The Early Bic-Test

in a world that screams “FIRE!”
Post 309

(I Corinthians 3)

So after all the meaty information compiled through this entire work under the title: When Did Reason Die?-- precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little, to this point-- including the 1st generation Hebrews that failed to cross the Jordan (Post 238 “Nine Times Forgiven” The Uncommon Christian Walk p.88), and at the very least, since Post 303 “A Woman’s World Now”, let’s finally risk an early evaluation to see if we have learned anything functionally useful beyond the milk of salvation through the regenerating Power of the Holy Ghost (I Corinthians 2:4-6+3:2+3:10a+Titus 3:5):

We asked the question: Are all, some, or any, of these five young women actually Christian?

If you had assumed I would finally provide a short, direct, “Yes” or “No” answer, even one by one, then you haven’t been learning much that will do you any good. And if you have fallen back onto your familiar doctrine of Calvinism to confidently answer the question “Yes,” then you too have not learned anything useful, but if you cling to your comfortably solid Armenian doctrine to boldly declare “NO,” then you are no better.
Calvin and Arminius (*1) were but men, and the Apostle Paul, in the inspired scriptures (I Peter 1:21), has already made clear that to set up the isolated teachings of a single man (including himself), as the sum knowledge and doctrine of the Faith, is to make a serious mistake:

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1106; resolve). For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them of the house of Chloe (*2,3), that there are contentions among you.
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”… I Corinthians 1:10-13.

…“For ye are carnal: for whereas there is among you envying (*4), and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men (444; in the likeness of humanity as opposed to children of God)? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos (Acts 19:1), but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?...” I Corinthians 3:3-5, (see v.21).

Clearly these carnal-minded Corinthian Christians, that had been prematurely attempting to digest spiritual meat, had found intellectual distinctions between the teachings of Paul and that of Apollos or there couldn’t have been any divisions by following “different doctrines" ascribed to their emotionally favorite teachers. But notice the cause that Paul himself references as the source of the distinctions:

“I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.”… I Corinthians 3:6.

Paul is identifying that at different stages of the multi-member Corinthian church development, there were different perspectives to address along the process of maturity-- like milk before meat and meat after milk (I Corinthians 3:2)-- and not different approaches to the same end or even “one way” better than “the other.” But does this mean that we change or morph our original doctrines as we develop, like some religions do with secrets that only come with “degrees”? Let’s hear Paul out:

…“Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon…” I Corinthians 3:7-10a.

Paul is making clear that all the “various” works of God’s ministers in the power of His Holy Spirit is for the purpose of creating a single structure called elsewhere the collective Body of Christ (I Corinthians 12:27, 10:16-18, 12:12-14, Romans 12:4-5). This collective structure is built one stone upon another, precept upon precept, line upon line, taken from here and taken from there, each stone prepared and polished (Psalm 144:12, Revelation 21:11) to be placed upon the foundation (Ephesians 2:20-21, Revelation 21:14) resulting in a gloriously unified city where each stone is built almost as it’s own city of the same construction process, much like the trillions of complexly-constructed cells make up the many complexly-constructed parts of a single-unified human body of complexity. Precepts and lines, though importantly made of the same stuff (stem-cells if you will) are all different, or one could not be built upon another, which is why Isaiah 28:10 repeats precepts, and repeats lines, and indicates they are a Holy composite like the scriptures themselves having 40 authors over thousands of years by a single-Spirit to a single-end of perfect unification without error or schism (example: Matthew 5:17). [IF there is a schism then something of that structure is not of the Holy Spirit, whether the builder, the material, or the motive (I John 4:1[-3]), and like with the plague of leprosy it is ours to first cast it out, then work on figuring out the cause]. The temples of human-life in Christ always begin with the only foundation possible; Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 3:11), such as was built by Paul’s “milk-teachings” to them, and then always gets a structure built upon that foundation; such as by Apollos’ and/or Cephas’ “meat-teachings.” Their teachings, though somewhat different, are not in conflict in any way; the building must fit the constraints of the design (foundation); like measured aspirated-liquid gasoline in a solid engine cylinder for the intended purpose of useful power when pressure and ignition-source are applied:

“…But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon”… I Corinthians 3:10b.

