Wow! It’s amazing the hoops one has to jump with you. Again: Who were the infallible ones, those who determined the Apocrypha as part of the canon or those who didn’t?
I have addressed it, as has cfrancis. Anyone is else free to read through the thread and determine if your points have gone unaddressed.
Did you feel we were done, CM? I thought we still had stuff to clarify from post 270.
Humour me and quote the portion of your response that is relevant to dismissing Paul’s interpretation of his own metaphor in verse 9. I’ve gone back over what you’ve written and found that you provided no justification for substituting your interpretation for Paul’s-you just went ahead and did so-your own version of Pauline privilege perhaps?
Search any post of mine beginning with my first response to you for the word “minister” or “ordained.” If you don’t think I addressed the verse, then you can go forth and tell everyone I fit the bill in your signature.
p.s. if 250 years from the time Paul wrote disqualifies the interpretation of the Apostles’ successors, what do I do with your interpretation that there’s no sign of purification in this passage?
And yet more sidestepping. You aren’t getting out of this one PRmerger. Sure, if I brought it up, I brought it up in the context of your assertions. The reader can see this for themselves. But this isn’t about who brought up infallibility. Rather, it is about your implications and assertions. Thus, you kept bringing up canon issues as if they had something to do with infallibility – after all, us Protestants are indebted to the Catholic church for giving us the canon – yet, you can’t answer a simple question: WHO were the infallible ones, the ones who included the Apocrypha or the ones who didn’t? After all, if we are indebted to the RCC for canon, why is it that our canons are different. Who is infallibly right?Interesting…
I did a search on this thread to see who first brought up the term infallible–CM or me?
Guess who it was?
And I also did a search here to see who first brought up the term infallibility–CM or me?
Can you guess who it was?
What about the term eisegesis?
Looks like someone who doesn’t want to answer questions that he brings up is looking for a way out.
As I said, I (me, myself,) brought it up in the context of your assertions. The reader can see this for themselves. Furthermore, the reader can see the “red herrings” and how you continue to avoid the question. Don’t attempt to confuse it because it’s not going to work. The posts speak for themselves.Also, I predict that a post is forthcoming about my using the Apocrypha as another “red herring.”
Can you guess who first brought up the term Apocryphya in our discussion?
Unless we can come up with a primary source stating otherwise, I think this would be the better choice.
This assumes that some will enter heaven impure. Why would you think so? What if the blood of Christ is much more powerful and capable of finishing the work before entering the kingdom. Can you back it up with Scripture? The part where some some may have impurities which impede their ability to enter heaven, but will not cause them hell.
The Church.
For those who want to do their own check forums.catholic-questions.org/search.php?do=finduser&userid=26934&searchthreadid=420835
You acknowledge that Paul is speaking about ministers as builders and then claim the freedom to change that to “all are builders”. Yet in my last discussion with cfrancis, I showed how Paul specifically differentiates himself and Apollos from the church members in verse 9-if he had wanted them to think of themselves as builders, why did he tell them they were the building?
I never said it disqualified them, rather I was making the point that the use of the term “early” is a bit of a stretch. Had it been the Didache or Clement, that would be early (and Clement would really make your case, given that he is writing to the Corinthians.)p.s. if 250 years from the time Paul wrote disqualifies the interpretation of the Apostles’ successors, what do I do with your interpretation that there’s no sign of purification in this passage?
The “numbers”/“depth” issue is a sidebar; I don’t see a strong case for the “numbers” side, but really, it’s not essential.
As I said earlier, we agree with the sentiment in v9 - there is a distinction being made, which fits Paul’s exhortation that comes later (“are all teachers…”).
Rest assured, I’m arguing no one gets into heaven impure. Also, Christ’s blood is powerful enough to completely purify a person on earth. In fact Christ’s blood is powerful enough to save every person from hell—but people still go there.
Apostolic.
Well, since you’re talking about the “Apocrypha”, then you are necessarily talking about the Old Testament canon put together by the Jews - not the Catholic Church. The argument boils down to the acceptance of the canon used by the Palestinian Jews (without the deuterocanonicals) or the canon accepted by the Alexandrian Jews (including the deuterocanonicals). The Catholic Church accepted the latter – and Protestants the former. It only took Luther a few years to decide that he (in his infinite wisdom) knew better than the Early Church approximately 1,200 years his senior.
Well, sin separates us from Christ and unless we repent have faith in His sacrifice, regardless of the blood, they are lost. That is the message of Scripture. However, what about those who have repented and put their faith in Christ. These are those who Christ can purify before entering the kingdom. Therefore, the question remains. Why can’t He?
Ascetics or not, these people remain sinners. They continue to have a sin nature.
A. True
Well, so you say.
Well, so you say.
Again, one doesn’t demand the other. I am a sinner, saved by grace. I have a sin nature and this causes me to fall into sin at times. However, by God’s grace I am growing in sanctification and will continue to do so until He calls me home. Now, does that mean that anything that’s “outlying” or an assumed “stain” will need to be dealt with before I can enter His presence. That’s where we get into presumption. I don’t see that in Scripture or in the early church. And I am firmly confident that Christ is able to present me unblemished because of what He did on the cross without the need for presumptions.
I would say neither.
I never said that or implied it. Fact is, I would say quite the opposite. It is because of who Christ is and not because or our own merits.
Agree - "no man" (v11). Even in v10, he carries the distinction, using "each man", which fits with v9. But in v11, in keeping with his universal message, Paul is back to the all-inclusive language that meshes nicely with Chap 1,2 and the rest of 3 and on: "no man"
I emphasized your words to contrast them with Paul’s, especially in context to v11:
What is it that makes someone - a brick - in the Corinthian Church, or Chloe’s Church in the Corinthian Church, or a family in Chloe’s Church - gold, silver or precious gems? It is, as Paul says, their works, or rather, do they let Christ work through them. Therefore, each member of the Church - at all levels - has a responsibility to build on the foundation of Christ with gold, silver and precious gems - good works.
16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
Notice in vv13-15 Paul makes no mention of damnation, which would equate to your idea of “people being lost in the fire of judgment on ‘the Day’.” All he speaks of are those who will be saved: