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?
I'm not using a translation. I'm just pulling right out of the Greek text.
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;
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 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.
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.
Closet Catholic wrote:
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
) refer to a purely forensic state, the state of having been and still being ‘declared righteous,’ and that its verbal equivalent, δικαιόω
) 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
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
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
)? 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.
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.
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.
Closet Catholic wrote:
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:
- Those who do not have faith will be condemned to hell. (Revelation 21:8)
- It is possible for a person to loose the faith that he has. (Hebrews 6:4)
- 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?
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.