From explaining that he (the Apostle Paul), and Apollos (the non-apostle-- Cephas by absence is compatriot with Apollos in this relational context of foundation and structure), were both laborers of the same construction project, Paul immediately goes on to warn that the structure on the foundation he laid, while being creatively unique, must fit the foundation and should be built only from worthy materials according the master-plan of God, or it is doomed to destruction because it will not successfully serve its intended purpose for which the foundation was laid; he didn’t lay the foundation for a dance hall but a temple:

“Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is”… I Corinthians 3:12-13, continuing until resulting in;

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” I Corinthians 3:16-17.

We see that the value of the structure, that we build on the temple’s foundation, is a composite result of the materials we chose to use in its construction-- all material choices are made by the project manager (you) and the builder (you-- and anybody you let on the job)-- and that done, without condemnation or rebuke from God for those choices. “Go for it; make it as pretty, as strong, as useful, or ugly, or useless, or flamboyant as you want.” In the effort to allow the builder “full control” to come up with a creation that represents the passions of his-or-her heart, the structure is not rejected for any reason between now and the test; Rather, Paul’s early-warning Apostolic- informative advice- as a master-builder and scriptural foundation layer, is that the structure must withstand the evaluating trial by fire that is guaranteed to come in the appointed day and for an appointed reason of testing the structures purpose, much like a factory pre-testing an engine before it ships out. Until that “test day” before the grand opening of its actual use, the building under construction seems to have no apparent flaws; in that the builder rightly builds as he wishes according to the desires of his own heart; “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” as they say… until the day of fire, when many structures will be reduced to piles of ash beside the street. Then the beholder has a new perspective regarding beauty. But by then it’s too late for anything but templeless existence as they dwell in the open sky of poverty, happily camping on their remaining foundations that grant them their place in the kingdom’s realm as Down’s Syndrome Christians. (Don’t bother; we will cover this in future Posts!).

Today, in specific application to our Gender Typology study, we might rightly suggest switching the example-materials of cosmetics, fabrics, and silicone, in place of wood, hay, and stubble, and not damage the actual meaning for our specific use. And we might likewise substitute godliness, character, and grace, for the materials of gold, silver, and precious stones (Proverbs 11:22), but in such a specific gender application we would diminish the reach of the far larger multi-layered application that the scriptures intend by the metaphoric materials exampled.

But staying on topic; Shouldn’t you have the right to determine what your own building/body should be used for, and therefore what building materials would be appropriate? No, not after the foundation has been laid:

“What? Know ye not that…ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” I Corinthians 6:19-20.

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” I Corinthians 3:16-17.

“For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish” Luke 14:28-30. (See Haggai 1:6 regarding the funds to finish).

Again, here in I Corinthians, Paul is not addressing foundationless Pagans but Christians. Carnal Christians. God the Creator has already told us that once this foundation is laid by our “Yes” to Christ’s proposal that guarantees our Salvation as we saw above, and the Holy Spirit moves in to make ready for that great day (i.e. advising our construction), the building is the temple of God, therefore, contrary to the popular idea of “a woman’s rights over her own body,” our only “rights” is in choosing the construction materials that make up God’s temple’s structure (I Corinthians 7:4).
Even created-beautiful Silicone “gargoyles,” while perhaps visually appealing from the outside, have little but a detracting/distracting/defiling value to the holiness purpose of the temple, but nobody said the temple was doomed to burn because they were added. The potential to burn is found in the motive focus of adding such things onto a structure that is weakened by such glorious but burnable stubble being installed instead of structurally necessary silver girders of virtue and such (I Peter 3:3-4, I Peter chapter 1).

