Doctrine of Immutability (Eternal Security)

[Chester]

Where does scripture say that?

Those that believe are in Christ and are secure. Those that do not believe are not in Christ and are not secure.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Ok show me some citations that corroborate your claims of Jesus speaking Greek and Rural peasants from that area being literate in Greek.

What a joke man, why are you here? You trying to convince us to leav our faith?

If you read anything that said jesus did not speak the common language, burn it, because here is no way possible they could know that

 

[OstrichSmiling]

Those that believe are in Christ and are secure. Those that do not believe are not in Christ and are not secure.

That wasn't what the member had stated. I'd like their answer to their pronouncement if you would.

 

[Seedz]

What a joke man, why are you here? You trying to convince us to leav our faith?

If you read anything that said jesus did not speak the common language, burn it, because here is no way possible they could know that

You do realize Jesus spent his time ministering in the small rural towns?

Unlike Paul, his approach was much different. He went to Jerusalem during Passover and that's when he got Crucified.

 

[Chester]

Some great writing and some great gospel truths . . .

Where I think you err is that you begin with "overarching truths" and then interpret Scripture from these truths. The "overarching truths" wind up being your own presuppositions - that is - you have already decided OSAS.

For myself, I will begin with Scripture itself - study the text - and then get my doctrine from a direct study of the text.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

What you have described is far different from the "popular take" on these subjects.

You are actually one of the few that "sort of" go against the grain, without actually admitting to it fully.

I by no means claim that there is not God, neither do I claim atheism as my philosophical explanation for this subject.

I KNOW there is something, but I also know that we don't know.

Question: Would you be willing to read one of these "heathen" books?

oh no. now I am found out

I have an explorer's curiosity. I'll admit to taking steps not everyone takes any ole time a person want to discuss it but I don't find room for that on this forum. it's pretty black and white

which heathen book in particular ?

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Yes, I understand that Greek then was the English of today, but you also need to understand that the poorest peasants (apostles and disciples, including Jesus) likely did not speak it, and much less were literate enough to write what they allegedly wrote.

Just like today, most higher income classes overseas speak English, and the poorer classes don't. Although this is a generalization, it is not blatantly inaccurate.

umm what you say about poorer classes overseas does not really bare out

they listen to American pop, learn the culture and know far more than you seem familiar with

you can read broken English all over the internet, this forum included

and by all means let's limit the scope of the linguistic abilities of Jesus because it fits with the narrative

 

[7seasrekeyed]

This right here, ^ this is my point.

You do realize that the only reason that you know of GOD is because of the bible and what you have heard others say about "him"?

The bible did not come from God's pen.
The sermons you heard on Sunday morning did not come from God's mouth.

I hate to say it, but all that you know of God, is all shaped through presuppositions instilled in you by your culture and surroundings.

I have no idea who you are or where you are from, but correct me if I am wrong by saying that you are from some western society?

If you had been born in the middle east, or in Asia, it is far less likely that you'd be holding onto these beliefs.

My point is that you wouldn't know about the Christian God if it wasn't for someone else, another human being writing or saying something.

Same goes for me, as far as the "secular" views, but they do not condemn people based on how they live their lives as long as it is all within the realm of common sense. i.e. I cannot expect to not go to jail I am responsible for a crime. Christianity automatically condemns everyone.

nope

my first encounter with God was personal and not limited by anyone elses' 'evidence' including scripture

I hate to say it, but all that you know of God, is all shaped through presuppositions instilled in you by your culture and surroundings.

oh do you hate to say it? do you really?

but you could not be more wrong but the valley of subjectivity is a hot zone IMO. go have your own experience why should you believe me?

I have no idea who you are or where you are from, but correct me if I am wrong by saying that you are from some western society?

first gen with some very eastern upbringing. so I corrected you like you asked. and I'm not American...only married to one who is a bit of a globe trotter but can still be a little too much American for my taste but he knows it...it can be the source of irritation but I can get a point across with a joke...laughter is good

If you had been born in the middle east, or in Asia, it is far less likely that you'd be holding onto these beliefs.

well now, I actually do have some relatives going way back . don't know their names though. however, perhaps you need to refresh your memory as where the events of the Bible are supposed to have happened?

the western examples of Christianity far too often leave out the fact Jesus came from a culture that was actually about as middle eastern as one can get. Paul took the gospel to the Gentiles.

sit. big news!!! shocking even!! Jesus was not a blue eyed blond with ringlets. you can thank the middle ages painters for that one

My point is that you wouldn't know about the Christian God if it wasn't for someone else, another human being writing or saying something.

well yes of course that is your point. and the narrative from which you desire to debate. I don't believe in that God. there are many many detailed events from individuals who 'found' God on their own terms and not through a missionary or Bible.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

here's something interesting that is not loaded with Christian 'proof' of life some might find interesting


Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Many may be more cautious about using the term "historical fact" about this idea, since as with many things in ancient history it is not quite as certain as that. But it is generally regarded as the best and most parsimonious explanation of the evidence and therefore the most likely conclusion that can be drawn.

