Faith without works........is Faith.

[MarkT]

I've already pointed out exactly what the will of His Father is; stated very clearly in John 6:40 - “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” This is what that crowd in Matt 7 never did. Which is why they were denied entrance into the kingdom.

No. It's not about the crowd that heard him. Nevertheless, it is the Father's will that those who believe in the Son shall have eternal life. But Mt. 7:21 says, not everyone who calls him Lord shall enter the kingdom, but he who does the will of the Father. So it is the Father's will that his servants, those who do his will, shall have eternal life. Again, this involves keeping his commandments.

Jesus prophesied, 'on that day', which will be when he returns, many will say they did mighty works in his name. Only believers would say that. It's not my opinion. It's a fact, many have fallen away from the truth. Then, on that day, Jesus will say, 'I never knew you; depart from me you evil doers.' So believers will be cast out. Mt. 7:21-23 This also agrees with Mt. 8:11-12

How can a man be "dead" IF he has previously been given eternal life? Seems my point was totally missed.

Your premise is he has been given eternal life. But I'm saying it doesn't work that way. Jesus said, 'If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned'. John 15:6

Without water, branches die.

Paul said, 'I planted, Apol'los watered, but God gave growth. 1 Cor. 3:6

 

[MarkT]

Again, I explained this. Jesus used an agricultural metaphor. His point was about productivity, not getting saved.

What is this agricultural thing you have invented? You know what a tree is. You know what a branch is. Dead branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. John 15:6

So Jesus is saying we have to remain in him or die. So apart from the tree, the branches can not survive. Water doesn't reach the branch, so it withers.

You can not say dead branches are saved.

 

[FreeGrace]

The passage plainly says the judgement of the willfully sinning, Son trampling, blood desecrating, grace insulting (ex) believer is the coming Judgment of fire reserved for the enemies of God (vs.27) not the present loving discipline of the children of God.

It makes no such distinction.

These people, sanctified by the blood of Christ, but who walk in a conscious, willful rejection of Christ, end up suffering the fate of the hypocritical and unbelieving.

This is impossible, because eternal life is a gift of God (Rom 6:23) and is irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

Jesus said those who have eternal life will NEVER PERISH (Jn 3:16).

When the people of God become unbelievers they suffer the fate of the unbelieving.

Impossible, because eternal life is irrevocable.

So, because we see the gift of redemption--the forgiveness of sins--being revoked here and in Matthew 18:23-35 NASB we know that Paul is not including salvation in the gifts that are irrevocable in Romans 11:29.

There is no contextual evidence that Paul had Matt 18 in mind at all. And certainly none of his readers would have.

There has been a total failure to support such a view.

He can't be, or else he'd be contradicting Jesus, and himself (assuming he wrote the book of Hebrews). It's a simple 'rightly' dividing the word of God, taking in the whole counsel of God, not just improperly isolating areas of it, separated out from the whole for the purpose of serving a preferred doctrine.

Until one accepts the truth of Paul, that eternal life is a gift of God, and that God's gifts are irrevocable, none of the warning passages will be properly understood.

The view of conditional security has no support from Scripture plainly saying that one's salvation can be lost.

 

[FreeGrace]

The only reason is Paul didn't include the words eternal life in Romans 11:29.

Paul specifically defined eternal life as a gift (charisma) of God in 6:23. The VERY NEXT TIME he used charisma was in 11:29. The linkage is direct and clear.

Gift - Strong's Number: 5486 - Charisma

For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established--
Romans 1:11

Spiritual gifts are irrevocable.

Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; Romans 12:6

Again, they are irrevocable.

Grace - Strong's Number: 5485 - Charis - a gift of grace
Here are other uses of the word gift - Charisma, which has at it's root grace.
Grace is the empowering ability of God, bestowed upon us to enable us to do what we can not without it.

This is irrelevant to HOW Paul used the word charisma in Romans.

For the spiritual empowering abilities and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

This is an unacceptable rendering of Rom 11:29. Paul didn't write "spiritual empowering abilities". Your claim is just a patchwork of works cobbled together to try to defend your position.

Paul DEFINED eternal life as a charisma of God in Rom 6:23. And the VERY NEXT TIME he used charisma is in 11:29 where he pointed out that God's charisma are irrevocable.

 

[FreeGrace]

Good point and thanks, Jethro.