So now, back to the question regarding these young women:
We know that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, and that comes uncomplicatedly by a simple belief, as is made clear by several passages along that line:

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” Romans 10:9 (see also Galatians 2:16, Acts 16:31, etc.).

So IF the foundation is laid in Christ Jesus by an uncomplicated belief and verbal confession-- as these young women have most apparently made in their youth-- what happens when the entire building burns to ashes because of foolish construction? The short answer is found clearly enough in our same study passage:

“If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire” I Corinthians 3:15.

So that’s it then. The wicked girls are Christians.

This verse indeed seems to confirm that these young foolish Christian women are “good to go”-- perhaps with a bit of spiritual smoke damage, but still “OK for eternal heaven.” But what does it really mean, beyond milk, in a functionally practical way as they arrive in that eternal kingdom looking for their place of habitation? Especially, in light of the verses that follow the above “one-line theology,” regarding God himself destroying the builder-and-defiler of that temple as if the builder and the temple were somehow different but declared to be one in the same:

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (present tense.) If any man (*5) defile (5351) the temple of God, him shall God destroy (5351); for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are” I Corinthians 3:16-17. (See also II Corinthians 6:16-17).

defile/destroy 5351 phtheiro; probably strengthened from phthio (to pine or waste); probably, to shrivel or wither, i.e. to spoil (by any process) or (generally) to ruin (especially figuratively, by moral influences, to deprave):-- corrupt (self), defile, destroy.

By understanding the words of the very accurately articulate Greek language that has been translated into our less accurate English, we discover that by being our own destroyer via a wasting defilement, God himself, in a “light or particle?” kind of way (*6), brings that destruction because our body is his house. You are in fact one-in-the-same; body and spirit, builder and building, “You are what you eat.” Since the Church is Christ’s body: If you defile your body from a lack of self-respect, God likewise destroys his body from the same lack (*7).

So how then can the whole; “saved by grace alone, without works,” (an undeniable principle of scripture), actually apply if our conduct is accountable?

In essence, what we are asking is; How do the 1st generation Hebrews fail to get into the Promised Land but not find themselves in Hell? (Post 247 “Are They In Hell?”). I strongly recommend re-familiarizing yourself with that keystone cipher Post as we are now beginning to address what I said would not come until a much later study (Preparing The Way Of The Lord p.33).
* * *

The Lepers:
…“And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean. All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be” Leviticus 13:45-46.

Why do you suppose that God the Creator-- who apparently could have made our temporal reality any way he wanted-- designed it so that the nation of His people, even in the holy Promised Land… should have lepers?
It’s because it answers our question!
Were these unfortunate Hebrews that had contracted leprosy, somehow no longer Jews? Were they somehow not God’s Promised people anymore? Of course they still were. But by their pitiful and exclusionary existence you could hardly prove it. So how is it that a Jew; a member of God’s promised people, a possessor of the land promised, should then be thrust out of the kingdom and forbidden reentry? (in Type for 70 years!) It’s because their disease is contagious, and especially by what comes out of their mouth, which is why they covered their upper lip like we do when we cough (*8). Their cry of “Unclean, unclean” was not for their own good but for the good of those not leprous (I Corinthians 15:33).
It is curious that although the scriptures lay out the care of cleansing and eradicating the disease from the camp, as well as periodically checking the diseased for possible recovery, it leaves the discovery of what causes the disease to our scientifically intellectual maturity. And although leprosy is a very real disease, the general principle of handling contagious diseases can be applied to many various layers in type... If we so choose to do:

“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall here thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to unto the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican (*9)” Matthew 18:15-17.

