So that means that Hitler is in heaven? He was, after all, an apostate.
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.
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.
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?
You also often accuse me of this;
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.
Does that mean you are employing double standards when you do this?
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?
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
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.
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
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.
Closet Catholic wrote:
We take words according to their normal meaning
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.
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.