|
|
Post by Ramon on May 23, 2009 15:04:12 GMT -5
What you just said is exactly what the scripture says... 1 Cor 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy." First, I did not misunderstood you, as you said. Second, Scriptures does not say what you saying it does. One Believing member of a household brings a sanctifying influence to the household and it is the marriage itself that has been sanctified by the ordinance of God. Unlike in the Old Covenant, the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse (the clean overcomes the unclean). The whole family is set apart for God's grace. It will be better to read 2 Cor 6:14 first. Saint Paul commands Christians to "Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers." So, a spouse that gets saved after marriage might think he or she is commanded to divorce the unbeliever, since they are now unequally yoked. However, Paul said, "…let him not put her away," (v. 12) and "… let her not leave him," (v.13). So, what does God do to clean up this defiled bed? He sanctifies the unsaved spouse so that the two may remain married. This is very different in the Old Covenant, wherein it was not possible to overcome the uncleanness of an unbelieving spouse. However, Saint Paul wrote the following: "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." (1 Cor 7:15-20).. Saint Paul advices the Corinthian Christians not to divorce for simply because the other spouse is a non-believer. Rather, he or she should stay because his or her holy influence might bring the unbeliever into the Lovely Bosom of Christ and the Church. If Saint Paul believed the unbeliever was saved, he wouldn't have wrote verse 16. Saint Paul’s hope is that by staying married, the unbeliever will get saved by the believing spouse (through her faith and right living in the Orthodox Faith). Why are you ignoring verse 16? Now, does this mean that they are saved eternally? No. And it doesn't mean the unbelieving spouse is saved (at the moment) either! And it certainty doesn't mean what you said below. It means that even though they are not bapitzed and don't believe in Christ, they are remitted of original sin because of the believing spouse meaning that they have the ability to receive eternal salvation (provided that they live righteous life in God's eyes as non-believers). Considering the Orthodox Church does not accept the Catholic view on Original Sin, I am inclined to reject your interpretation, which is not a official Catholic interpretation anyway. Saint Paul never said what you alleging he meant. No Church Father did. I never said that they are saved eternally. I never said that they are automatically saved eternally. You will not find that in any of my responses at all. Oh, but you did said that the unbelieving person were saved at that moment because the other spouse is save.  IBut, the other question that everybody here has trouble with is "will God deprive a holy person of Heaven and condemn them to hell"? Why? I don't have trouble with that question. I already told you what the Orthodox Church teach concerning non-Orthodox Christians and unbelievers. Because they cannot bend their minds to the scripture that calls the unbelieving spouse holy (aka, sanctified as defined by Paul with reference to the children of the couple there). But Saint Paul did not call the unbelieving spouse "Holy" and "Save". He said the unbelieving spouse is "sanctified". Yet, the word "sanctified" doesn't mean strictly "Holy" and "save". So, since they cannot understand the scripture, they attack not only my adherence to it as it is written, but to The Catholic Church's Doctrine of non-believers being able to be saved (even Catholics have decried this). I do not think any Catholic here is denying that non-believers may be saved, but simply your interpretation of 1 Cor 7:14. Which Catholic here have deny what you claiming they are denying? Just because one cannot grasp the scripture as written, it does not mean that it is not literal. It just means that the person who can understand it, can't understand it. But Scripture doesn't contain what you saying It is based on your interpretation of the text. Ok, let's then take your definition understanding of it and completely ignore the fact that Paul literally said "for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy" (not "they are set apart"). In your understanding of the word's usage, exactly "what" are they set apart from? It is not "my" definition of it. I do not ignore the fact that Saint Paul call the children "clean" and "holy". The same greek word, in another form (agia), is used to describe the children of such marriages as holy. The children are consecrated for the sake of the believing spouse, so that the believer will not be defiled. You are ignoring the fact that the Greek word used here (for unbelieving spouse) for sanctification is "hgiastai". This word is a form of the word "agiazw", meaning to "separate from things profane and dedicate to God", "to consecrate". This same used by the Septuagint to refer to external (or levitical) cleansing. This verse has nothing to with salvific issues. I follow The Holy Spirit's guidance on this one. Saint John could be wrong, but The Holy Spirit is never wrong and when my understanding coincides with Catholic Doctrine (that unbelievers can be saved), then it's that much easier for me. Who are you to say your interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit? That is why I ask you if your interpretation is a official Catholic interpretation of the text. You said you posted some CCC quotes showing the Catholic belief that non-believers may be save, but that is not what I asked you. You have not provided any Catholic source saying that a unbelieving spouse is save through the believing spouse. Thereby, I have to conclude that this is your belief based on your interpretation of the text, not Catholic teaching. Saint John Chrysostom may be wrong, but who are we to say he is? Don't you find it strange that none of the Fathers interpreted the text the way you do? Here is what a Catholic Commentary say about this verse: "[....]The other members of a family (spouse, children) are sanctified by the partner who has received Baptism (vv. 13-14). That is, the conversion of one of the spouses, far from being to the detriment of the family, is something very good and a benfit to all; Baptism is not in any any a cause of division; rather it reinforces and sanctifies marriage and family [what I been saying all along]. Conversion, therefore, does not make for dissolution but for indissolubility" (The Navarre Bible, The Letters of Saint Paul, page 228). That is why I ask you to ask two Catholic Priests. Is your interpretation universal in the Catholic Church or is it your interpretation which you feel strongly that it is correct? In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 23, 2009 16:01:11 GMT -5
Here is another Catholic Commentary, a very respected Catholic Commentary, have to say about this verse which contradicts what you saying: Ver. 14-16. Is sanctified. The meaning is not that the faith of the husband, or the wife is of itself sufficient to put the unbelieving party, or their children, in the state of grace and salvation: but that it is very often an occasion of their sanctification, by bringing them to the true faith. (Challoner) --- Sanctification which has different significations, cannot here signify that an infidel is truly and properly sanctified, or justified, by being married to a faithful believer; therefore we can only understand an improper sanctification, so that such an infidel, though not yet converted, need not be looked upon as unclean, but in the dispositions of being converted, especially living peaceably together, and consenting that their children be baptized, by which they are truly sanctified. --- How knowest thou, O wife? &c. These words seem to give the reason, why they may part, when they cannot live peaceably, and when there is little prospect that the party that is an infidel will be converted. (Witham)Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 Edition haydock1859.tripod.com/id168.htmlThe New Advent Bible also interpret it the same way: www.newadvent.org/bible/1co007.htmThis is what Saint Thomas Aquinas have to say about this verse: In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives the example of an unbelieving husband; secondly, of an unbelieving wife (v. 14). He says, therefore, he is consecrated through his wife; as if to say: the wife who believes should not divorce the unbelieving spouse willing to live with her, because he is sanctified through the wife. This is read in two ways. In the first way thus: the husband who is not a believer is sometimes sanctified by a wife who believes, i.e., it sometimes happens that one is converted to the faith by the other. And this has probably happened already, as Sisinnius was converted to the faith in Rome by Theodora during the reign of Clement. Likewise, the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband, namely, by his admonition and doctrine. In another way it can be read thus: so the believer should not divorce the unbeliever, for the husband is sanctified by the wife, i.e., the believer does not contract uncleanness by cohabiting with or uniting with the unbelieving spouse, but preserves true modesty, according to Augustine.