It is a rabbit trail from our topic but Leviticus 13:1-43 resulting in v.44 is a simile to this progression of discovering the degree of uncleanness, and looking for the evidence of cure or need for thrusting out as incurable, from a perspective of public health.
The leper represents, in yet another Type, the 1st generation Hebrews that failed to cross the Jordan because of their “disease” of fear (Numbers 13:28-14:10), which I Corinthians 11:6 independent-"uncovered head"-failure, is the topic of warning in the Posts of The Uncommon Christian Walk. The scriptures are surprisingly full of numerous Types of this unacceptable condition among God’s people:

The Unclean Priest:
“Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment” Zechariah 3:3-4. (Don’t forget v.7 as the job and purpose after he is made clean, but beyond our present point).

The Unclean People:
“Then said Haggai, if one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean. And now, I pray you, consider from this day and upward…” Haggai 2:13-15a, (and Haggai goes on to discuss a cleansing).

The Unclean City:
“And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a (scorched) brand plucked out of the (testing) fire?” Zechariah 3:2.

The Five Foolish Virgins are the leprous, who, for the protection of the clean, go away into outer darkness without lighted lamps... Not into Hell, but not into the kingdom of heaven either. So WHERE ARE THEY?!

The answer is so intriguing, and so complex, and apparently not included in any of our expositions of scriptural doctrine, that I have brought you here one principle and one line at a time in the attempt to wean you from a pure diet of milk so that you can properly digest the protein of meat. We are about to break open these doors wide, but have patience even a little longer; there are some loose ends yet to draw in because of the plethora of confusion that has nearly successfully destroyed our numerous ciphers: such as motivated by emotional compassion that won’t thrust out those diseased by AIDS or whorish conduct (I Corinthians 11:29-30) in fear of offending the emotionally sensitive who cry, “Discrimination!”
So instead of thrusting them out, our society has set them up, as not just role models but actual idols. We even apply the labels idol and Stars to make sure our kids get the idea: “Worship these! Pattern your life after them! These are our gods!” Just as Rome did with their game champions.
* * *

Screaming, “FIRE!”
The “Bic-Test” is the use of a socially-recognized pocket lighter (*10), to hold a tiny familiar flame to the corner of an element and see how flammable it is without trying to do damage. This is not “the day of test” that we are warned is still coming, but a pre-test test among ourselves to discover anything we might need to fix before that day comes. The Bic-Test is not intended to do harm but to be a beneficial discovery if any harm is done. It is an early shaking awake of the Ten Virgins to check their lamps, much as Jesus did to the disciples:

“And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” Matthew 26:40-41. (Spirit and flesh, foundation and structure, one in the same temple, but not the same: I Corinthians 6:19-20).

It is only a foolish virgin that will complain they were “cruelly” awakened and “embarrassingly” shown that their lamp had gone out, or is about to. Yet today, that is the most common reaction from anyone who is shown a Bic-Test flaw in their doctrine of faith, be it Christian, Catholic, Mormon, or Muslim, etc. The common instant “scriptural” ½ verse theology reaction is, “DON’T JUDGE!” (Matthew 7:1a). But contrary to popular belief; Jesus actually counsels otherwise. The distinction is in the kind and motive of the test/judgment performed (Matthew 7:1b-2=Psalm 139:23-24).

“…judge (2919; decide, try, condemn) nothing before the time…” (I Corinthians 4:3-5),
but that does not suggest there is no present time for any judgment whatsoever:

“…If then ye have judgments (2922; tribunals) of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one that shall be able to judge (1252; separate thoroughly, discriminate) between his brethren?” I Corinthians 6:1-5. (See also Matthew 7:5b, often lost behind v.5a as with the Matthew 7:1a half-verse theology).

“For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged (of others from our lack) we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world (on test day)” I Corinthians 11:31-32.

“I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person” I Corinthians 9-13.