Sometimes I find myself thinking posters are getting a little vindictive or just throwing anything at me/us to win an argument when winning is really not the point

The only point is Truth. What the Bible actually says and means. And the Bible SAYS that eternal life is a gift of God (Rom 6:23), and that God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

 

[FreeGrace]

No. It's not about the crowd that heard him.

Matt 7:21-23 is all about that crowd.

Nevertheless, it is the Father's will that those who believe in the Son shall have eternal life.

So, it's clear that the crowd there didn't have the gift of eternal life, which is irrevocable (Rom 11:2).

But Mt. 7:21 says, not everyone who calls him Lord shall enter the kingdom, but he who does the will of the Father.

No one shall enter the kingdom apart from having eternal life, obviously.

So it is the Father's will that his servants, those who do his will, shall have eternal life. Again, this involves keeping his commandments.

No, this involves believing in Jesus Christ for eternal life (Jn 3:16, 5:24, 6:40, 47, 11:25-27, 30:31).

Jesus prophesied, 'on that day', which will be when he returns, many will say they did mighty works in his name. Only believers would say that.

I believe the very text of Matt 7 refutes your claim. These people didn't have eternal life. Therefore, they were NEVER believers.

It's not my opinion. It's a fact, many have fallen away from the truth.

It is your opinion. However, falling away from the truth doesn't remove one's salvation.

I said this:
"How can a man be "dead" IF he has previously been given eternal life? Seems my point was totally missed."

Your premise is he has been given eternal life. But I'm saying it doesn't work that way.

Maybe I misunderstood your statement, but it seemed that your view was a man "became" dead, which seemed to suggest that he lost his eternal life, which is impossible. I'm not sure what is meant by "it doesn't work that way". If not, please explain how it does work then.

Jesus said, 'If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned'. John 15:6

Without water, branches die.

This is an agricultural metaphor, not a literal statement. It's about being unproductive for God, and cast aside from service, just as a farmer casts off unproductive branches.

Please note; there is nothing eternal about the fire or burning here. Fire is used for judgment, but there is no hint of eternal judgment here. There just seems to be too much assuming going on.

Paul said, 'I planted, Apol'los watered, but God gave growth. 1 Cor. 3:6

Which has absolutely nothing to do with John 15:6.

 

[FreeGrace]

Here is what I said:
"Again, I explained this. Jesus used an agricultural metaphor. His point was about productivity, not getting saved."

What is this agricultural thing you have invented?

"thing"??? The word is metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which an implicit comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something in common.

You know what a tree is. You know what a branch is. Dead branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

Why would anyone think that Jesus was speaking literally here? Jesus was comparing useless believers with useless branches (an agricultural metaphor). His point was about abiding in Him so that we will be productive. Otherwise, He will cast us off from His service.

Given that Jesus was speaking to Jews, who prided themselves on being God's elect nation, such a thought would be horrible to them; that God would cast them, the elect, off.

If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. John 15:6

Nothing here about loss of salvation.

So Jesus is saying we have to remain in him or die.

No He didn't. Not even close to that. It was about being useful or not. Metaphor, remember?

You can not say dead branches are saved.

Jesus was saying that dead branches are not useful to His service. Metaphor, remember?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It makes no such distinction.


This is impossible, because eternal life is a gift of God (Rom 6:23) and is irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

Jesus said those who have eternal life will NEVER PERISH (Jn 3:16).


Impossible, because eternal life is irrevocable.


There is no contextual evidence that Paul had Matt 18 in mind at all. And certainly none of his readers would have.

There has been a total failure to support such a view.


Until one accepts the truth of Paul, that eternal life is a gift of God, and that God's gifts are irrevocable, none of the warning passages will be properly understood.

The view of conditional security has no support from Scripture plainly saying that one's salvation can be lost.

16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy" (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 NASB)

FreeGrace, if your doctrine does not destroy the temple of God, what doctrine does destroy the temple of God? Surely you realize that your OSAS doctrine means there is no such thing as destroying the temple of God. But Paul speaks of it clearly (but it seems that plain words of scripture, and context, are generally not taken into account in your doctrine anyway).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"thing"??? The word is metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which an implicit comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something in common.

Which in this metaphor, according to your doctrine, includes something in common except the being burned part, with no explanation given why everything else is comparable but that part is not. Made all the worse by the fact that other scripture talks about this burning, too. But somehow that burning is only for branches who were never attached to the vine to begin with.

