With that in mind, let's look at the disputed verses which I claim allude to eternal salvation, and how they were interpreted by other reformers, and not Catholic's.

You concerning Mark8:25;



John Gill who was a Baptist who held Calvinist views, held that it related to eternal salvation as does Matthew Henry;



Source: http://bible.cc/mark/8-35.htm

You conceded Mark10:26, 'for the sake of argument,' although you don't offer an alternative explanation?

You concerning Mark13:13, 13:20;



Again here every parallel commentary I have read disagrees with you, and these are from a wide spectrum of reformers. From Baptist's, to Presbyterian's to Free Church of Scotland. I can't find one that agrees with you?





Emphasis added

Source: http://bible.cc/mark/13-13.htm

And the verse in question, you regarding Matthew16:16;



Albert Barnes, a Presbyterian minister;



Adam Clarke, Methodist theologian;





Emphasis added



Emphasis added

Source: http://bible.cc/mark/16-16.htm

I have shown that your thirteen other examples are spurious at best, and that you havn't been able to produce one commentary that agrees with you, or one verse from scripture which supports your view that you can lose your faith, and yet remain, 'saved.'

What theology are you reading into the texts Jac, if you do not think that some of those verses relate to the final judgment, might that be because you hold to premillennialism?

Again Jac, you're not being very consistent, and showing your double standards.

Ok, let’s take a look at what you write. In “Righteousness, A Word Study” you take a look at the Hebrew and Greek words that are translated in many different ways – ‘righteousness,’ ‘righteous,’ ‘to declare righteous,’ ‘justification,’ ‘just,’ ‘to justify.’ Now at first I will grant for the sake of argument that in the greek culture, δίκαιος (díkaios) refer to a purely forensic state, the state of having been and still being ‘declared righteous,’ and that its verbal equivalent, δικαιόω (dikaióō) is also purely forensic, the process of declaring someone just (on God’s part) or the process of being declared just (on our part). Now I do not agree with that, but I will write about it here. (One question, though, is called for: Can you give me any proof that δίκαιος or δικαιόω are purely declarative? The suffix in δικαιόω is not just used in a declarative sense. Why assume that here?) But for now, I will grant your view of the meaning of δίκαιος for the sake of argument.

Now you refer to two important Hebrew words; saddiq and yashar.

You say, “Fundamentally, for a person to be righteous is to be in right standing with God.” You admit that this doesn’t just refer to a forensic process or state, but that it can also denote moral pureness. Now saddiq is used many times in the Old Testament, referring to many different things, including moral pureness (Gen. 6:9), doing God’s will (Gen. 18:23; 20:4; 1Sam 24:18), God’s eternal essense as righteous (Deut. 32:4; 2Chron. 12:6), etc. (There are also many references that only state that a person is ‘just’ without defining what ‘just’ means.) The most interesting text is, I believe, Mal. 3:18: “Then once more you shall distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve him.” (RSV-CE) Here we see that the just/righteous is “one who serves God,” while the wicked/unjust/unrighteous is “one who does not serve God.” Here the emphasis is on doing God’s will. Why, then, assume just one of the meanings when you come to the New Testament? Why do you let you (in my view faulty) view of greek secular usage of δίκαιος (as only referring to a forensic declaration or a juridical state) inform your interpretation, while you completely ignore the greek usage of εὐλογέω (eulogéō/evlogéō)? You are being a hypocrite. You demand us to use a standard you do not yourself hold to.

Now, you say that “for a man to be righteous before God (dikaios) is humanly impossible, since none of us have met His standard.” I agree with that wholeheartedly, but I also believe that God works within us (Phil 2:12-13). So let me rephrase your sentence: For a man to be righteous before God (dikaios) is divinely possible.

You write:

For Paul, we are declared righteous before God when we place our faith in His Righteous Son. We should emphasize that though “righteousness” or “justification” in its various terms is consistently grounded in moral purity, we cannot read Paul as requiring moral purity before we are declared righteous.

Yes, but in the case of Catholic teaching this is a straw man. Because one is not saying that before God graces us, we are morallu pure, but that God indeed makes us pure. You say that St. Paul is just referring to a forensic declaration, but that is just you picking one of the meanings of justification and declaring (no pun intended) it to be the correct one.

