Jac, let me adress some of the points between you and Jerome.

This could be equally true of almost anyone, including people from our age who haven’t read the entire Bible. And it is interesting that you use the LXX and/or the proto-Masoretic text and/or the proto-Hebrew-LXX. Because in there we find no indication whatsoever that OSAS is correct. I would in fact say that (in Old Testament terms, and especially in the Deuteronomic tradition) obedience is central. So I would in fact claim that a Jew coming to Hebrews with nothing besides the OT would not conclude with OSAS.

First, what do you mean by ‘context’? I would contend that context includes the entirety of the teaching of the Apostles, which includes (in written form) that which we find in the entire New Testament.

Yes, obviously. Just like you assume that your interpretation of any given text it correct.

Yes, but ought we interpret it as if it came out of nowhere and/or wasn’t written within a specific tradition?

Yet you claim that to interpret this text means to interpret it “in its own context (theological, historical, textual, etc.).” The source of disagreement is not that everyone else thinks we ought not do this, but what constitutes context. I believe that the context of any text, and in particular religious ones, include the organization into which the text is written.

Or it could be that some people don’t agree with your reductionistic approach to exegesis.

Now you are just being dishonest. Let’s quote your own words: “The passage does teach that genuine Christians can lose their faith. If we wish to assert that losing one’s faith results in a loss of salvation, he must demonstrate that from other Scripture. The idea is simply not found here.” So you admit that Heb. 6:4-8 states that a person can loose their faith. Then you said that Jerome needed to prove – “from other Scripture” – that loosing one’s faith means loosing one’s salvation. Then Jerome did just that, citing (amongst other verses) Mark 16:16 which do indeed say that without faith there can be no salvation. He has done what you asked. He has followed your own demands.

So you are indeed a postmodernist when that suits you (that is, when you’re not using it to slander other people).

But that cannot be done before you adress the question of what constitutes the proper context of a text.

I’m sorry, but you need to establish that #1 is true. Then you need to adress the fact that your conclusion (#3) contradicts both #1 and #2. (If Hebrews 6:4ff teaches eternal security, and if the Bible cannot contradict itself, how could there be any passages that teaches conditional security, thus contradicting eternal security?)

He has done exactly what you asked him to do. Then you moved the goalposts, to use one of your favorite phrases.

I'm quite comfortable saying the OT teaches OSAS of the ES brand.


Fine enough. You have a circular argument, then. That may be good enough for you. It doesn't impress me.


If I used other books as a cipher for a given text, then yes, I would be assuming that my interpretation of those other texts was correct. But I don't think that's a valid approach.


As I said before, there are cultural, historical, and theological contexts of passages. My problem with your "specific tradition" is that you read that as Catholic tradition, and then use that as a basis for interpreting Scripture. I've told you before that I don't have the slightest problem with you doing that, but then don't bother trying to use Scripture to prove your point, since your tradition becomes the lens by which the text is interpreted. You're taking the same approach the Jesus Seminar does, just at the opposite end of the spectrum. They decide a priori that Jesus has to be a naturalistic Jesus. They insist on interpreting all texts in a naturalistic light, and then they want to pat themselves on the back when, lo and behold, they discover a naturalistic Jesus? Well, that may be good enough for them, but I feel no more need to accept their predefined conclusions than I do yours.


See my comments above.


I've no problem with that. That's what the interpretational framework thread was about, wasn't it? You have a different methodology than I do. I interpret the Bible the same way as I do any other ancient text. The linguistic and historical contexts are the most important. Given that they are religious documents, the theological contexts (by which I am referring to the progress of revelation) can and should be taken into account as well (meaning, primarily, we read newer revelation in light of older; never older in light of newer).

You interpret in light of the Catholic tradition and somehow think it is meaningful that the text so interpreted produces a Catholic theology?

As I said, that may be good enough for you. It's not for me.


You aren't showing off your exegetical skills. My meaning should be clear. Jerome insists that Heb 6:4-8 teaches that you can lose your salvation. I counter that it teaches no such thing. I happen to think it teaches ES. But let's no go that far. Let's just say no more than the obvious: the passage doesn't even mention salvation. It DOES say obviously that a Christian can lose their faith.

