Doctrine of Immutability (Eternal Security)
- Thread starter BenFTW
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
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.
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.
7
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
7
nope
my first encounter with God was personal and not limited by anyone elses' 'evidence' including scripture
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?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
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
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.
7
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
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
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.
-
1
- Show all
S
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
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
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.
R
The Gospel according to Ralph.
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
R
I believe in eternal security.
You are eternally secure in Christ. That's why you need to stay in Christ.
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.
You are eternally secure in Christ. That's why you need to stay in Christ.
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.