Why no assume that being justified means getting a new relationship with God, a relationship that is not just a juridical agreement, but a real sanctifying relationship in which the Spirit of God is infused into us? (Rom 5:1.5)

This boils down to this question: does justification refer solely to a forensic declaration (to some form of acquittal) or does it refer to a state of being righteous, having this righteousness infused into us? Now, it seems to me that if being justified means being in a right relationship with God, and this means having the Spirit of God infused ito us (Rom 5:5), I think that justification is not merely declarative. Of course God declares us righteous. But being God, his words does what he says.

Ok. Back on topic.

Let’s ignore Mark for a while, and take a look at Revelation 21:8. That verse states:

“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.” (RSV-CE)

Now this verse refers most certainly not to temporal judgement. It refers to hell. So this verse states that, amongst others, ‘the faithless’ will be condemned to hell.

Now let us make a syllogism:

1. Those who do not have faith will be condemned to hell. (Revelation 21:8)
2. It is possible for a person to loose the faith that he has. (Hebrews 6:4)
3. Therefore, it is possible to loose salvation.

I am not saying that Hebrews 6:4 itself states that one can loose salvation, but I am stating that it is true that one can loose salvation. Because if it is possible to loose faith, and the faithless will be condemned to hell, then it follows that those who loose faith will be condemned to hell.

Now, can you tell me where I am wrong?

I'm not using a translation. I'm just pulling right out of the Greek text.


What does how various translations render sozo have to do with whether or not Mark uses sozo to refer to temporal or eternal salvation?

As far as your reference to Protestant theologians, I couldn't care less. So they do the same thing most people do: import their theology into the text. Fine. How does that affect by one iota the argument based on methodology I've been consistently making? That they disagree with me? So what?


I haven't been asked to produce a commentary that agrees with me. It wouldn't be hard. But even if I couldn't, what is your point? I didn't know you thought truth was determined by majority vote.

As to your question, no, it isn't beacuse I hold to premillennialism. I hold to premillennialism because I have adopted a particular methodology of interpretation that results in that view. Again, I am not capable of caring one bit less than I do if you agree or disagree with my theology. The far more interesting question to me is that of methodology. You openly ready our theology into texts. I think that is an incorrect method.


What makes you think that I get the forensic sense in the NT use of dikaios just from secular Greek? You must not have read the article very carefully. I'll let you read it again and try again, if you like. Nothing you've said here properly represents my own words. If anybody is interested in how I'd defend myself, they can read the link themselves. Suffice it to say here that if your exegesis of my own words is that awful, I have very little confidence in your exegesis of ancient Scripture.


You're basically equivocating here in assuming that both verses deal with our experience on this side of the grave.

Moreover, your argument proves too much. Rev. 21:8 also says that all liars go to hell. Perhaps you never lie, CC. If you take the verse as you are, though, then that assertion would probably land you in Hell, because I'd bet pretty much anything that you do lie from time to time; so to say you never lie would be a lie, making you a liar.

Note that the verse does NOT say that anyone who commits those sins and then doesn't repent of them goes to Hell. It says that people who commit those sins go to Hell period. Again, you can add to Scripture if you like. You can read your theology into the text to make it say something it doesn't say. But that's precisely where I'd fault your analogy.

The short answer is the verse refers to identity, not individual moments of sin. Christians who lie aren't liars. They are Christians. The same is true with all the other classifications of sinners--including apostates. Apostates are not former Christians. They are Christians who have committed a particular sin--still saints. Just wayward saints.

edit:

Here's an article you may want to take a look at that deals with Rev 21:8. He bounces out of the text a bit for my taste, but his analysis of the surrounding context is rather on point. Here is a follow up article that deals with 22:14-17, which is part of the same unit of thought as 21:8.

No, what you are doing is pulling it from the Greek text and choosing to interpret it one way to suit your argument, although it can be rendered several different ways. As has been shown from the various translations I linked for you, what are your credentials for disagreeing with the vast majority of the translations I listed for you?



This;



You basing your interpretation off data points.



It shows your so called methodology is bunk. You do the same thing, you import your theology into the text, or should I say, you create a methodology which imports your theology into the text. Your methodology though is unsustainable and completely irrational, as has been shown.