346. – Then when he says, otherwise your children, this is read in two ways: first, of children to be born; secondly, of children already born. In the first way it is read thus: otherwise, if you depart and you both have relations with others, your children, who would be born of this union, would be unclean, i.e., spurious, because not born of a lawful union. In the second way it is read thus: otherwise, namely, if you separate, your children already born would be unclean, i.e., would remain in unbelief, following the majority, which would be unbelievers; but now, if you remain together, they are holy, i.e., become Christians.www.diafrica.org/kenny/CDtexts/SS1Cor.htm#72Saint Augustine the Blessed interpreted the text differently ( books.google.com/books?id=msFOYyPMSeQC&pg=PA296&dq=early+christian+writers+1+corinthians&sig=El2-Pw6bZrKaTj3OVcs9xO8zGu0#PPA118,M1). Here is what Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus have to say about this verse: "He is not requiring anyone to take an unbeliever as a wife, nor bidding a believer be joined in marriage with an unbelieving husband: he is saying the direct opposite; shortly afterward, note, he added the requirement of widows onlyin the Lord , that is, to a believing, pious man, of modest and discreet life. Here, on the contrary, he spoke of those joined in marriage before Christian teaching. That is to say, take the case where the husband came to faith while the wife persisted in unbeliever, or conversely the wife accepted the teaching while the husband was caught up in the defilement of unbelief. He recommends the healthy put up with ailment of their partners, and be busy about saving them saying, [he quotes the verse], that is, has a hope of being saved. [...] (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of Saint Paul, Volume 1, page 185).Saint John Chyrsostom, also commented on this passage saying that the clean overcomes the unclean: "Then lest the woman might fear, as though she became unclean because of intercourse with her husband, he says, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband." And yet, if "he that is joined to an harlot is one body," it is quite clear that the woman also who is joined to an idolater is one body. Well: it is one body; nevertheless she becomes not unclean, but the cleanness of the wife overcomes the uncleanness of the husband; and again, the cleanness of the believing husband overcomes the uncleanness of the unbelieving wife.
How then in this case is the uncleanness overcome, and therefore the intercourse allowed; while in the woman who prostitutes herself, the husband is not condemned in casting her out? Because here there is hope that the lost member may be saved through the marriage; but in the other case the marriage has already been dissolved; and there again both are corrupted; but here the fault is in one only of the two. I mean something like this: she that has been guilty of fornication is utterly abominable: if then "he that is joined to an harlot is one body," he also becomes abominable by having connection with an harlot; wherefore all the purity flits away. But in the case before us it is not so. But how? The idolater is unclean but the woman is not unclean. For if indeed she were a partner with him in that wherein he is unclean, I mean his impiety, she herself would also become unclean. But now the idolater is unclean in one way, and the wife holds communion with him in another wherein he is not unclean. For marriage and mixture of bodies is that wherein the communion consists. [.....]
What then, is the Greek holy? Certainly not: for he said not, He is holy; but, "He is sanctified in his wife." And this he said, not to signify that he is holy, but to deliver the woman as completely as possible from her fear and lead the man to desire the truth. For the uncleanness is not in the bodies wherein there is communion, but in the mind and the thoughts." (Homilies on 1 Corinthians, Homily 19). .
Don't you find it interesting that not even the above Catholic Commentaries agree with you? Don't you find it interesting that no Father interpreted the text as you do, not even Saint John Chrysostom? I know I do Who should I follow? Your interpretation of the text or a Father's (like Saint John Chrysostom) interpretation of it? Well.....since John Chrysostom is a Saint and Holy Father in the Orthodox Church and it is highly respected and esteem by us.....so I go with him over you any day!  ;D ;D Please Cepha, if you believe your interpretation is the correct one, ask your Priest and another Catholic Priest what they think of 1 Cor 7:14. In Fact, I am going to ask a Catholic Priest what he thinks of this....I post when he get back to me...... |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 24, 2009 11:48:41 GMT -5
This what another Catholic I asked, Edward Bode, who has doctorate in biblical theology [university of St. Thomas, Rome], said about this verse: "There are three main historic opinions about the interpretation of sancitification in the verse: [1] -- internal sanctification; [2] -- potential sanctification ; [3] -- external or legal sanctification.
