Home, Dialog

Catholic Apologetics International

Rebuttal to James White's Most Recent Web Posting Concerning the Doctrine of Purgatory

The following is a response by Robert Sungenis to an article James White has recently posted on his website (www.aomin.org) as a "feature article." It attempts to refute the Catholic use of 1 Corinthians 3:15 to support the doctrine of Purgatory.

1 Cor 3:10-15: Exegesis and Rebuttal of Roman Catholic Misuse

James White

10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

This passage of Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth has prompted much discussion down through church history. The context of the preceding ten verses is really quite simple: Paul is discussing the problems that exist in the Corinthian congregation. He has used harsh words with them, referring to them as "men of flesh" and "infants in Christ." He refers to the strife and jealousy that exists among them. He zeroes in on their partisanship: the fact that they are saying "I am of this Christian leader or that one." He reminds them that leaders are but servants of the Lord, and that it was the Lord that even gave those servants the opportunity to preach the gospel to them. He writes in verse 6, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth." God used Paul and Apollos as means, but the growth was caused by God, not by the Christian leaders themselves. At this point then Paul begins to speak of the role Christian leaders have in the work of the Church. Note his words:

8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

Verse 8 provides the first reference to "reward," and it is clearly in the context of the Christian leaders who labor in the work of ministry. It will be significant to note that the phrase "receive a reward" in verse 8 is identical in terminology to the same phrase in verse 14. Since in this context we know that the planting and watering mentioned goes back to Paul and Apollos, the topic remains consistent throughout this passage. Paul then speaks of himself and Apollos as "God's fellow workers," and they labor in this high calling in God's field. He uses two terms, field and building, but picks up only on the second, "God's building." A fellow worker of God works in building God's building, and that building is the church.

This is Dr. White's first attempt in his essay at reducing the context to one of "ministers of the gospel." His purpose in doing so is to confine the exegesis to actual ministers of the gospel (e.g., priest, elder, bishop, ordained minister, or whatever Dr. White's concept of a special class of people who preach and teach the gospel). In this way, he attempts to eliminate the remaining members of the Corinthian church as being at least part of the subject matter of the passage. He does this so that he can make 1 Corinthians 3 a "special" passage that deals only with one subject - the accomplishments and failings of ordained ministers of the gospel, not the accomplishments and failings of everyone in the Corinthian church.

In making a "special" category of "ministers," Dr. White is trying to pave a way for himself to dismiss the Roman Catholic interpretation, which applies the passage to everyone in the Corinthian church, since Catholicism holds that everyone is subject to Purgatory for their sins. But Dr. White's attempt is futile. Paul does not mention "ministers" (or any such term) as being the focus of his remarks in 1 Cor 3:15. Granted, the "ministers" (whoever they are) may play a chief role in the propgation of the gospel, but they are not the only ones in the church who propagate the gospel. Everyone in the church, in one form or another, spreads the gospel. In 1 Corinthians 12-14, for example, Paul mentions that each of the Corinthian members have a gift of the Holy Spirit for the "building up of the church" (14:12, 26). Thus it is no coincidence that the Corinthians are abusing these gifts in 1 Cor. 12-14, matching the very same abuse of the gifts displayed in 1 Cor 1-4, the chapters that surround the verse in question, 1 Cor 3:15.

I must also point out 1 Cor 4:6 where Paul says: "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." Notice that Paul says that he and Apollos, even though their names were used throughout the discourse (See 1 Cor 1:12-13; 3:5; 3:22), were being used only as figures of the men in the Corinthian church. But is there anywhere in this verse, or any verse in the context under discussion, where Paul singles out only the ordained "ministers"? The answer is No. Paul's remarks are to the whole Corinthian church at large. Even in 1 Cor 5, when Paul is rebuking them for not excommunicating the man living with his father's wife, Paul makes no mention of "ministers" as those solely responsible. He merely says "you" (5:1-13). Paul uses the same reference "you" in 1 Cor 6 when he is speaking about not taking a fellow Christian to court; and in 1 Cor 7 when he is speaking about rules for marriage. There is no shift from "ministers" to "parishioners." If this were not the case, then most, if not all, of the Corinthian epistle would be written only to ordained ministers, which we know is not the case.

