But for John 3:16 to teach eternal security shouldn't eternal security at least be mentioned in the verse? "Eternal security" does not even exist in the verse. To "believe in Jesus" means not merely intellectual assent or however you put it. Faith IS important, but we must also DO what He commanded or else our faith is a dead faith(Ja 2:14-17).
So are you basing your judgement on scripture itself? Or are you basing your judgement on what you're reading into scripture?
Eternal security is just the doctrinal name for what Scripture does
teach, namely, that every single person who believes has everlasting life and will never perish. The "has" is present tense, meaning they have it now
. Eternal life never ends.
You're right to a point. By being baptized I have been saved(Mk 16:16). By continuing in the faith and living my life in cooperation with God's grace He is working in me-thus I am being saved(1Cor 1:18; 2Cor 2:15). And once my life on earth is complete and as I continued in the faith I will be saved(Matt 24:13).
But it does not follow that I can't lose salvation by forfeiting faith(Heb 10:24-29). For is by being faithful we are saved, then by being faithless we are also saved so long as we had faith at some time before, and that one act guarantees eternal security? The gift of "eternal life" here consists of receiving the divine life of God through grace(2Pet 1:4) and it is a first installment(2Cor 5:5). Ity is not the fullness of eternal life that we will receive when the heavens and earth are renewed on the last Day. Therefore we most definitely CAN lose it.
Your version sounds dreadfully like the sin of presupmtion.
Thus, it can never be lost (less the person would become dead). Therefore, eternal life cannot be lost. That's just ES, where ES is shorthand for the doctrine.
Eternal life cannot be lost, but neither is our salvation complete until we die(see above Scriptures). So long as we are here on earth we are the Israelites in the desert during their 40 years. It is our time of testing. And with the testing comes the possibility that if we are faithless and disobedient we will fail.
ES says that life is not a test. To insist upon ES is to say that spiritual warfare is an illusion because there's no need to fight or perservere-your salvation is guaranteed.
It is a lie.
The Church teaches-as she has always taught-that salvation is a process or is like a trust that has been put away for us. It is a promise, but it is not a guaranteed promise. Its like your father putting your inheritance into a trust and he tells you that that inheritence belongs to you-it is yours. But there are conditions of maturity that you must meet in order to receive it: like doing your chores, doing your homework, graduating high school and college, etc.
By meeting those requirments the son receives his trust promised to him. He does not earn it(or rather he does not "work" for it)because it was a trust-it already belonged to him by the promise of the father. But if that son failed to meet those requirments, he would have lost it. So with salvation. It is a gift freely promised and freely given. But if we fail to cooperate with God's grace and mature to the fullness God requires because "nothing unclean and enter it(heaven)" then we can lose it(Matt 7:21,see also Matt 28:19-20; Mark 16:16; Phil 2:12; John 6, etc.).
Yes, the Church has always taught those things. But the Church is wrong.
That's not a reason. That's an opinion.
But as is your "framework of interpretation" is a closed system that precludes that you will never be wrong. Hence your interpretation is always safe because it is always "reasonable"(at least according to you), and therefore assures that anything that you disagree with is not. Your invitation to "persuasion" is an illusion, so is any possibility of you considering, much less accepting, anyone else's critique of your version of what you've interpreted.
All that is left is for someone to present evidence that the Church is historically the true Church(and hence its validity stands). Because IF the Church is true then your charge of circular reasoning is no longer valid
And when one begins to demonstrate the manifold evidence of this you ignore it or dismiss it.
So it seems rather easy to admit you can be wrong when you've practically guaranteed that you can't.
I've had my mind changed about plenty of interpretations before.
When's the last time it happened?
I imagine it will happen again in the future. If you think my interpretation of any given passage is wrong, we can talk about it.
Well, I might but we've been down that road before.
If you can show me that your interpretation is more reasonable than mine, I'll be glad to change my view.
Someone who doesn't bat an eye at making such leaps beyond the text to conclusions that in no way follow from the context should have no problem explaining away any objection to his opinions. Your interpretation follows from your theology, not from the text itself. That is obvious by reading your blog.