I would see the pagan spouse belonging (in some way)through a holy marriage to the community of the faithful. Also, I see something of their being in a situation that could lead to internal sanctification [conversion]. Their entering such a marriage begins an association with an observant spouse and thus begins an association with the Christian way of life.
Nothing traditional supports the pagan's relationship being a deliverance from original sin -- a sort of baptism by relationship.
I hope these thoughts are of some help.
Christ is risen. Christ is truly risen!":
This is what a great theologian of the Catholic Church said about this verse. According to him, this passage from Corinthians refers to the “possible” conversion of the unbelieving spouse by the faith and prayers of the believing spouse.
Cornelius A Lapide writes:
"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. Such union by marriage is holy. The believer, therefore, is not, as you so scrupulously fear, defiled by contact with an unbeliever, but rather the unbeliever, as Anselm says, is sanctified by a kind of moral naming and sprinkling of holiness, both because he is the husband of a holy, that is a believing, wife, and also because by not hindering his wife in her faith, and by living happily with her, he as it were paves the way for himself to be converted by the prayers, merits, words, and example of his believing wife, and so to become holy. So did S. Cecilia convert her husband Valerian; Theodora, Sisinnius; Clotilda, Clodævus. So say Anselm, Theophylact, Chrysostom.
S. Natalia, the wife of S. Adrian, is illustrious for having not only incited her husband to adopt the faith, but also most gloriously to undergo martyrdom for it. For when she had heard that women were forbidden to serve the martyrs, and that the prison-doors would not be opened to them, she shaved off her hair, and having donned man’s dress, she entered the prison and strengthened the hearts of the martyrs by her good offices. Other matrons followed her example. At length the tyrant Maximianus discovered the fraud, and ordered an anvil to be brought into the prison, and the arms and legs of the martyrs to be placed on it and smashed with a crow-bar. The lictors did as they had been ordered; and when the Blessed Natalia saw it, she went to meet them and asked them to begin with Adrian. The executioners did so, and when the leg of Adrian was placed on the anvil, Natalia caught hold of his foot and held it in position. Then the executioners aimed a blow with all their might, and cut off his feet and smashed his legs. Forthwith Natalia said to Adrian, “I pray thee, my lord, servant of Christ, while your spirit remains in you, stretch forth your hand that they may also cut that off, and that you may be made like the martyrs in all things: for greater sufferings have they endured than these.” Then Adrian stretched out his hand, and gave it to Natalia, who placed it on the anvil, and then the executioners cut it off. Then they took the anvil away, and soon after his spirit fled. Cf. his life, September 8th....."
THE GREAT BIBLICAL COMMENTARY
OF CORNELIUS À LAPIDE
www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/1stcor7.htm
And concerning the children:
Else were your children unclean. If you were to put away a wife that believed not, your children would be looked upon as having been born in unlawful wedlock, and as therefore illegitimate. But, as it is, they are holy, i.e., clean—conceived and born in honourable and lawful wedlock. So Ambrose, Anselm, Augustine (de Peccat. Meritis. lib.ii. c. 26). In the second place they would be strictly unclean, because they would be enticed into infidelity, and educated in it by the unbelieving parent, who had sought for the divorce through hatred of his partner; and especially if it is the father that is the unbeliever, for in such cases the children for the most part follow the father. But if the believer remain in wedlock with the unbeliever, the children are holy, because, with the tacit permission of the unbeliever, they can easily be sanctified, baptized, and Christianly educated through the faith, the diligence, and care of the believer. So S. Augustine (de Peccat. Meritis. lib. iii. c. 12), and after Tertullian, S. Jerome (ad Paulin. Ep. 153). It is from this passage that Calvin and Beza have gathered their doctrine of imputed righteousness, teaching that the children of believers are strictly holy, and can be saved without baptism. They say that by the very fact that they are children of believers they are regarded as being born in the Church, according to the Divine covenant in Gen. xvii. “I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.” Similarly, in the Civil Law, when one parent is free the children are born free.
But these teachers err, For (1.) the Apostle says equally that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife. But it is not precisely correct to say that such a man is sanctified through his wife; neither, therefore, is it strictly true of the child. (2.) The Church is not a civil but a supernatural republic, and in it no one is born a Christian; but by baptism, which has taken the place of circumcision, every one is spiritually born again and is made holy, not civilly but really, by faith, hope, and charity infused into his soul. This is the mind of the Fathers and the whole Church. (3.) It is said absolutely in S. John iii. 5, that “except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” It is therefore untrue that any one not born of water, but merely of believing parents, can enter into the kingdom of God."