Now, at this point, Jerome can agree or disagree. If he agrees, then we can drop Heb 6:4ff and move on to other passages. Why? Because my point is that, let's say that losing your faith means you lose your salvation. That MAY be true (hypothetically), but you can't get that out of Heb. 6:4ff! You have to get it from another passage. So, I've asked Jerome a million times, what passage does he want to discuss. He said Mark 16:16. He seems to think (wrongly) that passages teaches that if you lose your faith, you lose your salvation.

Now, IF he were right, then the best he could say is that Mark 16:16 teaches you can lose your salvation. But he cannot say that Heb 6:4ff teaches as much. All he can really say about Heb 6:4ff is that it is consistent with the belief that you can lose your salvation.


How so? If Heb 6:4ff teaches eternal security as I maintain, then does it not necessarily follow that Mark 16:16 cannot teach you can lose your salvation? The difference in me and Jerome is that I'm willing to discuss each passage in its own context. He doesn't seem to be willing to do that.


The moment he agreed with me that the book of Hebrews was intelligible in and of itself, he accepted the proper context--the book itself.


There are no passages that contradict eternal security. There are passages that people think do, but that's because they've interpreted them in light of a systematic theology and have failed to let each individual passage speak for itself.

In any case, the syllogism wasn't meant to be a proof. It was meant to illustrate a fact. If I'm right about Heb 6:4ff, then all that remains for me is to walk through whatever passage Jerome chooses and show him why any given passage does not teach conditional security. I've been trying all day to get him to pick one. I think he's finally settled on Mark 16:16. Such a shame it took all day to get such a basic request answered.


Come now, your reading comprehension is better than that. Shy of his last post, he's done no such thing. I've asked repeatedly for him to tell me WHICH PASSAGE he wants to discuss. Form my very first post, that's what I've asked for, and he's consistently insisted in arguing why he shouldn't have to talk about a specific passage (much like you are doing here).

Look, if you Catholics can't defend your interpretation of your passages within their own contexts, then fine. That just makes your faith all the less attractive to somebody like me. Maybe the only way accept the Catholic interpretation is to already be Catholic (you know, accepting that Catholic tradition as the cipher for interpreting the Bible). I was just under the impression that you thought you could defend your interpretations by appealing to the texts themselves.

Jerome,

I'll take it on good faith you want to talk about Mark 16:16. You apparently believe this passage teaches that you can lose your salvation. Here's the verse as per the DR:

He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Funny. I don't see anything there about losing your salvation. I can only try to assume the argument you would make, as you've not actually provided anything. So let me guess . . . you are going to say that if a person loses their faith, they do not believe, and therefore they are condemned. Therefore, to lose your faith is to be condemned, which is to say, to lose your salvation.

Now, there's a million reasons I find that rather weak, so I hope I've simply misrepresented what you are trying to say. In any case, let me cut right to the heart of the matter and state my own view that you are sure to disagree with.

I don't think the salvation and condemnation in this verse are referring to eternal salvation and eternal condemnation at all.

Now it's worth noting that I'm in the minority even in my own camp on this. If you want to know how other ES/FG advocates take the passage, I can provide those arguments as well. Anyway, I just don't see the warrant in seeing a heaven/hell issue in the text. The word "saved" occurs (always in verbal form) in Mark fifteen times. In every other case, it refers to temporal salvation. So why should this case be any different?

The word "condemn" occurs three times in Mark. In both other instances, it refers to condemnation to death. Why should we take it any differently here?

I think Jesus means exactly what He says. The one baptized believer is made whole and delivered from judgment; the one who disbelieves (not just "does not believe" - the word here is apisteuo ("disbelieve), which is very similar to, but not the same as, me pisteuo ("I do not believe") will be judged. Jesus has temporal judgment and salvation in view.

And for what it is worth, there is very, very, very good reason to think that Mark was written while the Temple was still standing. Turns out Jesus was right. AD 70, and all that . . .

No, I do not. Why is it circular to take into account the organization into which it is written, but not circular to take into account the surrounding culture?

No, you are just being dishonest. You said that the text does teach that a person can loose their faith, but not that loosing their faith necessarily means loosing their salvation. Then you went on, pointing out that that needed to be proven by other passages. Then Jerome did so.

Which was Jerome’s point. He only did what you challenged him to do.

Everytime I make a comment of the type you do, you lable me a postmodernist. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others, it seems.

Which is written in a specific context.