Heb 1: In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;  but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Again, shouldn't a verse actually say what you claim it says instead of you telling us it says something that it doesn't? All those verses say is that God spoke to us through men and lastly though a man-His Son. That's all.
Nowhere does those verses say that the canon is closed, nor does it even say what books comprise the canon.
The phrase "has spoken" is in the perfect tense, whereas the word "spoke" is in the aorist. "But" is a strong contrast. The point the author is making is that although God spoke at one time piecemeal, He has now spoken completely and fully in Christ Jesus. There is nothing left to say, so to speak. Hence, the Canon (the revelation concerning God in Jesus Christ) is completed.
The problem in this is that your knowledge of this is based on the authority of Scripture. IOW everything that God wanted to say He said through Jesus. But the question is that what did Jesus say?
Are you saying that everything Jesus said is written down in the Bible?
But you accept the authority of Scripture on the authority of Scripture? You're begging the question.
To say that those other books contradict the teachings of scripture simply means that you assume the conclusion that Christianity is correct. You base this conclusion on the authority of Scripture. Which again begs the question.
No, I get it from the authority of Jesus, which I derive from historical documents.
The only "historical documents" that speak to Jesus' life and which are accepted as true are the Scriptures. And the only way to come to this conclusion of the authority of Jesus is to presume on the authority of Scripture. Hence you're still begging the question.
Jesus tells me some historical documents are inspired, and therefore, I believe Him.
Mohammed tells muslims that the Quran is inspired because he heard God tell him to "recite". Joseph Smith told Mormons that he is Jesus' prophet and that his book is inspired because it came from the angel Gabriel.
It's funny how fuzzy the line is between "locutions" and self-deceptions
Those documents under inspiration claim they are the only inspired documents, therefore I believe them.
Again, many historical documents claim divine inspiriation and that they're the only ones. You're still begging the question.
If you base the assumption of Jesus' authority on the "historical reliability of the Resurrection", where do you obtain your knowledge of the Resurrection? Either from others or from Scripture? If from the authority of Scripture, then again you beg the question. If from others then you commit the same error that you say we do.
I don't get it from the authority
of Scripture. I get it from the historical value of certain first century documents, which include books that I have come to regard as Scripture (e.g., Matthew) and others I do not (e.g., Josephus).
"Historical value" is a subjective opinion. IOW you place value on the work based on how you see it supporting or not supporting your view. Josephus doesn't mention seeing Jesus being resurrected. He barely mentions Jesus in passing as a "rabbi" who was killed by the Romans under the charge of stirring rebellion. Nowhwere in his works does he treat with the authority of Scripture.
You would do better by mentioning Tacitus and his work "Annals". But he wrote this much, much later(early 2nd century, he was 8 when Rome burned in 63 ad). But neither did Tacitus mention anything about Scripture or Jesus' resurrection. He only states that Christians were followers of a "Christus" which Pontius Pilate put to death.
I have given you many writings from early Christians not only from the first century, but also from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries to demonstrate continuity of belief. Yet you chose to ignore and dismiss them, calling it "preaching".
That is where I base the authority of not only Scripture but also the Church.
Biology textbooks do not derive their authority from themselves, nor do history textbooks. They derive their authority and authenticity from an authoritative body that formed the work. Ancient historical works do not even derive their authority from themselves, because without someone in a position of authority to confirm their authenticity they would not be considered good "historical" sources.
There must be an authority outside of the works themselves to confirm their authenticity.
I'm glad you think that biology textbooks get their authority from the scientific community. I would not agree with that.
Then you're not approaching it objectively.
Im sure you'll say that the textbooks are true because the information in them is based on scientific truths. By saying that you beg the question.
Someone had to discover those truths. They had to test them via SM, verify their conclusions and publish them. Hence others did the same because unless the result is repeatable then its is not scientifically certain.
Then whoever publishes the books had to authoritatively verify that the parts that were going to be published in the textbook were true.
And finally it cannot even be used in classes unless the authority that runs those classes verifies that the textbook is correct in what it says.