www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/1stcor7.htm. I am still waiting for a response from a Catholic Priest, Deacon, and Brother. I will post when available. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 24, 2009 20:25:27 GMT -5
Still waiting on my priest...may email another one!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 27, 2009 10:17:49 GMT -5
This is what a Catholic Brother I asked, Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM, L.Th., Catholic apologist, catechist, spiritual director, and spiritual warfare/deliverance counselor holding a degree of Licentiate in Theology have to say about this issue. He is a Brother teaching Bible, Catechetics, apologetics, and evangelism for 14 years. He also have 24 years of pastoral counseling experience and 14 years experience as a Catholic Spiritual Director. "Your Catholic friend is wrong. In fact, this friend may be flirting with a heresy (unintended, I am sure). Original Sin is remitted by the Sacrament of Baptism according to Jesus and the Church: (John 3:5) Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. CCC 1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God. CCC 1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of CCC 1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism. There are exceptions to normal water baptism such as the Baptism of Blood of a martyr for the faith who had not yet received water baptism, and the Baptism of Desire such as a person intending to receive baptism but dying before getting the chance. It is also possible in some instances for people to "be saved" without baptism, faith in in Jesus, communion with the Church. THe Sacraments are the usual and most sure way of salvation God has given us, but God Himself is not limited by the Sacraments He created. Thus, God may save whom He chooses. This happens, for example, through invincible ignorance of a person who, through "no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation" (CCC 847) It is also possible for a person with "diminished capacity," that is, a person who has some impairment of will that makes it difficult or impossible for him to freely choose God. God knows the hearts of such people in these situations and will make a perfect judgment concerning them. None of this applies to the situation in 1 Cor 7:14. In this passage, as explained by the Narvarre Bible Commentary (one of the best available), "the other members of a family (spouse, children) are sanctified by the partner who has received Baptism (vv. 13-14). That is, the conversion of one of the spouses, far from being to the detriment to the family, is something very good and a benefit to all; Baptism is not in any way a cause of division; rather it reinforces and sanctifies marriage and family..." Note: sanctify means to "set apart for sacred use; to make holy; purify. When a married couple who are both unbelievers and one of the partners converts and is baptized, it tends to make holy the marriage and thus, as the Navarre Commentary continues, "Only when the unbelieving partner disrupts family life or does not allow the Christian partner to live in accordance with his or her faith, does the Christian become free to contract a new marriage." In Catholic Canon Law (1143-47) this is called the "Pauline Privilege" that nullifies the marriage and allows the believing partner to marry again. Bottomline: The conversion of a spouse brings into the marriage the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is a good thing and something that can "sanctify" the marriage (set it apart, purify it). This is not a replacement or alternative to baptism for the remission of original sin, or any other sacrament. It is not an event that "saves" the family. Each family member must make their own decision for or against Christ and be baptized each themselves. Having a Christian spouse and parent in the house, of course, is a significant positive influence on the hopeful conversion of the other family members. God Bless, Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM, L.Th. St. Michael's Q & A: www.saint-mike.org/qa/" In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 27, 2009 10:31:42 GMT -5
Bottomline: The conversion of a spouse brings into the marriage the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is a good thing and something that can "sanctify" the marriage (set it apart, purify it). This is not a replacement or alternative to baptism for the remission of original sin, or any other sacrament. It is not an event that "saves" the family. Each family member must make their own decision for or against Christ and be baptized each themselves. Having a Christian spouse and parent in the house, of course, is a significant positive influence on the hopeful conversion of the other family members. God Bless, Bro. Ignatius Mary, OLSM, L.Th. St. Michael's Q & A: www.saint-mike.org/qa/"In IC.XC, Ramon You probably misrepresented what I believe to him because I'm on the same page that he's on. And, I agree with him 100%. And even what you posted (about non-believers being able to be saved without having to believe in Christ) proves me right. It cannot be removed from 1 Cor 7 because there is no special provision made for that in the text you quoted. Plus ultimately, both the CCC and The Bible literally state that righteous unbelievers are justified to God (saved) without faith in Christ. Your bottom line says "can sanctify", but scripture just says "sanctifies" period. The two do not match. One states a "possibility" where the scripture states and absolute statement. Which one do we choose to follow?  Who leads here? The opinion of a teacher? Or the actual text of The Holy Bible along with The Catechism of The Catholic Church? Has anyone here, anyone refuted the quotes from the CCC that I posted which support what I stated? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 27, 2009 10:40:59 GMT -5
What you just said is exactly what the scripture says... 1 Cor 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy." First, I did not misunderstood you, as you said. Second, Scriptures does not say what you saying it does. One Believing member of a household brings a sanctifying influence to the household and it is the marriage itself that has been sanctified by the ordinance of God. Fair enough. I've showed you a scripture. You responded with a term not found in that scripture "sanctifying influence". Ok, this "term" you use is not scriptural. Do we agree on that? Also, no where in the scripture I posted is the word "influence" used or suggested? Do we agree on that? The scripture says one thing..."is sanctified", not "could be sanctified", not "is influenceable", but literally "is sanctified". Do we agree on that? Let's start on that basis and stick to the scripture as written and once we can agree on what is actually written, we can then go and read between the lines. (PS I have no professional/academic training whatsoever, I've never been to seminary, I've never read the Bible from cover to cover and I am certainly not a Priest or Religious Vocational Student. I guess the best person I could be compared to as a layperson would be to my namesake in baptism...Saint Peter who also himself was "not" a professional or academically trained Priest or Religious Vocational Student who studied at a seminary or who held any institutional accreditations...he too (as I) only had access to Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit. But to be fair, I've been told by Seminary teachers at a Catholic teaching institution and by even Protestant Ministers as well as by Catholic Friars & Priests who've consecrated themselves that I have a gift for reading and discerning scripture and a vocational calling to apologetics.) , I've never been to seminary, I've never read the Bible from cover to cover and I am certainly not a Priest or Religious Vocational Student Unlike in the Old Covenant, the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse (the clean overcomes the unclean). The whole family is set apart for God's grace. It will be better to read 2 Cor 6:14 first. Saint Paul commands Christians to "Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers." So, a spouse that gets saved after marriage might think he or she is commanded to divorce the unbeliever, since they are now unequally yoked. However, Paul said, "…let him not put her away," (v. 12) and "… let her not leave him," (v.13). So, what does God do to clean up this defiled bed? He sanctifies the unsaved spouse so that the two may remain married. This is very different in the Old Covenant, wherein it was not possible to overcome the uncleanness of an unbelieving spouse. However, Saint Paul wrote the following: "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches. Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called." (1 Cor 7:15-20).. Saint Paul advices the Corinthian Christians not to divorce for simply because the other spouse is a non-believer. Rather, he or she should stay because his or her holy influence might bring the unbeliever into the Lovely Bosom of Christ and the Church. If Saint Paul believed the unbeliever was saved, he wouldn't have wrote verse 16. Saint Paul’s hope is that by staying married, the unbeliever will get saved by the believing spouse (through her faith and right living in the Orthodox Faith). Why are you ignoring verse 16? And it doesn't mean the unbelieving spouse is saved (at the moment) either! And it certainty doesn't mean what you said below. Considering the Orthodox Church does not accept the Catholic view on Original Sin, I am inclined to reject your interpretation, which is not a official Catholic interpretation anyway. Saint Paul never said what you alleging he meant. No Church Father did. Oh, but you did said that the unbelieving person were saved at that moment because the other spouse is save. I don't have trouble with that question. I already told you what the Orthodox Church teach concerning non-Orthodox Christians and unbelievers. But Saint Paul did not call the unbelieving spouse "Holy" and "Save". He said the unbelieving spouse is "sanctified". Yet, the word "sanctified" doesn't mean strictly "Holy" and "save". I do not think any Catholic here is denying that non-believers may be saved, but simply your interpretation of 1 Cor 7:14. Which Catholic here have deny what you claiming they are denying? But Scripture doesn't contain what you saying It is based on your interpretation of the text. It is not "my" definition of it. I do not ignore the fact that Saint Paul call the children "clean" and "holy". The same greek word, in another form (agia), is used to describe the children of such marriages as holy. The children are consecrated for the sake of the believing spouse, so that the believer will not be defiled. You are ignoring the fact that the Greek word used here (for unbelieving spouse) for sanctification is "hgiastai". This word is a form of the word "agiazw", meaning to "separate from things profane and dedicate to God", "to consecrate". This same used by the Septuagint to refer to external (or levitical) cleansing. This verse has nothing to with salvific issues. I follow The Holy Spirit's guidance on this one. Saint John could be wrong, but The Holy Spirit is never wrong and when my understanding coincides with Catholic Doctrine (that unbelievers can be saved), then it's that much easier for me. Who are you to say your interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit? That is why I ask you if your interpretation is a official Catholic interpretation of the text. You said you posted some CCC quotes showing the Catholic belief that non-believers may be save, but that is not what I asked you. You have not provided any Catholic source saying that a unbelieving spouse is save through the believing spouse. Thereby, I have to conclude that this is your belief based on your interpretation of the text, not Catholic teaching. Saint John Chrysostom may be wrong, but who are we to say he is? Don't you find it strange that none of the Fathers interpreted the text the way you do? Here is what a Catholic Commentary say about this verse: "[....]The other members of a family (spouse, children) are sanctified by the partner who has received Baptism (vv. 13-14). That is, the conversion of one of the spouses, far from being to the detriment of the family, is something very good and a benfit to all; Baptism is not in any any a cause of division; rather it reinforces and sanctifies marriage and family [what I been saying all along]. Conversion, therefore, does not make for dissolution but for indissolubility" (The Navarre Bible, The Letters of Saint Paul, page 228). That is why I ask you to ask two Catholic Priests. Is your interpretation universal in the Catholic Church or is it your interpretation which you feel strongly that it is correct? In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 27, 2009 10:41:11 GMT -5
As you wish... Catholic Catechism 1637 In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband."140 It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith.141 Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion. What?! The catechism must use a different translation than you Cepha. It doesn't say "holy" or "sancitified" no, it uses the word "consecrated" which means, as I have continually said, "set apart". |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 27, 2009 10:43:35 GMT -5
You probably misrepresented what I believe to him because I'm on the same page that he's on. No, I quoted word from word what you said. You believe that the unbelieving spouse is saved by the believing spouse, and that the unbelieving spouse is remitted from Original sin, he and others do not. And, I agree with him 100%. And even what you posted (about non-believers being able to be saved without having to believe in Christ) proves me right. If you believe him 100%, you would have to retract your previous claims. Plus ultimately, both the CCC and The Bible literally state that righteous unbelievers are justified to God (saved) without faith in Christ. We are not talking about that, but your interpretation of the text. Which one do we choose to follow? Who leads here? The opinion of a teacher? Or the actual text of The Holy Bible along with The Catechism of The Catholic Church? Don't you find it interesting that not even the above Catholic Commentaries (that I posted) agree with you? Don't you find it interesting that no Father interpreted the text as you do, not even Saint John Chrysostom? The problem is your interpretation of text (not the actual text of Scriptures), that not even Catholic Commentaries, Saints, Fathers, and Theologians of your Church agree with you. I also quoted what another Catholic said above, who has a biblical theology education. The Catechism of the Catholic Church doesn't say that the unbelieving spouse is saved because the other is saved, or any of the other claims you made. Nor does it interpret 1 Cor 7:14 the way you do. It only states, has your previous posted, that unbelievers "may" be save. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 27, 2009 10:47:06 GMT -5
Saint Paul advices the Corinthian Christians not to divorce for simply because the other spouse is a non-believer. Rather, he or she should stay because his or her holy influence might bring the unbeliever into the Lovely Bosom of Christ and the Church. If Saint Paul believed the unbeliever was saved, he wouldn't have wrote verse 16. Saint Paul’s hope is that by staying married, the unbeliever will get saved by the believing spouse (through her faith and right living in the Orthodox Faith). Why are you ignoring verse 16? Because before we can move on to other verses, we must first come to an agreement on what 1 Cor 7:14 means. It's Apologetics 101. ;D Instead of saying what I said, "quote" what I said, because I never said what you are saying I said. But, I'll give you the opportunity to go back and to find the words you claimed I said and to post them into your response to this post. Quote me. Who wrote 1 Cor 7? What does it say? I never said/wrote that. Again, you are making accusations of what I said, but you haven't posted one quote of mine. By all means, quote me. That is proof. Show me where I said what you are claiming I said. In the verse, he literally compares the sanctification to that of the childrens (making them equal). What did he literally say about the children? Please, write the word Paul literally called the children when comparing the salvation of the parents to them. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 27, 2009 10:48:47 GMT -5
10 On the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of the LORD came to the prophet Haggai: 11 "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Ask the priests what the law says: 12 If a person carries consecrated meat in the fold of his garment, and that fold touches some bread or stew, some wine, oil or other food, does it become consecrated?' "
The priests answered, "No."