6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. John 15:6 NASB

Folks, you know, it's one thing to have honest, differing opinions about things, but I honestly think we're dealing with something far more serious than that here.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It makes no such distinction.

"reserved for the enemies of God" (Hebrews 10:27)

That's not a distinction in whether or not the Judgment spoken about here is the Judgment of the ENEMIES of God, or the loving discipline of the beloved CHILDREN of God? Really?

Since this is a Judgment reserved for the enemies of God, why are the children of God being subjected to it in your doctrine? Especially when your doctrine uses this verse to prove that those who believe can NEVER be subject to this Judgment of God:

"24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24 NASB)

Yet, you have the children of God subject to this judgment in your interpretation of Hebrews 10:27 NASB.

 

[MarkT]

Matt 7:21-23 is all about that crowd.

No. It is not about the crowd. It's about the word. Jesus prophesied, 'on that day' many will call him Lord, but they will be cast out because they did not do the will of the Father. Sure they will say they did, but Jesus knows who his sheep are.

So, it's clear that the crowd there didn't have the gift of eternal life, which is irrevocable (Rom 11:2).

But some did believe for a while and then they fell away.

So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. And many more believed because of his word. They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world.” John 4:40-42

Even Peter denied knowing Jesus when it became dangerous to be a disciple.

They heard but they didn't understand, as Isaiah predicted. Mt. 13:14-15 As Jesus said, When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and doesn't understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in his heart. Mt. 13:19

Did they receive eternal life for a time and then fall into unbelief?

The problem with your interpretation of Romans 11:29 is Paul is talking about unbelieving Jews, enemies of the gospel but beloved by God because of their forefathers. As regards the gospel they are enemies, but Paul said they will be saved because of their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but only as they show mercy towards us. They will be saved because God said he would save them because God's call and his gifts are irrevocable. So this has nothing to do with Gentiles or OSAS.

So your logic is wrong. A may be true, but B doesn't apply.

Mt. 7:21-23 is prophecy. The only people who are going to say they cast out demons in his name will be believers. Unbelievers do not believe in the name of Jesus.

Do you think you have to be a farmer to understand his words? Jesus said his words will not pass away. They are just as true today as when he spoke to the crowd.

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. Mt. 24:35

 

[FreeGrace]

16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy" (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 NASB)

There is nothing in this verse (or any other, for that matter) that teaches loss of salvation .

FreeGrace, if your doctrine does not destroy the temple of God, what doctrine does destroy the temple of God? [/QUOTE]
1 Cor 3:16,17 speaks of physically killing another, by the phrase "if any man destroys the temple of God". Paul had just noted that believers "are a temple of God". So, physically killing a believer is killing the temple of God.

And the phrase "God will destroy him" refers to God physically killing that person who has killed a believer, who is the temple of God. Very straightforward.

Surely you realize that your OSAS doctrine means there is no such thing as destroying the temple of God.

Huh??! Paul actually wrote about a man destroying the temple of God. How can one say "there is no such thing"??

But Paul speaks of it clearly (but it seems that plain words of scripture, and context, are generally not taken into account in your doctrine anyway).

This makes no sense. Of course Paul spoke of it clearly. And I explained what he meant by it.

 

[FreeGrace]

Which in this metaphor, according to your doctrine, includes something in common except the being burned part

Not true. What would a farmer do with an unproductive branch he just cut off a tree? He'd burn it. Naturally. Why would one think that buring a branch is being equated with loss of salvation? Especially since Paul wrote that eternal life is a gift of God (Rom 6:23) and God's gifts are irrevocable (Rom 11:29).

with no explanation given why everything else is comparable but that part is not.

It's just a metaphor, not to be taken literally, or in your case, to be spiritualized.

Made all the worse by the fact that other scripture talks about this burning, too. But somehow that burning is only for branches who were never attached to the vine to begin with.

6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. John 15:6 NASB

Since I don't see the word "eternal" here, there is no justification to ASSUME Jesus was speaking about eternal judgment. Furthermore, to abide in Christ is someone believers have to do. So that cannot mean staying saved, because God never gave us the power or authority to do that. And no one from your side has shown any evidence of that.

When the Bible speaks of the lake of fire, we find the word "eternal"; every time:
Matt 18:8 - “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.

Matt 25:41 - “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;

Jude 1:7 - just as Sodom and Gomorrah and thecities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged ingross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

These verses aren't metaphors for hell or the lake of fire; they are direct statements about the lake of fire. And we find the word "eternal" in all 3 verses. That's how we know when the lake of fire is being referenced.