Clearly, in spite of milk-sucking foolish adult Christians screaming “FIRE!” at our simple Bic-Test among family members, it is scripturally confirmed that it is indeed ours to judge those among ourselves, for the purpose of bringing correcting chastisement of the Lord in the effort to fix dangerously burnable issues before the Day of Judgment.
So, are these foolish “Christian” girls actually Christians at all, in spite of any confession of faith that might claim they are? A simple Bic-Test as we have done, confirms that their temple, as built, will burn quite successfully. And because of the dangers of a San Francisco kind of fire in the kingdom, without prematurely casting them into the fire of condemning judgment by declaring “No,” we simply thrust them out of the church to dwell by themselves as leprous “Christians” in hopes that it will motivate a desire to become clean and rejoin the community, which we would gladly allow; (II Corinthians 2:5-9).
By the act of thrusting them out, we have accepted their claim to be Christian; it is their conduct that has been found leprous. Not long ago, America, as a Christian nation (family), had such standards of law that reflected this kind of non-hateful wisdom in internal judgment while we left the world to rule their own families.
* * *

Try it:
Can you rightly apply this passage?

“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor”… Leviticus 19:15+, (see in relation; Job 34:17-19).

Clearly judgment is a part of our righteous duty, here-and-now, but only when we are mature enough to metabolize the meat of useful wisdom. Just Google “Disabled Models” to find a long-list of a growing industry that glamorizes the “person of the poor” in a twisted respect that defiles our perceptions of what's naturally “right and wrong.”
Does this passage say don’t respect the poor? No, it doesn’t!

Respect 5375 nasa’; or nacah; (Psalm 4:6[7]); a primitive root; to lift, in a great variety of applications, literal and figurative, absolutely and relatively (as follows):-- accept, advance, arise, (able to, (armor), suffer to) bear(-er), up) bring (forth), burn, carry (away), cast, contain, desire, ease, exact, exalt (self), extol, fetch, forgive, furnish, further, give, go on, help, high, hold up, honorable (+man), lade, lay, lift (self) up, lofty, marry, magnify, X needs, obtain, pardon, raise (up), receive, regard, respect, set (up), spare, stir up, + swear, take (away, up), X utterly, wear, yield.

Person 6440 paniym; plural (but always as singular) of an unused noun (paneah; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.):-- + accept, a-(be-)fore(-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance… [See Ezekiel 1:6&9-10 for the alternative of consistent and predictable variation of perspective].

Poor 1800 dal; from 1809; properly, dangling, i.e. (by implication) weak or thin:-- lean, needy, poor (man), weaker. [See Psalm 106:15].

In otherwords: Do not raise up by respect the condition that makes a person weaker than what God designed humanity to be naturally. This is my judgment regarding such social confusion as these industries and organizations, which compassionately but inappropriately, promote the less fortunate condition as a cause for rejoicing and praise-worthy (*11).

“And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you” I Corinthians 5:2.

Such a mindframe of wrong focused honor does not raise up the less fortunate, but only brings us all down by re-determining what is “normal, and good” and in so doing eliminates our ability see when God removes his blessing on our nation (Exodus 23:25-26). It is the physical representation of making Sodomy socially acceptable as an “alternate lifestyle” with equal respect, or more accurately; electing them to office because they are Sodomites.
To cry “foul!’ at this judgment is not to refrain from judging, but to do unrighteousness in judgment, because it is God who determined what is normal and what is not, for a reason:

“Neither shalt thou countenance (1921) a poor man in his cause” Exodus 23:3.

Countenance 1921 hadar; a primitive root; to swell up (literally or figuratively, active or passive); by implication, to favor or honour, be high or proud:-- countenance, crooked place, glorious, honour, put forth.

So why would the word "countenance" mean; to swell up? Isn’t "countenance" the word we use that reveals a persons demeanor?

Countenance: 1. Bearing or conduct. 2. The expression of the face, especially as indicative of mental composure. 3. The face; visage. 4. Approving bearing or facial aspect; hence, favor; aid. - Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 5th Edition 1948.

Do not approve the mental composure that causes a person to diminish, [see I Corinthians 4:6,18-19, 13:4, Colossians 2:18, as opposed to James 1:17 as they relate to our definition discoveries].