13 Then Haggai said, "If a person defiled by contact with a dead body touches one of these things, does it become defiled?"
"Yes," the priests replied, "it becomes defiled."
I think that the verse in 1 Cor. was probably written to prevent the believer from leaving the unbeliever for reasons of fear. Fear that somehow they, or their children would be made "unclean" by the unbeliever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 27, 2009 10:56:47 GMT -5
Fair enough. I've showed you a scripture. You responded with a term not found in that scripture "sanctifying influence". Ok, this "term" you use is not scriptural. Do we agree on that? Also, no where in the scripture I posted is the word "influence" used or suggested? Do we agree on that? Now you arguing from a Sola-Scriptural perspective!  ;D Also, you responded to beliefs not found in the text (ie., "It means that even though they are not bapitzed and don't believe in Christ, they are remitted of original sin because of the believing spouse meaning that they have the ability to receive eternal salvation (provided that they live righteous life in God's eyes as non-believers", page 4 of this thread) Can we agree that none of you stated above is found in the text? The scripture says one thing..."is sanctified", not "could be sanctified", not "is influenceable", but literally "is sanctified". Do we agree on that? [/qupte] But one have to interpret the text. One have to interpret the word "sanctified" (which I have show the Greek word used in this passage, and another Catholic that has Bibical theology said that there three historical opinions has to what this word mean in the text). You interpret it in such a way that not even other Catholics, theologians, Commentaries (etc) of your Church agree with you. So we have a problem here. You follow your own interpretation above what other Catholic authorities have to say about the text. Let's start on that basis and stick to the scripture as written and once we can agree on what is actually written, we can then go and read between the lines. Fair enough. Then retract your previous claims (the unbelieving spouse is saved through the believing spouse, original sin is remitted in the unbelieving spouse, etc) and stick to what is written. (PS I have no professional/academic training whatsoever, I've never been to seminary, I've never read the Bible from cover to cover and I am certainly not a Priest or Religious Vocational Student. I guess the best person I could be compared to as a layperson would be to my namesake in baptism...Saint Peter who also himself was "not" a professional or academically trained Priest or Religious Vocational Student who studied at a seminary or who held any institutional accreditations...he too (as I) only had access to Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit. But to be fair, I've been told by Seminary teachers at a Catholic teaching institution and by even Protestant Ministers as well as by Catholic Friars & Priests who've consecrated themselves that I have a gift for reading and discerning scripture and a vocational calling to apologetics.) Then what you do when Saints, Fathers, Theologians, Brothers, Commentaries of your Church disagree with you, as in this case? In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 27, 2009 11:03:30 GMT -5
Because before we can move on to other verses, we must first come to an agreement on what 1 Cor 7:14 means. It's Apologetics 101. But if we interpret verse 14 in a way that contradicts verse 17, then that isn't "Apologetics 101" Instead of saying what I said, "quote" what I said, because I never said what you are saying I said. But, I'll give you the opportunity to go back and to find the words you claimed I said and to post them into your response to this post. Quote me. O.k, please Cepha tell us what you believe 1 Cor 7:14 means. No games, no playing around, just a straightforward answer. In the verse, he literally compares the sanctification to that of the childrens (making them equal). What did he literally say about the children? Please, write the word Paul literally called the children when comparing the salvation of the parents to them. The same greek word (hgiastai), in another form (agia), is used to describe the children of such marriages as holy. The children are consecrated for the sake of the believing spouse, so that the believer will not be defiled. The Greek word used here (for unbelieving spouse) for sanctification is "hgiastai". This word is a form of the word "agiazw", meaning to "separate from things profane and dedicate to God", "to consecrate". This same used by the Septuagint to refer to external (or levitical) cleansing. This verse has nothing to with salvific issues. It has to do with sanctification of marriage as Catholic Commentaries said. To force the meaning of words employed for "holy" and "consecrated" to their salvific sense distorts the text and ignores the context. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 27, 2009 11:11:17 GMT -5
Here is another Catholic Commentary, a very respected Catholic Commentary, have to say about this verse which contradicts what you saying: Saint John Chyrsostom, also commented on this passage saying that the clean overcomes the unclean: "Then lest the woman might fear, as though she became unclean because of intercourse with her husband, he says, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the husband." And yet, if "he that is joined to an harlot is one body," it is quite clear that the woman also who is joined to an idolater is one body. Well: it is one body; nevertheless she becomes not unclean, but the cleanness of the wife overcomes the uncleanness of the husband; and again, the cleanness of the believing husband overcomes the uncleanness of the unbelieving wife.
How then in this case is the uncleanness overcome, and therefore the intercourse allowed; while in the woman who prostitutes herself, the husband is not condemned in casting her out? Because here there is hope that the lost member may be saved through the marriage; but in the other case the marriage has already been dissolved; and there again both are corrupted; but here the fault is in one only of the two. I mean something like this: she that has been guilty of fornication is utterly abominable: if then "he that is joined to an harlot is one body," he also becomes abominable by having connection with an harlot; wherefore all the purity flits away. But in the case before us it is not so. But how? The idolater is unclean but the woman is not unclean. For if indeed she were a partner with him in that wherein he is unclean, I mean his impiety, she herself would also become unclean. But now the idolater is unclean in one way, and the wife holds communion with him in another wherein he is not unclean. For marriage and mixture of bodies is that wherein the communion consists. [.....]