You said:

1. Hebrews 6:4ff teaches eternal security
2. The Bible cannot contradict itself
3. Therefore, any passage that teaches conditional security contradicts eternal security.

How is #3 not a contradiction of #1 and #2?

But let’s play your game. Where in Hebrews 6:4ff do you find the doctrine of eternal security? Please show me. And, in accordance to the demands you make of others, I will not accept a single verse outside of the books of Hebrews. (Of course I think that approach is crazy, but that is the approach you demand others take.)

Yes, he did. Let me try to organize his argument:

1. Those who loose their faith will loose their salvation. (Mark 16:16; Revelation 21:8)
2. Hebrews 6:4 states that a person can loose their faith.
3. Therefore, since the Bible cannot contradict itself, one can say thar Hebrews 6:4 states that a person can loose their salvation.

I’m not Catholic. I’m Lutheran. But I am appealing to the texts. Mark 16:16 states that if one does not believe, one is condemned. Revelation 21:8 states that the lot of (amongst others) the faithless “shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.” Hebrews 6:4ff states that it is possible to loose one’s faith. Therefore we must conclude that it is possible to loose one’s salvation, since the lot of those without faith “shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.”

No, but it states quite clearly that without faith there is no salvation. Since Hebrews 6:4 has established that it is possible to loose one’s faith, we can conclude that it is indeed possible to loose one’s salvation.

Somehow I think that you will not adress these ‘million reasons,’ but just play your usual word games.

I have numbered your claims.

(1) Here are two passages, with different translations:

Mark 5:34:

And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague. ASV
And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.” ESV
And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague. KJV
And He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be healed of your affliction.” NKJV
He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.” NIV

Mark 10:52:

And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And straightway he received his sight, and followed him in the way. ASV
And Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way. ESV
And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way. KJV
Then Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus on the road. NKJV
“Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road. NIV

Now these texts could be interpreted in a more wholistic way, referring both to physical and spiritual healing. Now I think that is obviously the case in Mark 10:52. Jesus said “your faith has made you whole” (gr. ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε). Here we see past tense (σέσωκέν, 3rd person singular, indicative active perfect of σώσω, ‘to save, to heal.’). The text then goes one saying that the man “received his sight.” Note that it does not say that the man had received his sight, but that he had (past tense) been made whole through faith, and then (afterwards) he “received his sight.” Therefore it seems obvious that what Christ is referring to by the term σώσω cannot be reduced to the physical healing.

So no, I do not agree that this always “refers to temporal salvation” in Mark.

(2) If this only referred to temporal punishment (and in this case, death) there should be statistically more (premature) deaths among people who have lost their faith. Can you prove that?

So this only applied to Jews living prior to AD 70? Interesting. Can you also prove that no faithful Christian Jews died there?

Thank you CC, I see that at least someone can understand my very simple argument.



I assume you are referring to Mark10:33, Mark14:64, and Mark 16:16, at least those are the only three I could find.

Mark10:33 and Mark14:64 are connected because in Mark10:33 Christ uses the words, "and they will condemn him to death;," referring to the future tense. He was prophesying about their judgment to condemn him to death in Mark14:64.

In both the instances you refer to, it refers to the condemnation to death by the religious authorites of Christ. But the scriptures also talk about condemnation by God, it is in relation to the day of judgment.

Matthew12:36 I tell you, on that day of judgment you will have to give account for every careless word you utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Now clearly because, 'that day of judgment,' is mentioned where we, 'will have to give account for every careless word you utter,' it must refer to our own particular judgments. So condemned in this context, when being judged by God, especially in relation to our particular judgments has eternal connotations, and does not just simply mean to be put to death physically.

1Corinthians11:32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Also in the KJV and other translations of the bible, the word, 'condemn,' or, 'condemned'(καταδικάζετε ) is often used interchangably or in relation to the judgment of God.

See the examples of;

James5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

Matthew7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Luke6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

So if I am understanding your argument correctly, you are claiming that when Christ talks of those being condemned in Matthew16:16, he was referring to condemnation to death and not to hell?

So your question, "why should we take it any differently," it is because the two instances you cite are the condemnation by the religious authorities to put Christ to death. The condemnation cited by Christ in Matthew16:16 seems to refer to the judgment of God, and this is supported by Revelation21:8 when the, "faithless," will be condemned by God to hell.