Applying this concept to the second example in the study verse regarding "the person of the mighty," we see that it is unrighteous judgment to honor a person because of their station. This is what we do when we praise and approve the unsavory conduct of someone just because they are rich, powerful or famous, such as our five girls in question. To honor the station may be righteous, to honor the person may be righteous (Romans 13:7), but to honor the person of the station is not, such as honoring a corrupt politician because he’s a politician… or a Christian (Acts 10:34, I Corinthians 11:29-30 in effect principally to our context).
* * *

So let’s just cut to the chase:
While we don’t argue that these foolish virgins might or might not be Christians, we can sure examine their health and declare them conclusively, “leprous.” (See Post 256 “On The Olympics” note: *1 http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-olympics.html). Thrust them out, and do it decisively! Let them be “Christians” somewhere else where they cannot damage the healthy body of Christ; let them dwell alone, much as we used to socially shun fallen women while giving them compassionate aid in their difficult plight; We have young daughters to protect!
But since we don’t care to cast them from us, if they had any shame or regard for the living, they themselves would self-reproachingly confess publicly and loudly that they are unclean (while covering the “upper-lip” details of their shame), in the effort to keep others from contracting what they have. In otherwords; they would give all their wickedly acquired goods to the poor and commit to speaking engagements to discourage young girls from following their fallen ways.

But somewhere along the path of continued acceptance of what was once abominable, eventually, like Lot, it may be the healthy that might have to go around crying, “Clean, clean!” among a community of lepers living in palaces of honor:

“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues” Revelation 18:4.

With the high volume of sexualized teen-idol-worshipers, Gay-Rights activists and Cause worship, it's not looking like that day is too far off (*12).
* * * * * * *

(*1) “John Calvin (French: Jean Calvin, born Jehan Cauvin: 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564) was an influential French theologian and pastor during the Protestant Reformation. He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism. Originally trained as a humanist lawyer, he broke from the Roman Catholic Church around 1530. After religious tensions provoked a violent uprising against Protestants in France, Calvin fled to Basel, Switzerland, where he published the first edition of his seminal work Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin).

“Jacobus Arminius (October 10, 1560 – October 19, 1609), the Latinized name of the Dutch theologian Jakob Hermanszoon from the Protestant Reformation period, served from 1603 as professor in theology at the University of Leiden. He wrote many books and treatises on theology, and his views became the basis of Arminianism and the Dutch Remonstrant movement. Following his death, his challenge to the Reformed standard, the Belgic Confession, provoked ample discussion at the Synod of Dort, which crafted the five points of Calvinism in response to Arminius's teaching” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobus_Arminius).

(*2) House of (no actual word) idium; therapeia; noun; household.
“In I Cor. 1:11, “they which are of the household (A.V., house) of Chloe” is, literally, ‘the…of Chloe,’ the English translation being necessary to express the idiom - (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W.E. Vines, 17th impression 1966, p.237).

Idiom: noun [French and Latin; French idiome, from Latin idioma, from Greek idioma, from idioun to make a person’s own, from idios one’s own proper.] 1. The language peculiar to a people, (a tongue) or to district, community, or class (a dialect). 2. The structural form peculiar to any language. 3. An expression in the usage of a language, that is peculiar to itself either in grammatical construction or in having a meaning which cannot be derived as a whole from the conjoined meanings of its elements. 4. A form of expression characteristic of an author.

(*3) Chloe 5514 Chloe; feminine of apparently a primary word; “green”; Chloe, a Christian female:-- Chloe.

Green is the notorious color of feminine envy, akin to jealousy (see *4). It is also the color of the 4th destroying horse of Revelation 6:8 interpreted as:

Pale (5515) chloros; from the same as 5514; greenish, i.e. verdant, dun-colored:-- green, pale.