What then, is the Greek holy? Certainly not: for he said not, He is holy; but, "He is sanctified in his wife." And this he said, not to signify that he is holy, but to deliver the woman as completely as possible from her fear and lead the man to desire the truth. For the uncleanness is not in the bodies wherein there is communion, but in the mind and the thoughts." (Homilies on 1 Corinthians, Homily 19). .
Don't you find it interesting that not even the above Catholic Commentaries agree with you? Don't you find it interesting that no Father interpreted the text as you do, not even Saint John Chrysostom? I know I do Who should I follow? Your interpretation of the text or a Father's (like Saint John Chrysostom) interpretation of it? Well.....since John Chrysostom is a Saint and Holy Father in the Orthodox Church and it is highly respected and esteem by us.....so I go with him over you any day! ;D ;D Please Cepha, if you believe your interpretation is the correct one, ask your Priest and another Catholic Priest what they think of 1 Cor 7:14. In Fact, I am going to ask a Catholic Priest what he thinks of this....I post when he get back to me...... Do you know what a "commentary" is? Commentaries are not doctrine. Let's stick to two things...Scripture and Doctrine. (Plus, that "commentary" you posted doesn't in anyway contradict what I believe. ;D ) Also, Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus doesn't explain away what is literally stated in scripture. It is offering an "explaination", but not "the" doctrine of salvation for non-believers. When in doubt, doctrine (not commentaries) are the rule of the day and what does doctrine teach? That unbelievers can be saved. What does the verse state? That the unebelieving spouse is made "holy" by the believing spouse. It doesn't say "the sinful, unrepentant, once accepted Christ, but now rejects Christ unbelieving spouse is made sanctified." and, as I've already told you, neither do I. It literally says that the unbelieving spouse (and nothing else about his/her state of grace to God) is made holy. You are automatically assuming that the spouse of the believer is automatically out of God's graces when scripture doesn't mention anything about the state of grace of the unbeliever there. You are literally interjecting your own beliefs "into" the scripture in order to justify your inability to accept the scripture as it is written (which opens doors to all kinds of personal interpretation. You have to, HAVE TO, "not" assume the state of the unbelieving spouse. That is not in scripture. What "is" in scripture is that the unbelieving spouse is made holy (sanctified, set apart, etc...) by the faith of the believing spouse. Period. Nothing else. Anything else added to it is exactly that...adding to it. Let's talk about what is actually "there" in the text, not about what could be or what should be. This is why I have no problems or conflict with scripture. I read it and work to understand what is "there" (not what could be or what is possible, but what "is"). Remember, I (and I'm probably the only one here) am the biggest ignoramus here when it comes to scripture. I have no academic training, I attend no classes, but, I can literally prove what I say with scripture and doctrine backs up what I say and not only that, you will not find one doctrinal teaching that contradicts what the scripture says or what I accept that it says that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 27, 2009 11:12:46 GMT -5
You probably misrepresented what I believe to him because I'm on the same page that he's on. No, I quoted word from word what you said. You believe that the unbelieving spouse is saved by the believing spouse, and that the unbelieving spouse is remitted from Original sin, he and others do not. In IC.XC, Ramon Write down here what you told him I said: |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 27, 2009 11:16:01 GMT -5
Write down here what you told him I said: For the sake of the argument, let say that I misrepresented what you believe. Tell us Cepha, how do you interpret the text. No games, no playing around. Just a straightforward answer...... In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 27, 2009 11:24:26 GMT -5
As you wish... Catholic Catechism 1637 In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband."140 It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith.141 Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion. I agree with that, but it doesn't prove me wrong! LOL! It doesn't say that the unbelieving spouse is "not" saved! Does it? It talks only about conversion! What's your understanding about what CCC 1637 says? That doesn't address the consecration of the unbelieving spouse, it just states how it would be a joy if they converted anyway! What are you trying to imply that this says? Since it certainly doesn't take away from the fact that the unbelieving spouse is made holy by the believing spouse. And, will God "not" allow a holy person into heaven Teresa? Yes? Or no? Do you believe that God will condemn a "holy" person to eternal damnation if they don't believe in Jesus Christ? Yes? Or no? What?! The catechism must use a different translation than you Cepha. It doesn't say "holy" or "sancitified" no, it uses the word "consecrated" which means, as I have continually said, "set apart". Really? Read the actual "footnote" of that line in #1638: 212.77.1.247/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htmThe footnote number is #138. What does that footnote lead to? It leads to this: 138 1 Cor 7:14. What does 1 Cor 7:14 lead to (in a Catholic approved Bible)? To this: American Standard Bible "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy."And...what does the word "consecrate" mean? Synonyms: anoint, beatify, bless, dedicate, devote, exalt, hallow, honor, ordain, sanctify, set LMCBO! Why do you guys even bother trying? LOL! You pull ever piece of text you can find, but not one of you have answered this question: Would God "not" allow a "holy" person into heaven? Yes? Or no? |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 27, 2009 11:24:38 GMT -5
Do you know what a "commentary" is? Commentaries are not doctrine. Let's stick to two things...Scripture and Doctrine. (Plus, that "commentary" you posted doesn't in anyway contradict what I believe. ;D ) Yes, commentaries are not doctrine, but there are to explain Scriptures. Catholic Commentaries are there to explain Scriptures in light of Catholic teachings. Are you saying that there is no use for Commentaries to enlighten us? That the unebelieving spouse is made "holy" by the believing spouse. It doesn't say "the sinful, unrepentant, once accepted Christ, but now rejects Christ unbelieving spouse is made sanctified." and, as I've already told you, neither do I. It literally says that the unbelieving spouse (and nothing else about his/her state of grace to God) is made holy. You are automatically assuming that the spouse of the believer is automatically out of God's graces when scripture doesn't mention anything about the state of grace of the unbeliever there. First, we must interpret the text. What does "sanctification" mean here. Has Edward Bode, a Catholic, said, there are three historical opinions has to want "sanctified" mean here. [1] -- internal sanctification; [2] -- potential sanctification ; [3] -- external or legal sanctification. The latter is the best interpretation, given the Greek word used in this text.