The opposite idea—that there was no historical Jesus at all and that "Jesus Christ" developed out of some purely mythic ideas about a non-historical, non-existent figure—has had a checkered history over the last 200 years, but has usually been a marginal idea at best. Its heyday was in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, when it seemed to fit with some early anthropological ideas about religions evolving along parallel patterns and being based on shared archetypes, as characterized by Sir James Frazer's influential comparative religion study The Golden Bough (1890). But it fell out of favor as the twentieth century progressed and was barely held by any scholars at all by the 1960s.

More recently the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis has experienced something of a revival, largely via the internet, blogging, and "print on demand" self-publishing services. But its proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence, and almost all have clear ideological objectives. Broadly speaking, they fall into two main categories: (1) New Agers claiming Christianity is actually paganism rebadged and (2) anti-Christian atheist activists seeking to use their "exposure" of historical Jesus scholarship to undermine Christianity. Both claim that the consensus on the existence of a historical Jesus is purely due to some kind of iron-grip that Christianity still has on the subject, which has suppressed and/or ignored the idea that there was no historical Jesus at all.

In fact, there are some very good reasons there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter and that it is held by scholars across a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds, including those who are atheists and agnostics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) and Jews (e.g. Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby).

source

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Yes, I understand that Greek then was the English of today, but you also need to understand that the poorest peasants (apostles and disciples, including Jesus) likely did not speak it, and much less were literate enough to write what they allegedly wrote.

Just like today, most higher income classes overseas speak English, and the poorer classes don't. Although this is a generalization, it is not blatantly inaccurate.

Why are you so hung up on that? The apostles had a lot of time to learn Greek if they didn't know it already. Or they could have used an amanuensis.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

You do realize that the only reason that you know of GOD is because of the bible and what you have heard others say about "him"?

The latter part is totally inaccurate from my experience. Though it does sound like what happened to you in your upbringing.

 

[BenFTW]

Some great writing and some great gospel truths . . .

Where I think you err is that you begin with "overarching truths" and then interpret Scripture from these truths. The "overarching truths" wind up being your own presuppositions - that is - you have already decided OSAS.

For myself, I will begin with Scripture itself - study the text - and then get my doctrine from a direct study of the text.

Incorrect. We are looking at facts, scripture that is plainly stated. Things that if we interpret scripture in any other way would lead to contradictions. We are not interpreting scripture from these "overarching truths" but God's word reveals such overarching truths. The presupposition, if you will, is established upon scripture. Having established these facts, we must then look at other scriptures that seem to suggest something otherwise from these... irrevocable, immutable, and binding truths.

 

[notuptome]

The latter part is totally inaccurate from my experience. Though it does sound like what happened to you in your upbringing.

No some God hating college prof got inside her head.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Yes, I understand that Greek then was the English of today, but you also need to understand that the poorest peasants (apostles and disciples, including Jesus) likely did not speak it, and much less were literate enough to write what they allegedly wrote.

Just like today, most higher income classes overseas speak English, and the poorer classes don't. Although this is a generalization, it is not blatantly inaccurate.

An example that Peter, a former fisherman, probably knew Greek is the dialog he had with a Roman centurion in Acts 10. I seriously doubt that the Roman knew Aramaic; maybe, but it seems far more likely that Peter was speaking in the lingua franca of the day.

 

[Seedz]

oh no. now I am found out

I have an explorer's curiosity. I'll admit to taking steps not everyone takes any ole time a person want to discuss it but I don't find room for that on this forum. it's pretty black and white

which heathen book in particular ?

A good one to start may be "Jesus interrupted", it is short, sweet, and easy to digest. It presents the basic "contradictions" and sources for our modern day bible.

It doesnt bash Christianity like atheists books do. It is a scholarly approach, very informative.

 

[Seedz]

umm what you say about poorer classes overseas does not really bare out

they listen to American pop, learn the culture and know far more than you seem familiar with

you can read broken English all over the internet, this forum included

and by all means let's limit the scope of the linguistic abilities of Jesus because it fits with the narrative

If they have a computer and internet they are not in the "poor" class.
My parents brought me here from south america as a kid, I know a thing or 2 about people speaking English in foreign countries. I myself had to learn English from scratch.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Ok show me some citations that corroborate your claims of Jesus speaking Greek and Rural peasants from that area being literate in Greek.

Jesus spoke with a Roman centurion in Capernaum (Matthew 8:5). It's more doubtful that the centurion knew Aramaic than it is that Jesus knew Greek. Jesus grew up in Galilee which had a lot of Hellenist influence. Decapolis was a region of 10 Greek cities in that area.

 

[notuptome]

If they have a computer and internet they are not in the "poor" class.
My parents brought me here from south america as a kid, I know a thing or 2 about people speaking English in foreign countries. I myself had to learn English from scratch.

Does that mean that your Christianity is Roman Catholic based?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Ralph-]

Where does scripture say that?

The Gospel according to Ralph.

"12Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life."- 1 John 5:12

24As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25And this is what he promised us—eternal life.

26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

28And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming."-1 John 2:24-28

 

[Ralph-]

I have not seen the doctrine of eternal security widely accepted in the Pentecostal or charismatic groups.

I believe in eternal security.

You are eternally secure in Christ. That's why you need to stay in Christ.

The Calvinists have sort of given it a bad reputation but it is quite biblical.

There is nothing secure or assured about salvation in Calvinism. Even that doctrine acknowledges that you can't know if you're among the elect while in this life. And somehow that got known as the doctrine of security and assurance. That's funny.