Please, FK. Not sure where you live and whom you associate with, but clearly, you are not very familiar with alternate Protestant theologies.
For example: Is baptism salvific or not. I am having an ongoing dialogue with someone who has initiated that topic elsewhere. Yep. There are some Protestants who say "No, it is an ordinance" and others who say "Yes, baptism is a sacrament and brings the Holy Spirit, making us children of God". The "certainty" of private interpretation...
Paul is very clear. He only becomes muddled when his writings must be reconciled with the semi-contradictory holdings of the Apostolic Church.
Thank you, I'll follow the Church of the Apostles, you continue to invent it as you go.
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.
So Paul is condemning the entire community because there is dissent being caused by some of the community??? Whew! I thought we moved beyond the OT days where God wipes out the next generation for sins of the father or wipes out an entire community based on the sins of the king... How depressing to return to that theological interpretation.
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.
We aren't speaking of physical death here, but spiritual death. The sin of Adam leads to physical death. But the sin of an individual's dissent does not lead to physical death. We will die regardless of our religious affiliation or lack thereof. Thus, Paul is refering to spiritual death, a separation from the Spirit (since the Spirit gives life, I presume you know). Thus, a separation from the Spirit is spoken of in the Bible as death. 1 Cor 3 is a further example of how one can separate themselves from this Life, this Spirit of God. The result is destruction. Death. No cake involved, thank you.
Paul preaches Sola Fide, with assurance.
LOL! You have yet to prove that. You merely repeat it over and over as if it were true. IF Paul is so crystal clear on sola fide, as you claim, where is this recognition among the first Christians? Why did it take 1500 years for Christians to recognize the "clear" writings that Paul preached sola fide? I see Paul clearly saying we are not saved by faith alone - and James agrees.
Is James AND Paul the Word of God? They must agree, correct? How can James agree with YOUR interpretation of Paul? James 2 specifically says we are NOT saved by faith alone. And Catholics don't follow the Word of God??? Oy.
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.
...and thus, faith without works is not salvific. Very good. Faith alone does not save. You have said it right there.
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.
What do you base that upon? I hadn't realized that I had discussed my private devotional lifestyle to you. The Bible says all generations shall call Mary blessed. They shall venerate her. I was wondering how you do that. Do you emulate her? Or is your idea of considering her as blessed include using demeaning language about her?
Regards
Please, FK. Not sure where you live and whom you associate with, but clearly, you are not very familiar with alternate Protestant theologies. For example: Is baptism salvific or not. I am having an ongoing dialogue with someone who has initiated that topic elsewhere. Yep. There are some Protestants who say "No, it is an ordinance" and others who say "Yes, baptism is a sacrament and brings the Holy Spirit, making us children of God". The "certainty" of private interpretation...
You are right that I don't know much about non-Bible-believing faiths that call themselves "Protestant", however, I think I did clearly qualify my statement. ...... NO Bible-believing Protestant could possibly say that baptism is salvific. None of us believe that.
In fact, on this very thread I am currently having a wonderful discussion with my Reformed brothers and sisters about a very related subject, paedobaptism. I happen to be in the minority camp of following a believer's baptism. However, none of us believe that baptism is salvific. In fact, I was SO SURE of the core unity I share with my fellow Reformers that I was willing to start the disagreement in public. I did it because I genuinely want to understand the majority view, and perhaps others may learn from the exchange also. Because of the core beliefs that bind us Reformers together, there was never any risk of breaking with the faith. And as a result, I have learned much.
FK: [On 1 Cor. 3:16-17:] 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.
So Paul is condemning the entire community because there is dissent being caused by some of the community???
Where does this come from? Verse 17 says plainly "IF ANYONE" (KJV - "any man"), not "if any community". The condemnation in 17 is on the one, not the many. If you look at my quote I said that 16 was plural, not 17 (except for the last "you").
We aren't speaking of physical death here, but spiritual death.