Just a comment from the peanut gallery.
I think, it makes no sense to use the old Testament to define Christianity. To define Judaism, yes. But not Christianity.
Rather, any defense of OSAS would have to be read in light of the New Testament. In other words, it would have to be clearly found in the NT first because THAT is the definitive teaching of Christianity.

I absolutely agree that without faith there is no salvation and I agree with Jerome, using my suggested order of exegesis, that all those NT verses assert that without faith there is no salvation.

Come now, Jerome - you must know how I'm going to respond to that.

And CC, I have to confess that one thing never ceases to amaze me, never ceases to surprise me, even though I see it so very frequently on these boards, and from a few of you in particular--and that's the constant assumption that you understand my own motives and my own words better than I do.

Well, I tell you what. Being that you know me better than I know me, why don't you go ahead and give my response to you on my behalf. I'm bound to learn something, since every time you tell me what I mean I always find myself disagreeing. So have at it. This should be quite a show. CC vs Jac (played by CC).



edit:

sunmumy - I hope you won't be too offended if I don't adopt the methodology by which we derive OSAS promoted by someone who doesn't accept OSAS. Don't you find it rather odd that I'm the one person on this board who actually is willing to defend eternal security (not FPS), and here you are telling me that you understand the proper way to derive the position than I do?

But, as I said to CC . . . some things shouldn't amaze me. I should just stop posting all together and let you all tell me what I really mean, what I'm really arguing, and what my positions really entail. I mean, what do you need me for?

Jac, I'm not offended by you rejecting my proposed methodology. I was attempting to suggest common ground for examination, which you of course can reject at leasure. Since you have not said how you derive OSAS from that passage in Hebrews, I can only guess, by ruling out negatively that it is not the NT. You may of course correct me. I'm honestly a lot less interested in OSAS than in trying to understand how your methodology for exegesis works.

My methodology is extremely simple, sunmumy.

Exegetical theology precedes and informs systematic theology; systematic theology is never to inform our exegetical theology. We are to interpret newer revelation in light of older revelation; which means we are to interpret the new testament in light of the old (never vice versa). We take words according to their normal meaning and do not import theological definitions and constructs into them unless that particular author has demonstrated that he himself is using the term in a technical sense.

That's that.

And that's why when Jerome asks me about Hen 6:4ff and objects to my exegesis by listing 15 other verses he thinks contradicts it, I roll my eyes. When I FINALLY got him to pick a verse to discuss in its own context (Mark 16:16), rather than discussing that verse in its context (which would be the whole book of Mark), he appealed to five other non-Markan texts. More specifically, based on those five other texts, he builds a theology of condemnation and then reads that theology into Mark 16:16. That's completely improper. If that's allowed, you can make the text say ANYTHING you want it to say, precisely because there are no controls. If a verse contradicts your theology, you just find a set of verses that you can rip from their context, invent a doctrine out of them, and then use that invented doctrine as a basis to reinterpret the verse in question. And if someone challenges you on your interpretation of those verses you took out of context, you just repeat the process. Note that is EXACTLY what Jerome did here. I provided a contextual analysis of Heb 6:4ff. Rather than responding to that exegesis, he complained that it contradicted his theology, which he grounded on some fifteen verses each taken out of their own contexts. When we picked one and I offered a contextual analysis, he did the same thing--complained that it contradicted his theology, which he grounds on some five verses taken out of their own contexts.

So what am I to do? Challenge him on Luke 6:37 and show why he is mistaken there? What's the point? He's already demonstrated his method. He'll just find it disagrees with his theology, which he will argue by taking ten proof-texts out of their context to "prove" his case.

My method is objective. It's the same method we use to study every other piece of literature. There's nothing special about it. It takes no particular skill or talent. It presumes a hermeneutical humility: we say what the text says but no more than what the text says.

As for Heb 6:4ff teaching OSAS, it's rather simple.

It teaches the penalty for apostasy is not hell, but divine temporal judgment that hopefully will restore you (but no guarantee). That seems to me to logically entail OSAS. If apostasy does not result in eternal condemnation, then neither can anything else; or, put differently, if the apostate is not eternally condemned, then he is still counted among the justified, which is just a different way to state OSAS.

Let's see Jac you make this claim;



Now this just simply isn't true Jac, let's look at some other examples from Mark;

Mark10:23 Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" 24 And the disciples were perplexed at these words, But Jesus said to them again, "Children, how hard is it to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." 26 They were greatly astounded and said to one another, "Then who can be saved?"