Finally, the most damaging evidence against Dr. White are his own words. Here is what he says of the identity of the people addressed in 1 Cor 3 in his book The Roman Catholic Controversy: "What is judged is the type of works the Christian has done. Sins and their punishments are not even mentioned...It simply says that the Christian's works are judged for their own merit...For the Christian, the idea of not being able to present to his Lord works that were done for the proper motivation, works that were built with gold, silver, and precious stones, is a terrifying one indeed...It is no light matter to stand before the judgment throne of Christ!..." (pages 193-194).

Notice how Dr. White refers to these people only as "Christians," not as Christians who are "ministers." In fact, in the whole section that Dr. White devotes to 1 Cor 3 in The Roman Catholic Controversy, he NEVER mentions a specific category of "ministers" as the focus of the passage. Also notice Dr. White's reference to the "judgment throne of Christ" in direct connection with the judgment of 1 Cor 3. In other words, Dr. White is admitting that 2 Cor 5:10 and Rom 14:10-12, both of which specify the "judgment throne of Christ," are identical to 1 Cor 3:13-15. That being the case, then Dr. White must also admit that the judgment of 1 Cor 3:13-15 includes ALL Christians, not just Christian "ministers," since both 2 Cor 5:10 and Rom 14:10-12 say that ALL Christians will stand before Christ at this judgment.

2 Cor 5:10 says: "10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men.."; and Rom 14:10-12 says: "But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, "As I live says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God. So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God." (from the NASB - Dr. White's favorite translation of the NT).

This then brings us to the main passage. Verses 10-15 give us an illustration of how weighty it is to minister in the church, and how God will someday manifest the motivations of the hearts of all those who have engaged in that work. Then in verses 16-17 Paul adds a further warning, speaking of God's certain judgment upon those who do not build, but instead tear down, or destroy. There is an obvious movement between 10-15 and 16-17, for in 10-15 the metaphor remains the construction of a building upon a foundation; in 16-17 this switches to the metaphor of the temple of God, already constructed.

Dr. White has created a false dichotomy, which is easily disproven. 1 Cor 3:9 says "you are God's building." 1 Cor 3:16 says "you are God's temple." Thus the "building" is also "already constructed," just as the temple. Thus, Dr. White's argument falls victim to the fallacy of anachronism. Furthermore, one can easily see in comparing 3:9 and 3:16 that the Corinthian people make up both the "building" and the "temple." There is no difference, except that Paul introduces a change in the metaphor. We also find in 1 Cor 3:11 that Jesus Christ is called the "foundation" of the building. But is not Jesus Christ also the foundation of the "temple"? He's the one who said "destroy this temple and I will raise it in three days."

All in all, there is only one reason why Paul specifies the "temple" in 1 Cor 3:16-17. He wants to show the Corinthians that, even though he uses the metaphor of a building, this is no ordinary building. This is the very temple of God; thus those who destroy it will be destroyed. Any Corinthian Christian astute enough to read the relevant passages in the Old Testament would know that when Paul mentions the "temple" he is speaking about something very sacred. Paul often directed the Corinthians to the Old Testament in this way. Take a good look at the examples he uses in 1 Cor 10:1-12. You will see that Paul speaks about the same kind of judgment against apostates as he does in 1 Cor 3:17. In the context of 1 Cor 1-4, Paul quotes SIX times from the Old Testament (1:19; 1:31; 2:9; 2:16; 3:19; 3:20) to teach the Corinthains against the false wisdom they were embracing. The contexts of each of these Old Testament passages also speak about God destroying such perverters of the faith.

Further, in 10-15 the "certain ones" are those who are indeed building upon the foundation, even if they have less than perfect motivations or understanding; the certain one in verses 16-17 is not building anything at all, but is instead tearing down and ruining what has already been built. This distinction is important as well, as we shall see.

