My opponent is talking gibberish now, and is not presenting anything in any logical format. I think my opponent is trying to make an attack on my argument when he/she says 'what must I believe to be saved?' As from the previous debate, my opponent has a knack for asking flawed questions. And so I must reiterate. To be saved, there is belief involved and there is practical work to be involved. The Bible lists 5 'steps' that must be done in order to be saved. Notice how only one of them is actual believe. All the others are different works. Hearing (Romans 10:17) Believing the Gospel (Mark 16:16) (Hebrews 11:6) (Hebrews 5:8,9) Repentance (Luke 13:3) Confess Christ (Matthew 10:32) Be baptised (Acts 2:38) I am fairly certain this is what my opponent was asking of me. Now, looking at what my opponent said in a completely unintelligible rambling: 'what if a person is just learning what must be believed? then your theory of believing everything would preclude them from salvation.' To start, it is not my theory because it isn't a theory, its a practice. Secondly, unless my opponent can justify how this practice of believing everything can preclude them from salvation, my argument will hold firm. I am under the impression that we are from different belief systems in Christianity and m opponent is going ahead and making assumptions about what I believe. Please don't. The rest of my opponents text does not contain any new arguments or notable material. I must ask him/her to please make a better structured argument in future as this is really hard to read and refute. My thanks.
what the absolute minimum needed to believe to be saved is not clear
This example is PRO.