Mark13:2 Brother will betray brother to death, and father his child and children will rise up against their parents and have them put to death; 13 and you will be hated by all because of my name. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Now unless you think entering the kingdom of God refers to temporal salvation, you are sorely mistaken?

Also in some of the other verses you refer to where the word, 'saved,' is used a different word from the one used in Mark16:16 is used, here are some examples;

In Mark5:8 the word sōthēsomai is used and in most translations I have found it is translated as, 'cured.'

In Mark 10:26 the word used is sōthēnai, in Mark13:13 the word used is sōthēsetai, and in Mark16:16 the word used is sōthēsetai.

What is my point in mentioning all of this? Well first of all to show you that your assertion about temporal salvation or healing is wrong. Secondly to show that when the word saved in used in relation to faith, or of believing in Christ Jesus, it always(at least in most of the examples I have found) is in relation to eternal slavation. It seems that when the word, 'saved,' is used in accordance with faith, it is used in the context of eternal salvation, see Acts2:21, Acts16:30-31, 1Timothy2:15 etc.

In this context, and because it is Christ himself who infers that he will be the judge in Mark16:16, then this salvation, and condemnation can only refer to eternal salvation and condemnation.

Re: 10:23, I grant you have warrant for seeing eternal salvation in view. But let's grant that for the sake of argument. You would have one solid example of the word "saved" being used in that sense with thirteen or fourteen other usages. That by itself should tell you that there is something else going on in that verse. And there is.

Re: Mark 5:28 (not 5:8), the word sothesomai (and sothenai in 10:26) IS the word sozo. It's a different form of the same verb, as in English, "go" and "goes" are different tenses and forms of the same verb. Now, so you know, here's the list of all fifteen occurrences of sozo and the clauses in which they are found:

Mark 3:4 - “save a life”
Mark 5:23 - “she may be healed”
Mark 5:28 - “I shall be whole”
Mark 5:34 - “faith hath made thee whole”
Mark 6:56 - “were made whole”
Mark 8:35 - “save his life shall lose it . . . same shall save it”
Mark 10:26 - “who can be saved?”
Mark 10:52 - “thy faith hath made thee whole”
Mark 13:13 - “he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved”
Mark 13:20 - “No flesh should be saved”
Mark 15:30 - “Save thyself and come down from the cross”
Mark 15:31 - “He saved others; himself he cannot save”
Mark 16:16 - “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”

In all of these cases, the word is sozo in various tenses. So even if I granted 10:26 for the sake of argument (and I don't), you're saying that I ought to read 16:16 as if the word is being used the way it was once out of fifteen rather than fourteen out of fifteen times? Sorry . . . the weight is against you. You had better give me very good reason to go against the weight of the evidence presented by the text itself.

edit: and sunmumy, if you're still reading this, note the methodology Jerome continues to employ that I talked about earlier. He's still doing it, and I suspect he will continue to do so.

Jac I find this paragraph a bit strange, especially this sentence;



If a true believer can fall from the faith as you have stated, then why have you chosen to use the words, 'hopefully,' and 'no guarantee.' Surely what you have been arguing for all along is that a, 'true believer,' meaning one who was definitely, 'saved,' at one point. Surely then there is every guarantee(without doubt) according to you, that if they do lose their faith they will definitely still be saved, owing to the fact that they were a, 'true christian,' to begin with?

The problem for you though still exists, and that is to prove to me from scripture that one without faith can be saved?

That is just the beginning of some of the glaring problems with your exegesis of Hebrews6.

Catholic's don't argue, at least to my knowledge that there is no hope for apostates, hence the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Someone may apostatize, but there is always the hope that they can be brought back to the faith.

Haydock's Commentary concerning Hebrew6:4;



For the full explanation see source:

Source: http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id250.html

It sounds to me like you're more Catholic that you realize.

I don't see what is so hard about the sentence. It reads plainly enough. Here it is again:


What are we hopeful for, but not guaranteed, in my sentence? That judgment "will restore you." To what? The subject of the passage: a state of repentance.

So my point is exactly what I've been saying all along. A true believer can become an apostate. He can turn his back on Christ. In doing so, there is nothing that can be done to restore him. All that is left is for God to judge him (as a farmer burns a field of weeds; not to burn it forever, but to purify it, in hopes that it may again be useful). Will that judgment restore him? Maybe. Maybe not. Humans have this nasty little thing called free will and all.

