If you're OSAS it's ok to go against Christ teaching because you are saved. Adultery can't enter the Kingdom of God. Why tell christian it's ok to live in sin willfully because you can't lose your salvation. The only one that has eternal life is Christ. We need to live a holy life not for salvation but we love our King(Jesus). Christ death, burial, and resurrection is part of salvation. Christ paid for our sins. Christ didn't died for someone to say I am a follower of Christ but is comfortable in living in sin willfully.

[vinkosusac]

When AK ​​​​​​Gives as an example Simon from Acts 8, as an example of someone who can or who has lost salvation, just because Peter told him that he (Simon)had no part in this (“this”-meaning he has no part in sharing the spirit by putting his hands on other- it's obvious that this is the context of what Peter was talking about), this shows how much people like him really don't know the Bible

[numbers_]

Mr Tommy was the twist-o-matic until AK's last scripture, then Tommy fell apart completely...

[Orangeokie]

1:25:20 what AK said is 100% accurate. This is what happens when you can't prove your position from your own text. You push the burden of proof onto your opponent.

[CosmicSeptic]

The "I don't believe in Bigfoot" argument is the definition of begging the question. It's literally just assuming that your opponent could not possibly be correct, thus all of his explanations are ridiculous and impossible.

Whether Tommy is right or not doesn't particularly matter for the sake of the argument - it's poor justification for your view. I'm used to hearing similar argumentation from hardcore atheists and even worse, presuppositionalists (jk, I love my presup brothers), so let's use better arguments and actually defend our positions.