Two points: First, where does the passage mention "less than perfect motivations"? It seems that Dr. White is trying to prime the pump, suggesting interpretations that he will try to use later to support his viewpoint of the passage. Second: Is Dr. White trying to tell us that the man who builds with "wood, hay, and straw" is not destroying the temple, at least to some degree? If in 1 Cor 3:10 Paul tells them "each man must be careful how he builds" does not this mean that if one builds with faulty materials that the structure of the building will be compromised, at least to some degree? If it is compromised then it is being destroyed, to some degree. Or is Dr. White going to tell us that the man can compromise the "building" but not the "temple," even though both the "building" and the "temple" are specified to be the people of the Corinthian church in both 3:9 and 3:16, respectively? What kind of exegesis is this? It is nothing more than a desperate attempt to divide the context to his own liking so that he can support his particular interpretation of the passage.

10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Paul continues the context, insisting that by God's grace he has laid a foundation, knowing that others would build upon that same foundation. This foundation, of course, refers to the work of ministry in building up the church that he has engaged in. But there is an element of personal responsibility that is part of ministry in Christ's church: a man must be "careful" how he builds upon the foundation, which Paul reminds us is holy. The only foundation of the church is Jesus Christ Himself. So just as we are to have an attitude of fear and trembling when considering that it is the holy God who is at work within us, working out our salvation (Philippians 2:12-13), so the minister is to recognize that ministry in the church is a holy task, and he must "look well" (a literal understanding of the Greek) upon how he goes about this work. This leads to further expansion upon this thought in the following section.

Again, notice how Dr. White keeps injecting the words "minister" or "ministry" into the context, even though Paul never mentions the words, or any words akin to them.

12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

The first thing to see in v. 12 is that we are still talking about the same group: Christian workers.

Now Dr. White uses "Christian workers." Why the general reference, as opposed to saying "ministers"? Are not all the people in the church "Christian workers"? Did not the Holy Spirit give everyone gifts so as to be "Christian workers" (cf., 1 Cor 12:1-31)?

Those under discussion build upon the foundation. We will see that in vv. 16-17 Paul refers to a different group, those who do not build, but instead tear down.

Dr. White hasn't proved this at all. He just assumes it to be true, and expects you to accept it without proof. If you want to read about how men can destroy the people of God by using faulty building materials, read the companion passage in Ezekiel 13:10-16 and 22:28-30. Are not the "false visions," "false miracles" and "divining lies" of Ezekiel's time akin to the "miraculous signs" sought by the Jews, and the "false wisdom" sought by the Greeks, the very people who make up the Corinthian church? (cf, 1 Cor 1:22).

And if anyone thinks that 1 Cor 1:22 is not relevant to our discussion, then why does Paul pick up the same theme of "false wisdom" in 1 Cor 3:18-20, THE VERY PASSAGES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING 1 COR 3:17 WHICH SPEAKS ABOUT THOSE WHO "DESTROY" THE TEMPLE OF GOD? You see, the overwhelming problem Dr. White faces is that 1 Cor 3:10-17 is right smack in the middle of a context which speaks about "false wisdom" from start to finish. Starting from 1:11-12 which speaks about the divisions in the church, through 1:18-2:16 and 3:18-22 which speaks about false wisdom and the false emulation of men, the passage under discussion, 1 Cor 3:10-17, which comes right in between the aforementioned verses, has NO OTHER CONTEXT TO WHICH ONE CAN APPEAL FOR AN INTERPRETATION. 1 Cor 3:10-17 is filled with metaphors that beg for interpretation. There is only one place from which that interpretation can be derived - the non-metaphorical language of 1 Cor 1-4.

If, as Dr. White claims, 1 Cor 3:16-17 is speaking about an entirely different group of people, then those two verses stick out like a sore thumb, since their teaching would come out of nowhere, with no context to support their appearance, and none with which to identify them. What is really happening is that Dr. White is desperate to separate 1 Cor 3:16-17 from the rest of the context, for that is the only way he can divide the "destroyer" in verse 17 from the faulty builder of verse 15, and he must do so in order to deny the doctrine of Purgatory.