That, by the way, is why the author makes the comment he does in verse nine about being confident of better things concerning their salvation . . . but now we're getting ahead of ourselves. In any case, the point is clearly stated. The penalty for apostasy is not hell. It is judgment intended to purify and restore. That entails the person being judged is still counted among the justified.

But even then, we've gotten ahead of ourselves. You said you wanted to talk about Mark 16:16. I do realize, of course, that you've raised, what, ten or twelve other verses since you said that was the important one to you. But no matter. Are you trying to go back to the first page? Have you changed your mind again about which passage you would like to discuss?

So that means that Hitler is in heaven? He was, after all, an apostate.


(Sorry about the Hitler reference, but nobody has mentioned him for awhile.)

Yes Jac, but as I have pointed out you made this claim;



Now we know this simply isn't true from Mark10:23-26, don't we Jac, at least that is what you more or less admit.



You also often accuse me of this;



Does that mean you are employing double standards when you do this?



(Emphasis added)

But anyway, I will take your fifteen verses from Mark and break them down with what I have already said to support my conclusions, which is something you seem to be unwilling or unable to do when the same is asked of you.

I assume you meant thirteen?

Mark 3:4 - “save a life”
Mark 5:23 - “she may be healed”
Mark 5:28 - “I shall be whole”
Mark 5:34 - “faith hath made thee whole”
Mark 6:56 - “were made whole”
Mark 8:35 - “save his life shall lose it . . . same shall save it”
Mark 10:26 - “who can be saved?”
Mark 10:52 - “thy faith hath made thee whole”
Mark 13:13 - “he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved”
Mark 13:20 - “No flesh should be saved”
Mark 15:30 - “Save thyself and come down from the cross”
Mark 15:31 - “He saved others; himself he cannot save”
Mark 16:16 - “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”

Lets look briefly at the verses in context to see if they fit my criteria, that is, when the word saved is used in conjuction with faith and/or judgment, in most if not all cases it usually refers to eternal salvation.

Mark3:4 The context is that Christ asks the Pharisees was it lawful to save a life on the sabbath. This has nothing to do with a question of faith, or eternal judgment.

Mark5:23 Jarius asks Jesus to come and save his daughter so that she may be healed/saved. There is no mention of faith here either.

Mark5:28 and 5:34 are related, the woman wishes to made well and Christ restores her health because of her faith.

Mark6:56 Again because the verse states that they begged to touch the fringe of his cloak, we can only infer that the people who were healed had faith that he could heal them, otherwise they would not have come to be healed.

Mark8:35 is clearly in relation to eternal salvation given the verses that follow Mark8:35;

Mark8:35 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who will lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. 36 For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? 37 Those who are ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

Clearly a reference to the final judgment.

Mark10:26 This has already been covered, because Christ mentions those who, 'enter the kingdom of God,' before his disciples use the word, 'saved,' it was used in the context of eternal salvation, and not, 'temporal salvation,' whatever that means.

Mark10:52 Christ heals the blind beggar, but he also acknowledges that it is his faith that has made him well.

Mark13:13 and Mark13:20 are related, and because Christ mentions the elect, and that God will cut short those days because of the elect. We can aslo infer that these verses are also in relation to eternal salvation because of the verses that follow, particularily Mark13:24-26. Although this particular prophesy has a near and an endtimes fulfillment as most people agree. The near time fullfilment was with the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

Mark15:30-31 The people are mocking Christ on the cross and asking him to save himself.

Mark16:16 Christ mentions being saved and condemned in the same verse implying judgment. And as he himself is giving the lecture to his disciples we can infer that Christ means that it is him that will be doing the judging. Again this must be in relation to both eternal salvation and condemnation.

So of the thirteen examples you gave, five are in relation to healing, one is in relation to a question put to the Pharisees by Christ. Two are in relation to the people mocking Christ on the cross, and the rest, which is five, are related to the last judgment.

Therefore my criteria for Mark16:16 fits perfectly with the rest of the verses you have provided.

I will also quote what you wrote about these verses again;



Mark8:35-38- Does the Son of Man come in the glory of his Father with his holy angels to render temporal salvation?

Mark10:23-26- Do those who receive temporal salvation enter the kingdom of God?

