Not a problem, Jerome, but I'm a bit confused by something. The thread title asks for my interpretation of Heb 6:4-8, and yet you quote or refer to no less than thirteen other passages.

So which one would you like me to deal with, because appears that Heb 6:4ff isn't really what you're after in the first place. Just let me know which one you'd like to discuss, and we can proceed in an orderly manner.

Back to you.

Fine, I accept the fact that Scripture cannot contradict itself. But you are begging the question because you have the order of interpretation wrong.

Imagine you were the first recipient of Hebrews--the original audience, right? Suppose you didn't have access to the letters to the Ephesians and Corinthians, etc. All you have is the LXX (and since you are Jewish, the proto-Masoretic text and possibly the proto-Hebrew-LXX). You come to Heb 6:4ff. Can you understand what the author was saying to you?

I contend you can, lest the text becomes unintelligible. It is not a cipher that requires other verses to make it intelligible. The proper method is to interpret Heb 6:4ff in its own context (theological, historical, textual, etc.) and then compare our interpretation to other theological doctrines we have learned elsewhere. That comparison will yield one of two results: either 1) they will prove contradictory, in which case I assume that my interpretation of one or both of the passages is mistaken, or 2) they are complementary.

Furthermore, to use other books as a lens to interpret Hebrews, you are assuming that your interpretation of those books is correct. But how do you know THAT? I'll give you a practical example. I was once debating a Calvinist who constantly told me that I was wrong in my interpretations of various passages because they contradicted Rom 9. After a long time of this, I finally opened a thread on Rom 9 and demonstrated what I think to be the proper interpretation. And guess what he did to prove his interpretation of the passage? He said I was wrong because I was contradicting those other passages! That, my friend, is a circular argument.

So we ought to interpret one passage at a time. If that raises concerns about the relationship with other passages, we first complete the interpretation of our current passage and go to the others and find out the source of the discrepancy. In this case, I say the source is that you have misunderstood all of those other passages. The practical effect is that we cannot have a proper discussion on Heb 6:4ff, because we end up talking about literally fourteen verses at the same time.

Lastly, as to my reference to other Scriptures, notice I didn't say we use them to understand Hebrews. I said that if it is true that we can lose our salvation, we have to get that from another passage, because that concept is not in Heb 6:4ff itself. All Heb. 6:4ff actually says is that if the Christian falls away, he cannot be renewed to repentance. You are taking that last passage to mean "loses his salvation," but that is not what the text says. It is your interpretation of the words. You've developed the notion that to fall way and/or to be unrepentant is to lose your salvation (or never gain it). But hear me: that may be true, but its a theology imported from other texts!. Thus, Heb 6:4ff cannot prove you lose your salvation for the simple reason that it does not even speak to the issue. At best (or worst, depending on your perspective), it assumes the possibility of losing your salvation, which would mean that doctrine is necessarily picked up from elsewhere.

Bottom line: pick a passage. Do you want to talk about Heb. 6:4ff as per the thread title, or are you more interested in talking about any of the other dozen passages that you think more clearly teach the doctrine and therefore serve as a check against Heb. 6:4ff?

Pick an argument, Jerome. You're all over the map. Either Heb 6:4ff explicitly teaches we can lose our salvation (you site the word's appearance in verse nine) and we don't need other passages, or it does not explicitly teach we can lose our salvation, but presumes the doctrine, which we get from other passages (e.g., Mark 16).

I'd like to get on with this eventually. Are you going to tell me what you'd like to talk about or not?

So . . . we have three verses on the table. I don't mind discussing all three, but each needs to be discussed on its own and in its own context.

So which would you like to start with? You talk about asking simple questions . . . there's usually nothing simple about proper exegesis. On the other hand, there is something very simple about you telling me which passage you would like to start with. We could have been halfway through our discussion of one of those verses by now if you would quit stalling and tell me which you would like to discuss.

Whenever you get around to figuring out which one you'd like to deal with, let me know. I'll be around all weekend. I have a rather severe case of the flu and all. High fever. It's a terrible feeling. Body aches, freezing but sweating. Very sore throat. Definitely no work for Jac this weekend. I don't have much else to do beyond tap on this keyboard (and try to think clearly and keep my eyes from crossing! )

Then I'll pick the passage in the thread title. So can we discuss Heb 6:4ff in its own context now?

And you accuse me of needing to go into politics.