So we have one group who build upon the one foundation, but with different quality "materials." Now obviously, the terms gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay and straw, are all figures of speech, metaphors. Christian leaders are not known for having an abundance of gold, silver, or precious stones, let alone is the "building" being done here a literal activity either. These are terms referring, as Paul himself puts it, to "the quality of each man's work." Some labor selflessly and in obscurity with motivations pure and honorable, while others have mixed motivations, tinged to a lesser or greater degree by selfishness and vainglory (cf. Phil 2:3-4).

Once again, Dr. White injects the concept of "motivations" into the text, but the text does not single out motivations as the criterion for what is judged. Now, one might say, "Well, are not bad motivations the same as building with faulty materials"? Yes, of course, but what Dr. White is trying to do is make motivations THE ONLY point at issue, as opposed to every other kind of sinful act. You see, in order for his interpretation to pan out, Dr. White not only must make a credible division between verses 10-15 and 16-17, he must also make a division in what kind of faulty building material we are talking about. Dr. White must, in some way, divide "motivations" from "sins," since it is his theological belief that a Christian cannot be judged for "sins," but he can be judged for "bad motivation." He has committed himself to this interpretation in his book The Fatal Flaw, written in 1990.

Here is what he said on pages 179-180: "...What is judged is the sort or kind of works the Christian has done. Sins, and their punishments, are not even mentioned." White reaffired the same thing in his more recent book The Roman Catholic Controversy, page 194, saying, "Yet we must strongly affirm that this judgment is not a judgment relative to sin but to works and rewards." (Note: I want you to remember this, since later on in his essay Dr. White changes this viewpoint. He later says that bad motivations ARE sins, but that Paul does not use these sins as a reason for judgment in 1 Cor 3).

Irrespective of what Dr. White's view really is, Paul nowhere specifies "motivations" as opposed to sins. For example, would one say that the "jealousy" and "strife" mentioned in the same context (1 Cor 3:3) are "bad motivations" or sins? Is the seeking of miracles and false wisdom "bad motivations" or sins? (1 Cor 2:22-25; 3:18-22). Are the divisions caused by jealousy and false wisdom merely "bad motivations" or sins? (1 Cor 1:11-12). Do you know anywhere in his writings where Paul calls any of these things "bad motivations" as opposed to sins? If you're honest, the answer is a resounding NO. Now, read the following remarks by Dr. White and notice how many times he mentions the word "motivations," seeking to condition your mind to the idea that Paul is only concerned about motivations.

During this lifetime we cannot necessarily know which Christian leaders, even within the bounds of orthodox teaching and practice, are doing what they do with motivations that are pleasing to God. But Paul is reminding us that such will not always be the case: God will reward those who have labored diligently for His glory in that day when all the secrets of men's hearts will be revealed.

Paul says that each man's work "will become evident, for the day will show it." The nature of the Christian minister's work will be plain and clear: the lack of clarity that exists during this lifetime will no longer cloud our vision at the judgment. What a tremendously sobering thought for those who labor in building upon the foundation of Jesus Christ! God, who searches the hearts, will reveal our true motivations on that day!

The revelation of whether one's ministerial works are precious and lasting, or surface-level and temporary, will be accomplished "by fire." Obviously, fire differentiates, at the most basic level, between gold and wood, silver and straw, precious stones and stubble. The precious elements withstand the fire's presence, whereas the others are consumed in their entirety. Given that it has already been established that gold and silver, etc., are figures for the quality of men's works, so it follows inexorably that "fire" refers to a testing that makes its verdict as clear as the destruction of wood, hay, and stubble by the raging flames of a fire. The works that were not done to God's glory are destroyed, while those works having the proper character pass through unharmed.