Mark13:13-26- Does Christ send out his angles to gather the elect to receive temporal salvation?

Mark16:16 Is Christ's warning to his disciples of salvation for those who do believe and condemnation for those who don't believe, temporal condemnation and salvation?

I don't think so Jac, you have infact just reinforced my point.

Godwin's law invoked.

 And what is the 'normal meaning'? That which is found in the secular greek culture? Or in the OT (including the usage in the Septuagint)? Or in the Christian tradition?

It seems, though, that you only apply this when it is convenient. Take, for instance, justification. According to you, the 'normal meaning' here is that which is found in the secular greek culture, i.e. a forensic view, that we are declared just. (Just to be clear. I do not agree with Jac on what exactly the meaning of justification was in the greek culture.) But when it comes to blessing, you do something else. You write (emphasis in bold added):

The NT word is eulegeo, which originally meant “to speak well [of someone].” That meaning, however, is absent in the biblical usage. The meaning comes almost completely from the OT word barak. Barak is used over four hundred times, so it would be impossible to do it justice in a short article, but a few ideas can be sketched out.

So, which is it? Is the Old Testament wrong to use when it comes to justification, but somehow ok to use when it comes to blessing?

In the OT, justification denotes communion with God. That would presumably include a real relationship (excluding an exclusively forensic view), and growing in that relationship (including sanctification). But you claim that in the NT, justification must be understood in the way it would be by the greeks who received it (according to your view). But why not apply this to eulegeo? Why assume that the recipients of Romans (1:25; 9:5), 2. Corinthians (1:3; 11:31), Galatians (3:9), Ephesians (1:3) and 1. Peter (1:3) had an understanding of blessing that was directly from the OT, but a view of justification that was (according to you) taken directly from secular greek usage?

You are not being consistent, yet you hold everyone else responsible for your method of exegesis.

If he ever placed his faith alone in Christ alone he is. I hope he did, and I hope he is. Do you want people to be in Hell? With that said, I don't know if he ever did that or not, so I can't say.


Notice that I pointed to your mention of non-Markan texts as the problem. Looking at Markan texts is just to see how the author uses the word. As to your take on the fifteen usages (not verses--I never said fifteen verses) . . .

Mark3:4 The context is that Christ asks the Pharisees was it lawful to save a life on the sabbath. This has nothing to do with a question of faith, or eternal judgment.

So salvation is not eternal.

Mark5:23 Jarius asks Jesus to come and save his daughter so that she may be healed/saved. There is no mention of faith here either.

So salvation is not eternal.

Mark5:28 and 5:34 are related, the woman wishes to made well and Christ restores her health because of her faith.

And yet salvation is not eternal (even given the presence of faith, which goes against your hypothesis).

Mark6:56 Again because the verse states that they begged to touch the fringe of his cloak, we can only infer that the people who were healed had faith that he could heal them, otherwise they would not have come to be healed.

And again salvation is not eternal even given the presence of faith, which goes against your hypothesis.

Mark8:35 is clearly in relation to eternal salvation given the verses that follow Mark8:35;

Mark8:35 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who will lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. 36 For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? 37 Those who are ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

Clearly a reference to the final judgment.

I disagree. I don't see final judgment here. Jesus is speaking of losing the life, both in the physical and qualitative sense. If it has any application to the final judgment, it is only in an extended, analogical sense. So we're still talking about temporal, not eternal, salvation.

Mark10:26 This has already been covered, because Christ mentions those who, 'enter the kingdom of God,' before his disciples use the word, 'saved,' it was used in the context of eternal salvation, and not, 'temporal salvation,' whatever that means.

Which I can concede for the sake of argument, although I don't think you're right.

Mark10:52 Christ heals the blind beggar, but he also acknowledges that it is his faith that has made him well.

And another example of temporal salvation when linked to faith, which goes against your hypothesis.

Mark13:13 and Mark13:20 are related, and because Christ mentions the elect, and that God will cut short those days because of the elect. We can aslo infer that these verses are also in relation to eternal salvation because of the verses that follow, particularily Mark13:24-26. Although this particular prophesy has a near and an endtimes fulfillment as most people agree. The near time fullfilment was with the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

No, you can't "infer" that these verses relate to eternal salvation. As you yourself note, the nearest fulfillment was in A.D. 70. The only way to get eternal salvation out of this is to read your eschatology into the passage, which means you're going to have to appeal to other verses and continue making the same error your have been making throughout this thread. The verses are clearly referring to temporal, not eternal salvation, and that with regard to the elect (against your hypothesis).