Chloros is the foundation of our word Chlorine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine) to describe chemical element no. 17 on the periodic table, which is, oddly enough, a yellow-green color like the pale of death. It is among the strongest of all the reactive elements and therefore is a strong oxidizing agent for both good and bad uses, which means the Pale Horse of Revelation does its deadly work by corrosively affecting what it touches via chemical reaction. All this is very significant to the Prophecy of scripture but will have to wait for a collection of works I hope to publish under the title Beyond Alchemy.
But lest you think chlorine has no good purpose, I offer you this tiny morsel as we contemplate the house of Chloe as referenced by Paul for a reason:
• 85% of medicines are made using chlorine chemistry.
• 96% of crop protection used by farmers are based on chlorine chemistry.
• 98% of Western Europe’s drinking water is made safe with the help of chlorine.

God himself claims to be a jealous (7065) God (Deuteronomy 6:14-15), but not envious as we know it (Ezekiel 35:11). The difference may be found in rightful possession of what is desired; jealousy wants to retain, while envy wants to obtain. Why then was Paul informed by the House of Chloe? (Philippians 1:15+ James 4:5).

(*4) Envy 2205 zelos; from 2204; properly, heat, i.e. (figuratively) “Zeal” (in a favorable sense, ardor; in an unfavorable one, jealously, as of a husband [figuratively, of God], or an enemy, malice):-- emulation, envy(-ing), fervent mind, indignation, jealousy, zeal.
2204 zeo; a primary verb; to be hot (boil, of liquids; or glow, of solids), i.e. (figuratively) be fervid (earnest):-- be fervent.

Jealous 7065 qana’; a primitive root; to be (causatively, make) zealous, i.e. (in a bad sense) jealous or envious:-- (be) envy(-ious), be (move to, provoke to) jealous(-y), X very, (be) zeal(-ous).

God, through the Apostle Paul, would not have included this house-but-not-house "of Chloe” tidbit into the scriptures if it didn’t have significance to our understanding. Therefore, the house of Chloe is apparently referencing a spirit of caustic zeal typed by the spirit of Green who came running to Paul perhaps for the zealous purpose of “straightening out” the others regarding the beloved faith. We know the Corinthian Church was divided according to well-intended envious doctrines of contention for the faith. This is what I believe Paul was addressing, but more will have to wait.

(*5) “if any man” 1536 ei tis; from 1487 and 5100; if any:-- he that, if a(-ny) man(‘s thing, from any, ought), whether any, whosoever.
1487 ei; a primary particle of conditionality; if, whether, that, etc.:-- foreasmuch as, if, that…
5100 tis; an enclitic indefinite pronoun; some or any person or object:-- a (kind of), any (man, thing, thing at all)…

This phrase would be more easily understood in our vernacular as “if anyone.” I bring this up for two reasons:
1. Because of the potential to read this as meaning only a man attacking a woman to defile her.
2. To show that while it clearly identifies the person defiling their own body as the primary intent, it also allows any other who would defile that body as well.

(*6) Light or Particle?: see Post 277 “The Young Double-Slit Experiment” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/11/particle-or-wave.html).

(*7) If you defile your body from a lack of self-respect, God also destroys his body from the same lack (Matthew 10:32-33, Luke 12:8-9), much like cutting out cancer.

“For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” Ephesians 5:30 (+31).

But God’s purposes are not as “destroying” as one might think; mirrored much like our example’s confused actions as they “cry out” for help by destroying themselves (as expressed in Ephesians 5:29), yet God is not likewise confused:

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed (2673), that henceforth we should not serve sin” Romans 6:6.

Destroyed 2673 katargeo; from 2596 and 691; to be (rendered) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively:-- abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

“For the Son of man is not come to destroy (622) men’s lives, but to save them…” Luke 9:56.

Destroy 622 apollumi; from 575 and the base of 3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:-- destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

“Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lust of men (444 humanity), but to the will of God” I Peter 4:1-2.

Ephesians 5:25-27 concludes with: “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself” Ephesians 5:28 (as Christ loved the Church; Ephesians 5:32). But love is not to be construed as blanketly permissive, as the scriptures make abundantly clear.