When a metaphor is used and fire is mentioned, there is NO REASON OR NEED to leap to the conclusion that hell is being meant.

 

[FreeGrace]

No. It is not about the crowd. It's about the word. Jesus prophesied, 'on that day' many will call him Lord, but they will be cast out because they did not do the will of the Father. Sure they will say they did, but Jesus knows who his sheep are.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Jesus was speaking ABOUT a CROWD and what will happen ON THAT DAY.

But some did believe for a while and then they fell away.

The phrase "fell away" refers back to "believe for a while". There is nothing here to ASSUME that Jesus meant lost their salvation. To fall away from the faith means to no longer believe what was once believed.

So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. And many more believed because of his word. They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world.” John 4:40-42

Even Peter denied knowing Jesus when it became dangerous to be a disciple.

What do these 2 passages prove?

They heard but they didn't understand, as Isaiah predicted. Mt. 13:14-15 As Jesus said, When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and doesn't understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in his heart. Mt. 13:19

It should be clear to all that soil #1 never believed. Jesus made that perfectly clear by the phrase "lest they believe and be saved". Luke 8:12 - Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

What is clear by Jesus' words is that if they did believe, they would be saved.

Did they receive eternal life for a time and then fall into unbelief?

No. Soil #2 believed and received eternal life, but they only believed for a while, and then fell into unbelief, or lost their faith. Nothing about loss of salvation or eternal life. Which we know is impossible, because eternal life is a gift of God per Rom 6:23 and God's gifts are irrevocable per Rom 11:29. This is unrefutable, though many reject this.

The problem with your interpretation of Romans 11:29 is Paul is talking about unbelieving Jews, enemies of the gospel but beloved by God because of their forefathers. As regards the gospel they are enemies, but Paul said they will be saved because of their forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but only as they show mercy towards us. They will be saved because God said he would save them because God's call and his gifts are irrevocable. So this has nothing to do with Gentiles or OSAS.

This so-called explanation falls flat. Where in ch 11 did Paul define the word 'gift'? He didn't. So there is nothing in ch 11 that he was referring to. Going back through his epistle prior to 11:29, the next time he defined gift was in 6:23 where he said that eternal life is a gift. His readers would immediately think of what he defined as gifts when they got to 11:29. So, that would be spiritual gifts from 1:11, justification from 3:24 and 5:15,16,17, and eternal life from 6:23.

So your logic is wrong. A may be true, but B doesn't apply.

Please explain your claim. I have no respect for claims without any evidence or support for them or explanation of WHY the claim is true and my point is wrong.

If B doesn't apply, as claimed, WHY not? Just your opinion has no bearing on the issue.

Logic DEMANDS this:
If A = B and B = C, then A = C. That is logic at its most basic level. Those who would deny this just arent logical. They are illogical.

Mt. 7:21-23 is prophecy. The only people who are going to say they cast out demons in his name will be believers. Unbelievers do not believe in the name of Jesus.

Again, this is just an opinion. No facts at all.

Do you think you have to be a farmer to understand his words?

Jesus used an agricultural metaphor because most of His audience were farmers.

Jesus said his words will not pass away. They are just as true today as when he spoke to the crowd.

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. Mt. 24:35

Amen. But what does any of this have to do with the assumption that one can lose their salvation?

 

[Kenny_ms]

The phrase "fell away" refers back to "believe for a while". There is nothing here to ASSUME that Jesus meant lost their salvation. To fall away from the faith means to no longer believe what was once believed.

So, now we don't even need to believe in order to be saved?

 

[Kenny_ms]

FG, can a definite, no doubt about it, saved, born again Christian become and Atheist and not lose their salvation?

 

[MarkT]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Jesus was speaking ABOUT a CROWD and what will happen ON THAT DAY.

The phrase "fell away" refers back to "believe for a while". There is nothing here to ASSUME that Jesus meant lost their salvation. To fall away from the faith means to no longer believe what was once believed.

Did he not destroy those who did not believe? 'Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe'. Jude 1:5

It should be clear to all that soil #1 never believed. Jesus made that perfectly clear by the phrase "lest they believe and be saved". Luke 8:12 - Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

What is clear by Jesus' words is that if they did believe, they would be saved.

Well, under the circumstances they don't. So it's a moot point.