14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

The context continues, unbroken. Note the repetition of the preceding concept of "building" on the "foundation." If a man's work, built upon the foundation of Christ in the church, remains in the presence of the judgment of God, he receives a reward. But in direct parallel, if another worker's labors are burned up, he will suffer loss. The opposite of the reception of a reward is to suffer loss. The Greek term Paul uses is translated by the vast majority of recognized translations as "suffer loss," and there is a reason for this. Despite the fact that you can render the term as "punish," its normative meaning, especially in the NT, refers to experiencing the opposite of gain (i.e., loss), and often what is not gained is found in the immediate context of the words use. For example:

More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, (Philippians 3:8 )

Obviously, this does not mean Paul has been "punished," but has "suffered the loss" of all things. The same is true in Jesus' use of the term:

"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16:26, see also Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25)

In 1 Corinthians 3:15, the term is used in a context that provides a direct correlation to the term: the one whose work remains receives a reward, so the one whose work is burned up does not, hence, they suffer loss (for further information on this word, see TDNT 2:888).

Dr. White is not telling the whole story. Granted, in order to continue the metaphor, the concept Paul wishes to develop is that the man whose work is burned up will suffer the loss of the work. That much is obvious, but that is not all. First, Dr. White's appeal to Phil 3:8; Matt 16:26; Mark 8:36 or Luke 9:25 does not help answer the real meaning of "suffer loss" in 1 Cor 3:15, since the aformentioned texts are not using metaphors as Paul does in 1 Cor 3:15. In fact, in none of the places where this Greek word (zemioo) is used in the New Testament is it used in a metaphorical sense. That being the case, one cannot extract the meaning of a non-metaphorical passage and use it to finalize the interpretation of a metaphorical passage.

Here is why: Each of the metaphors Paul uses in 1 Cor 3:10-17 have a corresponding meaning in reality. Paul gives us a hint of this in 1 Cor 3:11 when he reveals that Christ is the corresponding meaning in reality to the metaphor of the "foundation." He also reveals in 1 Cor 3:9 that the Corinthians are the corresponding meaning in reality to the "building." In 1 Cor 3:16 he reveals the same about the "temple." Thus, with these clues, we then begin to assign meanings to the other metaphors Paul uses in 1 Cor 3:10-17. Dr. White has already engaged in this himself. He said that the "work" represented the work of a Christian minister (although I was quick to point out that nowhere in the context does Paul confine the context to one of ordained ministers). Similarly, he said that the gold, silver and precious stones represented the good work of the minister, while wood, had and straw represented work with bad "motivations" (although I was quick to point out that Paul does not distinguish between "motivations" and "sins" in the context).

In the same way, the words "suffer loss" have a corresponding meaning in reality. What is that meaning? Is it merely "suffering loss"? If it was, then the metaphor would remain as a metaphor, rather than being interpreted as a soteriological reality, as is "foundation," "building" or "temple."

And here is where Dr. White's interpretation gets rather sticky. Earlier he told us that the "loss" refers to the natural opposite of "reward." Here's what he actually said:

"If a man's work, built upon the foundation of Christ in the church, remains in the presence of the judgment of God, he receives a reward. But in direct parallel, if another worker's labors are burned up, he will suffer loss. The opposite of the reception of a reward is to suffer loss."

Notice that Dr. White equates "suffer loss" with "loss of reward," rather than, as 1 Cor 3:15 actually says, "If any man's WORK is burned up he will suffer loss." In other words, if we follow the metaphor that Paul has developed, the text does not say that the "loss" is a loss of reward, but a loss of work - the work that he did in building the building. It is the work that is destroyed by the fire, not the reward. Paul could have easily said, "If any man's work is burned up he will lose his reward," but he didn't. So why does Dr. White force such an interpretation on the text? Because Dr. White's theology demands that such a man forever be deprived of the reward, but Catholicism does not, since Catholicism says that the man of 1 Cor 3:15 does not lose his reward, rather, it is only temporarily delayed, since he must first pass through the fire in order to attain that reward, which is his salvation. That is why 3:15 says "he will be saved."

