Closet Catholic wrote:
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.
I'm quite comfortable saying the OT teaches OSAS of the ES brand.
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.
Fine enough. You have a circular argument, then. That may be good enough for you. It doesn't impress me.
Yes, obviously. Just like you assume that your interpretation of any given text it correct.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.
Yes, but ought we interpret it as if it came out of nowhere and/or wasn’t written within a specific tradition?
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.
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.
See my comments above.
Or it could be that some people don’t agree with your reductionistic approach to exegesis.
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.
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.
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.
So you are indeed a postmodernist when that suits you (that is, when you’re not using it to slander other people).
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.
But that cannot be done before you adress the question of what constitutes the proper context of a text.
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.
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?)
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.
He has done exactly what you asked him to do. Then you moved the goalposts, to use one of your favorite phrases.
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.