Regarding the “light or particle?” question of “Who destroys your temple; You or God?” The answer is, “Yes.”

(*8) “and especially by what comes out of their mouth” has a double-meaning application as God’s people can speak unwisely, and even blasphemously, thereby infecting others (Matthew 12:34+Hebrews 12:15, Job 21:5, 29:9-10, Proverbs 30:32, Ecclesiastes 5:6, James 3:8, Romans 3:13, Exodus 20:7=Deuteronomy 5:11).

(*9) Publican:
5057 telones; from 5056 and 5608; a tax-farmer, i.e. collector of public revenue:-- publican.
5056 telos; from a primary tello (to set out for a definite point or goal); properly, the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. (by implication) the conclusion of an act or state (termination [literally, figuratively, or indefinite], result…
5608 oneomai; middle voice from an apparently primary onos (a sum or price); to purchase…

What we might miss, being distanced from the reality of life for those Jesus was addressing, is that a State empowered Publican was able to seriously trouble your life if you didn’t pay what they figured you could. Publicans were notoriously corrupt extortioners. Luke 19:2+8 gives us a hint into the past life of a converted Publican, and gives greater understanding to II Samuel 12:6 centering on a lack of pity toward the poor man legally but immorally robbed by the man with power; i.e. the king.

(*10) “Société Bic (commonly referred to as just Bic) is a company based in Clichy, France. It was founded in 1945 by Baron Marcel Bich and has become known for making disposable consumer products... The brand's lighters have changed little since 1972. They, as well as the Bic Cristal ballpoint pen, are easily recognizable as a result of their importance in pop culture. As such, they are represented in the design collection of the Museum Of Modern Art in New York” - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_Bic).

(*11) Am I suggesting that a black man cannot be President, or a handicap girl be a model? I am not. This passage is instructing us not to make the man President because he is black, or make her a model because she is handicapped. As long as they can do the job what do I care?… until an issue is made of it. (Acts 15:29+I Corinthians 8:4-9+I Corinthians 10:27= I Corinthians 10:28), something like Clinton’s miss-applied “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” military policy in a Christian nation (*11a). We rejoiced with Olympian Oscar Pistorius (*11b) not because he was crippled but because of his amazing triumph to rise above his handicap. When he fell morally we cast him off, not as a handicap but as an immoral man. We did not respect the Handicapped man, we respected the man, that was handicapped. This is the same issue brought up some time ago regarding the difference between a Mexican American and an American of Mexican descent (*11c).

(*11a) "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), byname for the former official U.S. policy (1993–2011) regarding the service of homosexuals in the military. The term was coined after Pres. Bill Clinton in 1993 signed a law (consisting of statute, regulations, and policy memoranda) directing that military personnel “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, and don’t harass.” When it went into effect on October 1, 1993, the policy theoretically lifted a ban on homosexual service that had been instituted during World War II [the law], though in effect it continued a statutory ban [the grace]. In December 2010 both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to repeal the policy [the issue made], and Pres. Barack Obama signed the legislation on December 22. The policy officially ended on September 20, 2011” - (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1553878/Dont-Ask-Dont-Tell-DADT).
A very crafty two-step means of sidestepping the WWII law entirely but making it look like an honorable thing to do, much as “Christians” wrongly apply grace to completely undermine the law’s original intent of eliminating uncleanness in the camp for the sake of public health. Don’t let this subversive misapplication of a good principle derail our concept.

(*11b) See Post 260 “The Nephil Consideration” Note: *2 (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-nephil-consideration.html).

(*11c) “If they want to be here; come lawfully, with the mind to be Americans of Mexican decent. Not Mexican Americans.” - (Post 070 “The Bloodthirsty Moose” http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2010/06/blood-thirsty-moose.html).
See also Post 078 “ Parable of Illegal Mexicans” (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2010/07/parable-of-illegal-mexicans.html).
This really is not as “off topic” as you might think.

(*12)
“They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate” Titus 1:16. (See also vv.12-16).
*