Now, as far as interpreting the metaphor of "suffering loss" into a soteriological reality (as Paul did with the "foundation," "building" and "temple"), we have some very interesting evidence in favor of the Catholic interpretation of temporal punishment. In a previous rebuttal to Dr. White on Purgatory (www.catholicintl.com/Answer_to_Dr_White_on_1Cor3.htm), I refered to several Protestant lexicons which say that the ultimate meaning of the metaphor "suffer loss" in 1 Cor 3:15 refers to some form of punishment. Below are the references I cited:

a) Louw-Nida Lexicon: #02949:38.7: zemioomai: "to be punished, with the implication of suffering damage - to be punished, to suffer punishment. zemiothesetai "but if anyone's work is burned up he will suffer punishment" 1 Cor 3:15. It is also possible to understand zemioomai in 1 Cor 3:15 as meaning simply ‘to suffer loss.'"

Notice that Louw-Nida's first, or primary, definition of zemioomai in 1 Cor 3:15 is "suffer punishment."

b) Walter Bauer' Lexicon states: "zemioo...2. be punished (Lysias 31, 26 al.; Dit., Or. 669, 40; Ptebt. 5, 92; Pro 19:9; Jos., Ant. 15, 16) 1 Cor 3:15. – Astumpff, TW II 890-4. M-M." (page 338).

Notice that Bauer places 1 Cor 3:15 as the example of where zemioo has the meaning of "be punished."

c) The UBS Greek Dictionary states: "zemioo, passive, lose, forfeit, suffer loss; be punished (1 Cor 3:15)"

Notice how the UBS puts a semicolon after suffer loss, thus considering the meaning of "be punished" the primary meaning of 1 Cor. 3:15.

d) Liddell and Scott Greek lexicon, along with the meaning of "suffer loss" and "to fine," states: "2. generally, to punish, Id., Thuc."

Interestingly enough, these lexicons concur with the LXX usage of "penalty" and "punishment" in legal and non-legal contexts, in the six uses of the Greek verb zemioo: Ex 21:22; Dt 22:19; Pr 17:26; 19:19; 21:11; 22:3; and seven uses of the Greek noun zemia: 2Kg 23:33; Er 7:26; Pr 22:3; 27:12; 1Ed 1:36; 8:24; 2Mc 4:48. Of these, Ex 21:22 and Pr 19:19 have the identical morphology as zemiothesetai of 1 Cor 3:15 (indicative, future, passive, 3rd, person, singular) and are translated "punished" (from the Hebrew anash, which means "fine," "punish," or "penalty").

Now, is this some 'Catholic papal thumper' telling you that "suffer loss" in 1 Cor 3:15 refers to "punishment"? Obviously not. None of the above authors ever claimed to be Catholic, nor were the translators of the LXX Catholics. But I couldn't help but notice that, even though I listed these lexical references in my previous rebuttal to Dr. White (which has been on our website for several months), he failed to mention any of them in this present essay.

We are reminded, however, that despite the seriousness of the loss of reward for the Christian worker, we are still talking about those who have found salvation in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. Paul tells us that despite suffering loss, these are saved, "yet so as through fire." This in no way makes the judgment of the motivations [Sungenis' emphasis] of Christian workers a trivial matter: it is obvious that for Paul, who himself faced this test, it was not. But it also safeguards against the misuse of his teaching. No one can argue that one's salvation is based upon the works one does: this is not his teaching here, nor anywhere else. A man is justified before God by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to him, and the imputation of the man's sin to Christ, the perfect substitute, who bears in His body the sins of His people upon Calvary (Romans 3:20-4:8). But this is not his subject here. The context has remained constant: the revelation of the motivations [Sungenis' emphasis] of the hearts of Christian workers.

In a perfect world it would not be necessary to go beyond the mere exegesis of the text to understand Paul's meaning and intention. But we do not live in such a world. In God's providential wisdom, we live in a time when the church must struggle against false teaching and false teachers (Acts 20:24ff). Specifically, the truth of God's sovereign grace is attacked by Roman Catholicism, and its man-centered sacramentalism. One of the most egregious attacks upon the finished nature of Christ's work on Calvary is the dogma of purgatory. We have often engaged in debate on this topic (see, for example, the debate against Fr. Peter Stravinskas on this topic, May, 2001). Rome attempts to enlist this passage in support of its doctrine, but in the process engages in gross eisegesis of the text, missing its plain meaning, and inserting concepts utterly foreign to Paul's theology.