Luke 8:18
Take heed then how you hear; for to him who has will more be given, and from him who has not, even what he thinks that he has will be taken away.”

Perhaps the words of eternal life. Do ya think?

No. Soil #2 believed and received eternal life, but they only believed for a while, and then fell into unbelief, or lost their faith. Nothing about loss of salvation or eternal life. Which we know is impossible, because eternal life is a gift of God per Rom 6:23 and God's gifts are irrevocable per Rom 11:29. This is unrefutable, though many reject this.

If they fall into unbelief then the words of eternal life are taken away which means they wither and die as a branch that doesn't get water withers and dies.
John 15:6
If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

This so-called explanation falls flat. Where in ch 11 did Paul define the word 'gift'? He didn't. So there is nothing in ch 11 that he was referring to. Going back through his epistle prior to 11:29, the next time he defined gift was in 6:23 where he said that eternal life is a gift. His readers would immediately think of what he defined as gifts when they got to 11:29. So, that would be spiritual gifts from 1:11, justification from 3:24 and 5:15,16,17, and eternal life from 6:23.

Regardless of how you define gift, the fact is Paul was taking about his countrymen and the gifts they were promised. No doubt the gifts of the Spirit. 1 Cor. 2:12-9, 1 Cor. 14:1 Eternal life, however, is in Christ Jesus as Romans 6:23 says.

 

[ezrider]

Galatians 6:2-5
Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden

 

[JLB]

Paul specifically defined eternal life as a gift (charisma) of God in 6:23. The VERY NEXT TIME he used charisma was in 11:29. The linkage is direct and clear.

What's clear is Paul didn't mention eternal life in Romans 11:29.

What he did explain in Romans 11, is many Jews were broken off because of unbelief, and Paul's warns us as well, that if we fall into unbelief, we are in danger of being broken off as well.

So it is impossible for gifts, plural, to mean eternal life in Romans 11:29, since it is some were broken off.

20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Romans 11:20-21

JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There is nothing in this verse (or any other, for that matter) that teaches loss of salvation

The Judgement being spoken of is the Judgment of the enemies and adversaries of God. And it is written to sanctified believers warning them to not trample on the blood of Christ, insulting the Spirit of grace (so they won't become the enemies and adversaries of God):

"27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." (Hebrews 10:27,29-30 NASB capitals in orginal)

Of course it's about loss of salvation: 1) it is written to those who have been sanctified by the blood of Christ, and 2) about them not falling into the Judgment of the enemies (as opposed to the children) of God. The children of God are not the enemies of God. You of all people, with your somewhat misguided 'once a child always a child' doctrine should understand this quite well, that no child of God is the enemy and adversary of God. But here we see a child of God can in fact become the enemy and adversary of God and suffer the due punishment of the enemies of God.

All by itself we can see right from the passage itself that he's talking about the Judgement of the lost, not the loving discipline and correction of believers, but if that's not enough, we get additional information about the nature of this Judgment from 2 Thessalonians that shows us he is indeed talking about the Judgement of the damned in the Hebrews passage, not the loving correction of the children of God:

" the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 NASB)

FreeGrace, if your doctrine does not destroy the temple of God, what doctrine does destroy the temple of God? [/QUOTE]
1 Cor 3:16,17 speaks of physically killing another, by the phrase "if any man destroys the temple of God". Paul had just noted that believers "are a temple of God". So, physically killing a believer is killing the temple of God.

And the phrase "God will destroy him" refers to God physically killing that person who has killed a believer, who is the temple of God. Very straightforward.

You say, "Physically killing a believer is killing the temple of God". Can you show us anywhere in his letters to them that this is a problem at Corinth, or in any of the churches, that Paul has to make note of it and warn them? I know OSAS can't acknowledge that a doctrine can destroy the spiritual temple of God, but we see very clearly in his letters that the 'destroying' Paul is talking about is their spiritual destruction, not the murder of their physical bodies (that's just plain ludicrous). What we see in Paul's letters is the potential for false teachers and their false doctrines destroying the spiritual temple of God:

8 For even if I boast somewhat further about our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you..." (2 Corinthians 10:8 NASB) (Obviously, he's not talking about not murdering any of the Corinthians, lol.)

"3 ...I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ."
(2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 13 NASB)

This being true, that the destroying of the temple of God is a spiritual destruction, not the murdering of God's people, I ask you again, if your doctrine does not destroy the temple of God, what doctrine does?