Ditto.
Well, as you well know, salvation "can" be a complex issue, hence two good Christians may disagree about it. On one level, salvation may be as simple as John 3:16. On other levels there is disagreement about how it is obtained.
Certainly. Thus, Paul is not clear on the subject. The fact that you have two Protestants who disagree on this issue, two men who "look to the clarity of the bible", as you would say, STILL disagree on salvation - on whether it is a one-time event, whether it is an ongoing event, whether it is something we will not fully know about until the next life, and how to obtain it and maintain it. With such questions and disagreements, we will have to admit that the Bible alone does not adequately address the issue. That is why God gave us an infallible Church.
What??? :) Paul doesn't hedge on this. He shows the same assurance that he preaches:
2 Tim 4:6-7 : 6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
I don't see that as "absolute assurance" in the way you do. I see that as confidence that he had done the best he could and that God would reward him. I do not see that verse as absolute assurance.
Where is the word "death"? [on 1 Cor 3:17] The word is "destroy", and I was saying that it can have more than one meaning. ...... It is not possible for one to die spiritually after once having been alive spiritually. Therefore, the question is moot.
Again, I ask you WHERE in Scriptures does it state that a "destroyed" person enters heaven? That is a fantastical claim if I ever heard one. Moot point??? If you are spiritually dead or destroyed, you think you will enter heaven???
I would like you to consider this more carefully.
I disagree with Barnes in his explanation, as his attempt to call this verse an "adage" is wishful thinking. Where is his basis for this idea? I think it is an attempt to explain the verse away. Paul is attacking Christians in Corith, people who had previously been baptized and "saved", who were causing dissent among the community. He is reaching a climax here and continuing in 1 Cor 4. Whether you believe it is an adage or not, the effect is the same - God considers such men as spiritually destroyed. Dead. Or, if you prefer James, that man has dead faith - which cannot save.
Faith alone is dead.
No, the Roman Catholic Church hierarchs deny Sola Fide, the scriptures don't. It is just a coincidence that Sola Fide severely threatens the power claimed and exerted by men.
James 2 denies we are saved by faith alone. The bible NEVER explicitly states we are saved by faith alone. Paul himself says that faith without love is worthless. Where do you come up with this? And how does Sola Fide threaten what Christ established before Paul came on the scene?
I wrote: In what ways? Explain your devotion to her. I would imagine you revere your favorite soap opera star more than the Mother of God.
You responded: In that case you have a very vivid imagination. :) In any event, I do not have spiritual devotion for Mary
None of the stuff you mention are devotions, they are intellectual recognitions of what Mary did. This is not honoring Mary in any way. You recognize that the Great Wall of China exists. Big deal. The Bible says ALL generations will honor Mary. Thankfully, the Catholics and the Orthodox are around to do God's Will, as you are not...
Regards
I don't know of any two Bible-believing Protestants who fundamentally disagree on salvation such as you suggest. On his own, Paul is very clear. He only becomes muddled when his writings must be reconciled with the semi-contradictory holdings of the Apostolic Church.
[On 1 Cor. 3:17] Again, I ask you WHERE in Scriptures does it state that a "destroyed" person enters heaven? That is a fantastical claim if I ever heard one. Moot point??? If you are spiritually dead or destroyed, you think you will enter heaven???
First, we must note our difference on how "temple" is used in this passage. The Bible does use it differently. In some cases it refers to a building, in others it refers to the physical body of a single believer. Here, you appear to take it as the spiritual being of a single believer, and I take it to mean the body of believers in a local church. I can see how it's possible to take verse 16 in the singular and I hope you see how it's possible to take it in the plural.
Of course a spiritually dead person does not enter Heaven, but I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. :) On the one hand, you equate "destroy" with death, but OTOH, you must say that "death" is only temporary since one sin may be fixed by absolution from the Church AND that God destroys and then undestroys many times throughout our lives. Christ rose once to conquer death once.
I disagree with Barnes in his explanation, as his attempt to call this verse an "adage" is wishful thinking. Where is his basis for this idea? I think it is an attempt to explain the verse away.
He said adage or proverb. I'm not sure why he said that, but it could be because if it meant what you say it means, then the rest of Paul would not make any sense, since Paul preaches Sola Fide, with assurance. I think he is correctly recognizing an overall theme and then realizing that Paul cannot contradict himself. All sides do this I think.
Paul is attacking Christians in Corith, people who had previously been baptized and "saved", who were causing dissent among the community.
Right, and Barnes is saying that if one tends to hurt a church, then God will punish him. Plus, Paul knew full well that not everyone who walks into a worship service is necessarily saved. Why else would he preach faith to supposedly saved people so often? Paul also knew that baptism didn't save, since many who are baptized are never of the faith. It is EXACTLY the same today.
James 2 denies we are saved by faith alone. The bible NEVER explicitly states we are saved by faith alone. Paul himself says that faith without love is worthless. Where do you come up with this? And how does Sola Fide threaten what Christ established before Paul came on the scene?
James recognizes that many CLAIM faith without really having it at all. This is like the "Lord, Lord" bunch. Apparently, the "Lord, Lord" bunch gave appearances of faith, but never had it. James is saying that we can certainly spot those who don't do any works as also having no faith. He gives us an easy, and valuable, self test.
None of the stuff you mention are devotions, they are intellectual recognitions of what Mary did. This is not honoring Mary in any way. You recognize that the Great Wall of China exists. Big deal. The Bible says ALL generations will honor Mary. Thankfully, the Catholics and the Orthodox are around to do God's Will, as you are not...
So the only way to honor someone is to have devotion to him or her? I've never heard of that before. In that case I would suppose that you do NOT honor Abraham, or Moses, or David, or Paul, or a host of other Bible greats. In fact, the only ones you DO honor would be those you are devoted to, when you should be devoted to God instead. By your definition, who else in the Bible DO you honor?