Mark15:30-31 The people are mocking Christ on the cross and asking him to save himself.

Which is not eternal salvation.

Mark16:16 Christ mentions being saved and condemned in the same verse implying judgment. And as he himself is giving the lecture to his disciples we can infer that Christ means that it is him that will be doing the judging. Again this must be in relation to both eternal salvation and condemnation.

Wrong. As this is the verse in question, I won't repeat what I've already said other than point out you are using the words in this verse differently than Mark has been using them throughout the entire book.


I only concede one might relate to the last judgment. The rest (including the one I might concede) you get only by reading your theology into the text, which is your common methodological error. On the other hand, in all occurrences excluding 16:16 (since that is the one we are discussing), you have maybe only a single usage dealing with eternal salvation. And several of the clearest examples of the use of the word sozo as referring to temporal salvation are directly connected to faith.

The data is strongly against your interpretation of Mark 16:16. I suggest you try to find a different verse to base your doctrine upon.
As to your other questions:

Mark8:35-38- Does the Son of Man come in the glory of his Father with his holy angels to render temporal salvation?

Yes.

Mark10:23-26- Do those who receive temporal salvation enter the kingdom of God?

I don't see any reason to deny it. It's only problematic if you read a particular theology into the text. With that said, I can, as I've repeatedly said, concede one verse for the sake of argument. You're position on 16:16 becomes only slightly stronger--you have it using the word sozo in a way it only has once out of fourteen previous usages. I suppose if you want to go against 14:1 data points, you can. I'd just need to some very strong arguments to go against the data. Your eisogesis doesn't count as a strong argument.

Mark13:13-26- Does Christ send out his angles to gather the elect to receive temporal salvation?

Yes.

Mark16:16 Is Christ's warning to his disciples of salvation for those who do believe and condemnation for those who don't believe, temporal condemnation and salvation?

Yes.


That's fine. The difference in me and you is why you disagree. You don't think so because you have a preexisting theology of salvation and condemnation you are reading into the text. I'm taking the text at face value and letting that inform my theology. I put the text first. You put theology first. I take the Bible as my authority. You take your theology as your authority. That's why I said in the thread on the interpretational framework of Scripture, you can have your method, but you give up all rights to defend your theology from Scripture in adopting it, for Scripture only teaches what you say it does when you assume your theology. When the Scripture is allowed to speak for itself, it says something very different, as you are demonstrating here.


You should read more of my blog before you accuse me of being inconsistent. Check out the article of righteousness. I employ the same method there as I have everywhere else. Also, see my comments to Jerome above on the use of (in our context) Markan vs. non-Markan verses in the exegesis of Mark 16:16.

Hi Jac glad you're back again, quick question about when you are claiming the word, 'save,' or, 'saved,' is used in the Gospel of Mark, what translation are you using?

From my own NRSV and from comparing it with other's it seems that the word, 'sozo,' is rendered as, 'to heal,' or, 'to make whole,' in a lot of the examples you have given. I only mention this because your beliefs seem to stem from a statistics based system, and a faulty one at that, if I may add.

Here are some examples;

Mark3:4 The vast majority of translations I found use the word save.

Mark5:23 Most translations render the word sozo as healed or to be made well.

Mark5:28 Again the majority of translations including the NRSV and the KJB render the word, to be made well or whole.

Mark5:34 The majority of translations use the word in connection with healing to to be made whole.

Mark6:56 Again the vast majority, including the NRSV and the KJB render the word to be healed or made whole.

Mark8:35 Most translations use the word save.

Mark10:26 Again the vast majority of translations render the word sozo in whatever tense it is used as saved.

Mark10:52 Most translations render the word in connection with being made whole, or well including the KJB and the NRSV.

The rest, that is Mark13:13, 13:20, 15:30, 15:31, and 16:16, in the majority of translations I have seen they use the word save or saved.

Therefore at best, you have eight instances of the word, save or saved being used in the majority of translations. As according to Strong's Concordance, the word can be defined as; I save, heal, preserve, rescue. As I don't speak Koine Greek I can only assume that the translators chose which word to use given the context of the verse(s).

More to follow;