Not in Catholicism we're not, because there is no such thing as spiritual death for you until one dips a toe into the lava. :) In Catholicism being spiritually dead is like being three days behind on the electric bill. No big deal, just pay the $10 late fee (do your penance) and you are suddenly NOT spiritually dead. My point is that in Catholicism, the term has no real meaning. I am saying that on the one hand you say that "destroy" is the same as "death", but OTOH, there is nothing permanent about "death". Therefore, I say, there is nothing permanent about "destroy", by your own usage of the terms. That is the cake you are trying to eat. :)
IF Paul is so crystal clear on sola fide, as you claim, where is this recognition among the first Christians?
The vast majority of the first ante-Apostolic Christians did not have the means or clout to have their beliefs preserved in perpetuity. No one can know what they were.
Why did it take 1500 years for Christians to recognize the "clear" writings that Paul preached sola fide?
It is debatable whether some of the early Church Fathers believed in some form of Sola Fide, but I won't even go there. The Reformation Fathers gave it a name, and perhaps it was because they were the first to not have a vested interest against it. For any Roman Catholic of the time in power and authority (who wished to remain so) to support Sola Fide would be like a modern day Democrat supporting tax-cuts, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, or allowing the mention of God in a public school. Bottom line - political suicide. That is, until a small group of men came along, led by the Spirit, who were willing to personally risk their lives for the truth the Spirit had given them.
Is James AND Paul the Word of God? They must agree, correct? How can James agree with YOUR interpretation of Paul? James 2 specifically says we are NOT saved by faith alone. And Catholics don't follow the Word of God??? Oy.
James and Paul are EQUALLY the word of God. While they are perfectly consistent, they approach faith from two different angles. Paul talks about gaining salvation by faith without works. James talks about works being an evidence of a true faith. Here is an excerpt from a website illustrating the comparison, including A Chart Comparing and Contrasting the Teaching of Paul and James :
Both writers mention “works.” Paul teaches that works are unnecessary but James teaches that works are essential. This apparent contradiction is solved when we realize that Paul was speaking of those good works that an unsaved person tries to do in order to win God’s favor or work his way to heaven. James on the other hand was referring to those good works that a saved person performs which gives evidence of a real, living, saving faith.
James does not teach that good works are necessary in order to gain salvation and Paul never teaches that good works are unnecessary after a person is saved. On the contrary, Paul agreed with James that for the person justified by faith, good works are essential (Phil. 2:12-13; Titus 3:5-8; Eph. 2:8-10). Likewise, James agreed with Paul that the only condition for inheriting the kingdom was faith and faith alone (see James 2:5 and also Acts 15 where at the Jerusalem Council James never expressed disagreement over Paul’s teaching that salvation was by faith and not by the works of the law).
James and Paul only contradict when a works-based salvation model is thrust upon James, against his free will at that. :)
...and thus, faith without works is not salvific. Very good. Faith alone does not save. You have said it right there.
James and Paul both recognize that a faith that doesn't show works is no faith at all, yes. This does not at all mean that works are a separate and distinct component of salvation. Works are an included component of true faith.
What do you base that upon? I hadn't realized that I had discussed my private devotional lifestyle to you. The Bible says all generations shall call Mary blessed. They shall venerate her. I was wondering how you do that. Do you emulate her? Or is your idea of considering her as blessed include using demeaning language about her?
I said before that I honor Mary, but that I am not devoted to her, but only to God. You said that was impossible because to honor MEANS to have devotion for. Then I said you must not honor Abraham, or Moses, or David, et al. because I know the Church doesn't venerate them anywhere near the way you do Mary. So, that's where we are. :)
Where does the Bible say that the world will venerate Mary in the way that you do? I'm not familiar with those verses. The Bible (Mary) says that all will call her blessed, a true fact. She was blessed, and so were all the Biblical greats, and so are we today. If you believe that Mary herself was trying to elevate herself to the place she holds in your Church today, then you erase all humility from her character. I don't think she would want that. I do believe that Mary was humble, and I try to emulate that. But this does not include foretelling that people all over the world will bow down to statues of me. :)