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.

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.

[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.

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.

jac always runs away.

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.