You basically more or less admit it here!



He bounces a bit out of the text for your liking? He uses about a dozen or so different verses from various books to support his analysis, which seems to go against the grain of your own methodology! Why are you even using his analyisis to support your assertion, when you discount everyone else's who does the same thing?

What denomination are you anyway Jac, I'm not sure I remember or if you have mentioned, I hear you talk about John Calvin in a lot of threads?

[quote="Jerome_2"No, what you are doing is pulling it from the Greek text and choosing to interpret it one way to suit your argument, although it can be rendered several different ways. As has been shown from the various translations I linked for you, what are your credentials for disagreeing with the vast majority of the translations I listed for you?[/quote]
I'm not basing my argument on how sozo is translated. Why would you think the theology of Mark 16:16 has anything to do with its English translation?


I'm basing it on how the word is being used, not how it is being translated. You've not been under the impression that I've been at all concerned about something as boring as the English rendering of a word have you?


Proper methodology is not decided by majority.

In any case, you appear to be saying that because Protestants (with whom you disagree) disagree with me (and I with them), then therefore my methodology is "bunk"? I imagine you can guess why I'm not so impressed with that assertion.


Admit what? That my theology is the result of my method and my my method of my theology? Not only do I admit, I'm saying that's the only proper way to do it. I'm saying, and have been saying the entire time I've been a member here, that the problem is crafting a method out of a theology. That's been my basic objection to Catholicism.


It's called understatement.

As to why I use his analysis, because of what he does right, which is to provide a proper exegetical analysis of the verse and its context. That's also why I provided the link to the follow up article, which further examines the context.


As I said in my intoductory thread, "I'm pretty much summed up in classical dispensationalism with some minor tweaks." I'm non-denominational. Grew up Southern Baptist and left them because I think they're too legalistic and think they have the Gospel wrong. I also have pretty serious problems with their ecclesiology--I'm more in line with the organic church movement on that issue (I see no distinction in the NT between the clergy and the laity). As for Calvin, I'm anti-Calvinistic. If you don't mind going off-site, you can get my take on that theological blight here.

Now, Jerome . . . I really need you to stop playing "gotcha." If you want to have a conversation about whatever, then fine. But this is somewhere between boring and patronizing and in some ways downright offensive. You (rightly) blast people who blindly attack Calvinism without understanding what it is they are attacking. You've openly admitted to me in the past that you don't bother studying people with whom you disagree and that you don't really understand the people you're objecting to. If that's going to be your position with me, then you can talk to internet air. I have much better things to do with my time. If, though, you want to have a real conversation and have a real give and take, an exchange of ideas in which you really try to see what it is that I'm saying, then we can continue. As it is, I see nothing of that spirit--just the opposite in fact. My time is rather valuable. Consider this your one and only notice. I've no problem putting you on ignore and conversing with anyone who happens to be interested in real discussion. And that, particularly, as I've said before a million times, as I'm not all that interested in discussing my own theology anyway. It's a very easy conversation for me to walk away from.

So your call. Take this seriously and we continue, or don't, and as far as I'm concerned, this thread never happened.

But Jac, you have rendered it in a particular way using an English word against the majority of the translations I provided for you, to support your assertions! What are your credentials for doing so?

That seems like a simple question to me, when you disagree with the vast majority of translators in how the word should be rendered, don't you think someone ought to know your credentials for being able to do so? To lend weight to your argument?



I would disagree somewhat that Catholic theology crafts it's methodology. It could be argued that the basis for Catholic theology lays firmly at the feet of it's methodology.

You seem to have the reverse problem in that you craft your methodology to suit your theology, let's just say I'm happy that we both agree your methodologies soul proponent seems to be you.



Which shows the inconsistencies in your argumentation, you argue that someone has to stick to the text without diverting as much as possible, when the author you linked does exactly the opposite, which you admit.



No Jac, as I corrected for you earlier I do bother to study people that I don't agree with. What I don't get bogged down with is in learning the intricacies, or the theological differences between the various factions in said denominations or religions. I will have a general idea if I've studied it, what I don't bother delving into unless it's pertinent to my particular inquiry, is how sub group y differ from sub group x belonging to religion z. Especially if I've studied religion z in in depth and don't agree with said relgions, 'metholdogies,' to coin a favourite phrase of yours. That would just be wasting my time, but I certainly as a general rule never discount the possibility that something may be correct or wrong before I've studied it.