Let's say I went along (which I won't) and started talking about the relationship between all those verses and Heb 6:4-8. The problem, of course, is that each of those passages will require interpretation, and since I don't think any of them teach you can lose your salvation, that can become quite a slog. Further, it's completely unnecessary, for let's assume for the sake of argument that you are right and those passages DO teach that you can lose your salvation. Clearly, then, one of three things must be the case with regard to Heb. 6:4ff - 1) The passage is not addressing the doctrine at all, 2) the passage is teaching a related doctrine that presupposes that you can lose your salvation, or 3)the passage actively teaches the same doctrine.

If 1), then there's no reason to discuss the passage at all. We can move on to other verses. But you don't believe that. So if either 2) or 3), then my interpretation is wrong. But if my interpretation is wrong--and note this very carefully--then you need to show why it is wrong within the text itself. It may be true that it must be wrong, since it contradicts other Scriptures. Fine. But now you have to go on and show where it is wrong, which requires and examination of the passage.

So far, pretty much all you've given me is a litany of verses that you assert teach that you can lose your salvation, an assertion I disagree with, that has nothing to do with the actual text of Heb 6:4ff.

So . . . AGAIN: would you like to discuss Heb 6:4ff or some other passage? It's a rather simple question. All you have to do is say, "Heb 6:4ff." Or, alternatively, you can say, "No, I think Mark 16:16 is the one we really need to be talking about" (or whatever verse you choose.

You're turn.

I can't believe you cannot understand so basic a point. The only way your argument holds is if you are correct about THOSE OTHER PASSAGES. So, I've asked you umpteen times which you would rather discuss: Heb 6:4ff or those other passages.

Since I think He 6:4ff actually teaches eternal security, I can use that to prove your interpretation wrong on all of those other passages. See how easy that is? You'll disagree, because you think I've misunderstood Heb 6:4ff.

Now . . . I've made my case as clearly as possible. I'm leaving the door wide open for your or anyone else who wants to discuss Heb 6:4ff or any other passage they think contradicts OSAS. When you decide you want to do that, let me know. Pick you passage, and then let's talk about it. Until then, I can't be any clearer than I have.

Choice is your, buddy. If you want to persist in your circularity, you can have the last word, and I'm content letting the thread go.

Coming from the guy who has openly admitted he doesn't bother researching opposing positions, I'm hardly surprised. I could give you a fairly long list of such exegetes if you like.

(In another thread, of course, on the topic of the history of the Free Grace view of salvation. I've not had a chance to talking about the Morrow Controversy in quite some time)


And I've told you umpteen times I'm willing to answer any objections you have about whichever verses you want. My only stipulation is that you pick a passage. We discuss one at a time, in its own context. If you can't show my exegesis of any given passage is wrong within the text itself, then your objections are rather weak. Worse, if you can't show why my exegesis is wrong within the passage itself, then you actually are implicitly conceding that your interpretation of all those other passages is wrong. After all:

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

You can change "Hebrews 6:4ff" for any passage you'd like to talk about. I've been asking you all day to pick one. I'm not surprised that you won't (hint: that's an open display of reverse psychology, precisely what you just did to me. I don't that that's true). I guess you're terrified I'll prove your faith wrong (hint: that's assuming motives, precisely what you just did to me. I don't think that's true).

Last chance, Jerome. I should have stuck to my guns and ignored this, but you are a rather likable fellow. And it turns out my fever is much higher than I thought (103, now). I'm starting to get rather concerned I'll end up in the ER tonight. If you would pray for me, I would be much obliged. As it stands, I really have nothing better to do. But mark my words . . . I've made my case for the methodology clearly enough. You can pick a passage and we can continue; you can press your argument and ignore my stipulation and I'll just ignore this thread from here on out until somebody decides they actually want to talk about any given passage; you can drop this thread and start another one on the proper methodology for interpreting seemingly contradictory passages. You have plenty of options. Doesn't matter in the least which you choose to me.

Actually, I do have some assignments in my counseling class. I could go ahead and do those with the rest of the night. That would probably prove far more productive that this, given the nature of the exchange thus far . . . hmm . . .

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not much of a Henry fan myself. His was the first set of commentaries I got probably fifteen years ago. I read them and decided it was a bunch of bullocks. But then again I'm neither a Presbyterian nor an amillennialist, so that's hardly surprising.

Anyway, so just to clarify, you want to discuss Mark 16:16, yes?

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?

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.

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.

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.)