I have never said the unbelieving spouse is out of God's grace. We both agree that unbelievers "may" be saved, all in the Grace and Mercy of God.
Anything else added to it is exactly that...adding to it.
But you added to the text, saying that original sin is remitted, etc.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
[/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 27, 2009 11:48:27 GMT -5
When used in that verse, it's meaning is clear as it is compared to the child's state (which Paul calls "holy"). In other words you're saying it means anything else but the word that it's compared to with regards to the state of the children? Is this what you're implying? That's why I'm trying to get one of them to state if God will ban holy people from heaven. Where does The Bible teach that? "so that the believer will not be defiled." But, it's not compared to setting apart the children, it's compared to the children's state of holiness. No where in that verse is "setting apar" even alluded too, but the only other definition of the word "sanctified" that is alluded to, no wait, let me correct myself, that is actually compared to is the word "holy" and both are literally connected by the text. So a "sanctified" person could be damned to hell in your opinion? Ok, I accept that. Not that I'm any better than anyone here, but I'm someone who actually physically "died", went to Heaven, was confronted by Jesus Christ, heard the choirs of angels singing and when I said I found Christ, I can say that "literally" (not figuratively). My faith doesn't come from a book. It doesn't come from being converted by a man. It came from the Man Who was God...Jesus Himself. And this was BEFORE I reverted back to my Catholic faith. You asked. That's my "assurance". I didn't "pray" to Jesus. I didn't just "feel" like I knew Jesus. I literally talked to Jesus. What others allude to from stories and from blind faith, I literally experienced. Again, this doesn't make me better than anyone (in fact, it places more responsibility on me since I've been way more priviliged than the overwhelming majority of Christians and non-believers in the entire history of the world). Who am I to say my personal interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit? No one...But Jesus Christ is Everyone to tell me that I'm right in believing that the unbelieving spouse that is righteous in God's eyes is saved...just like Romans 2 says that unbelievers can be saved, just like the CCC says that un believers can be saved. Besides, 1 Cor 7 doesn't say that unbelieving spouses are condenmed to hell and neither does the CCC. The two are not exclusive of each other. We cannot dissect Catholic teaching to "pick and choose" what we will apply to a specific verse. The belief of a Catholic must be agreeable to all Catholic Doctrine. I posted the belief that unbelievers can be saved as supporting evidence that it is not impossible for the unbelieving spouse to be saved and on top of that, there is no Catholic Doctrine that states that the unebelieving spouse is "not" saved. It would be wrong to make that assumption when it is not taught by The Catholic Church. The Holy Bible doesn't mention computers, but we know they exist and it is "right" for a Catholic to believe that they exist. However, it would be "wrong" for a Catholic to "not" believe that computers "don't" exist just because it's not stated in The Holy Bible. The Holy Bible speaks about The Holy Bible, but not about "everything" that is true. Even The Holy Bible teaches that everything that Jesus did is not in it, does that make those things less than or "not" true? Of course not. One thing we do know is that we cannot believe in something that is not stated in the Bible as "Biblical". It is "not" Biblical to believe that unbelieving spouses of believing spouses are condemned to hell. Period. That is beyond debate. We can believe that unrepentant sinning, evil hearted, Jesus rejecting unbelieving spouses will not be saved. That we can believe because it coincides with the rest of scripture and meets the requisites of what a saved/unsaved person can expect. See, Scripture is inerrant. Man's interpretation is fallible. None of what I've said is contrary to scripture. Nothing. The unbelieving spouse is made holy, set apart, sanctified by the believing spouse. Period. Of course, a sinful unbelieving spouse does not qualify for salvation (therefore cannot be called holy), but a righteous (one who pleases God, one who literally "is" holy) believing spouse can. So for you, sanctification doesn't equal salvation, right? What is the doctrinal teaching on the matter? Even The Church Fathers must YIELD to the doctrinal teaching. It is The Church that teaches. The CF's are subordinate to The Church. I get my marching orders from The Church first and foremost. I'll do one better. Wait until you see who agrees with me. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 27, 2009 11:57:59 GMT -5
Write down here what you told him I said: For the sake of the argument, let say that I misrepresented what you believe. Tell us Cepha, how do you interpret the text. No games, no playing around. Just a straightforward answer...... In IC.XC, Ramon Again? I already told you Ramon. My position was made clear long ago. 1 Corinthians 7:14 allows far more graces for the unbelieving spouse to receive salvation though they not believe than the unbeliever who is "not" married to a believer. This of course (as is with ALLLL salvation) is CONDITIONAL on them meeting the requisites of non-believers period (that they be righteous in God's eyes, that they live His Law as written on their hearts as shown in Romans 2). I never said/wrote/explained that salvation was "automatic". In fact, I was accused of this and asked for proof that I wrote that and no one, not one of you posted any proof of this. Nothing that I've written can be denied. Not one thing. The unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse. Period. Just like the children are. But, even though it's not said in that verse, it is the standard for salvation even for non-believers that they "please God". This is why none on you have answered this question (to my knowledge) so far...if the unbelieving spouse is made holy, will God deny them salvation? Will God condemn those "set apart" to be damned to hell? Yes or no? |
|
;D ;D
;D