Okay, if you can't do any better than this, I don't see any need to continue. I've seen some absurd mischaracterizations before, but this comes near taking the cake. I don't even know what you're trying to accomplish. Whatever it is, it certainly isn't trying to understand the argument you're critiquing.

All the best to you.

If anybody else who happened to be following this wants any follow up , then feel free to ask.

It's very simple let me sum it up for you.

You interpreted Hebrews6:4-8 claiming that the verses did not pertain to salvation, and that those who are saved could lose their faith yet remain saved. You challenged anyone in your article to show scripture which contradicts that assertion.

I did just that, I gave several verses which contradicted that assertion and asked you to compliment it with your interpretation of Hebrews6:4-8.

You chose to pick Mark16:16, and your argument was that in Mark16:16 the words, 'saved,' and, 'condemned,' should be understood as temporal salvation and not as eternal.

You then gave thirteen other verses claiming that in the majority of those verses, the word saved is used in a, 'temporal context.' This was the reason you then gave for asserting that you believed the same in regards to Mark16:16.

However, of the thirteen verses you gave you did concede that Mark10:26 could refer to eternal salvation.

I then broke down the thirteen verses that you presented in your argumentation, and noted that the translators in many of the verses you gave did not translate the word sozo as, 'saved,' but rendered it as, 'to heal,' or as to, 'make whole.' This it seems, is in keeping with the original Greek, as it can be rendered several different ways, depending on the context of the verse, I am assuming.

When I broke it down, out of the thirteen examples you gave, the majority of translations only translate the word, 'sozo,' as, 'save,' or, 'saved,' in about eight of those instances.

This significantly cuts the ratio you gave earlier, as to why you believed Mark16:16 referred to temporal and not eternal salvation. The ratio you gave was 14:1, although I don't know where you are getting this number. I could only find thirteen examples of the use of this word, maybe I have missed one you could point out.

Therefore of the eight examples I mentioned above you conceded that only one may refer to eternal salvation. Yet of those eight verses, practically every commentary I was able to find in my short search interpreted five of those uses in relation to eternal salvation IIRC.

We now then have a swing in your ratio of 5:3 in my favour, seeing as that was your reasoning for why you interpret Mark16:16 as you do.

You then said that you didn't care for the other interpretations, or how the Greek was translated, but that you pulled the word from the original Greek. But the original Greek can be rendered several different ways. I asked you why you disagreed with the vast majority of translators, and what were your credentials for doing so, but you don't seem to be able to give a straight answer?

You also havn't given alternative interpretations of the said disputed uses of the word in the other verses, to compliment it with your interpretation of Hebrews6:4-8?

That afterall was the challenge in your article.

If you don't think this is a fair summation of the thread up until this point explain why, and kindly address the credentials question and your reason for disagreeing with what seems like the vast majority of translators?

You also didn't answer my question about which translation of the bible you use?

I'm proving a point that when you scrutinize people's interpretations or methodologies like yours, they soon fall apart or become untenable. You're proving that by not being able to defend your interpretation.

jac always runs away.

Yes this is something I've noticed about a lot of protestants on other boards. There is one board I was banned from probably more than once, were I noticed that when the Catholics on the board were debating with protestants and starting asking tough questions, they were mysteriously banned.

The questions the Catholics were asking were the questions that the protestants should have been asking themselves, so it makes them feel mighty uncomfortable I would think when these very reasonable questions are asked of them.

It's a sure indicator to me in a lot of the cases that many of these people are happy to remain in willful ignorance, which to me seems completely dumb. Do these people really think they will be able to pull the wool over God's eyes with feigned ignorance?

I'm not saying all protestants are like this btw, but I've witnessed quite a few that I would consider to be willfully ignorant. Ofcourse only God can truly judge whether someone is or isn't, but hopefully I'm never dumb enough to engage in willful ignorance, although I'm sure there have been occasions where by accident or design that I have.

That's quite funny actually. I've known Jac for quite some time and have argued and disagreed with him on a number of topics (and agreed on some too). What I never, ever saw Jac do is run away from a good argument. It's just not in his DNA.