As we have seen, it is, quite ironically, Dr. White who has done the very thing for which he has accused Catholicism ("...engages in gross eisegesis of the text, missing its plain meaning, and inserting concepts utterly foreign to Paul's theology"). And for the record, Catholicism does not attack the "sovereign grace" of God. If you want to read a debate between Dr. White and I on this subject, please go to www.catholicintl.com and scroll down the homepage to the bottom and click on the debates regarding Predestination.

Just a few items should be noted that, in light of the preceding comments, should be sufficient for any person not committed to the ultimacy of Roman authority.

First, the passage is about Christian workers, not all the Christian faithful.

Really? Where does Paul make that distinction? Who among those who are Christians are not also "Christian workers"? Who in the Corinthian congregation did not receive a gift of the Spirit for the furtherance of the gospel?

Next, the passage says nothing about the purification of individuals. Works are tested in this passage. Rome teaches souls are purified from the temporal punishment of sins by suffering satispassio in purgatory: but there is nothing about temporal punishments, satispassio, or suffering of individuals for their sins, in this passage. All these are extraneous to the text itself.

"Nothing about temporal punishments"?? Then I suggest Dr. White contact the authors of the Louw-Nida lexicon, the Liddell and Scott lexicon, the Walter Bauer lexicon, and the UBS Greek Dictionary, and tell them that assigning the word "punishment" to 1 Cor 3:15 is a Catholic invention, totally extraneous to the text of 1 Cor 3, and that it further smacks of the doctrine of Purgatory. (That might be hard, since none of the above authors believed in Purgatory).

Further, the insertion of the Roman concepts into the passage turns it on its head. Remember, those with works of gold, silver, and precious stones (i.e., Christian workers who had godly motivations) appear in this passage: their works are subject to the same testing as the others. If this "fire" is relevant to purgatory, then are we to assume that even those with godly motives "suffer"? Are there no saints involved in building upon the foundation?

This is a classic case of begging the question or circular reasoning. Dr. White engages in this form of argumentation quite often. He hasn't proved that "godly motives" are Paul's concern, or only concern, in 1 Cor 3, yet he keeps referring to it as fact. This is what happens when you get just one thing wrong in your exegesis - everything else is effected by it. Unfortunately, Dr. White is showing us what building with wood, hay and straw is all about, for he is giving us a classic example of it in the kind of exegesis he is advancing.

But most telling is this: the fire of which Paul speaks reveals. It does not purge. If this were the fire of Rome's purgatory, it would not simply demonstrate that gold is, in fact, gold, or hay is truly hay. The sufferings of purgatory are supposed to sanctify and change a persons soul, enabling them to enter into the very presence of God! If this passage supported Rome's position, it would speak of purifying the gold, making it more pure, spotless, precious, and ready for God's presence. It would speak of the fire removing wood or other "impurities" from a person's soul, not simply telling us that the works a Christian minister did were or were not done with God's sole glory in mind. But the text speaks of a revelation of the quality of a man's work, which is wholly incompatible with Rome's use of the passage.

Here's what happens in 1 Cor 3:15, and it is perfectly compatible with Catholic teaching on Purgatory: (1) the man's work is burned up by the fire, yet (2) the man himself is saved by passing through the same fire. In fact, in the Greek, the word "yet so" (NASB, and many other translations) is the adverb houtos. Adverbs modify verbs. The verb in the verse is sozo ("saved"). In other words, the adverb tells HOW the man is saved. In this passage, the adverbial clause is "yet so as by fire." Thus, HOW will the man be saved? The adverbial clause tells us: BY PASSING THROUGH THE FIRE. Hence, in the same way the works had to pass through the fire to determine their quality, thus, the man himself must pass through the fire. If there is dross in him, the fire will remove it, just as the fire removed the bad materials from the building it burned. Its really very simple. Rome's view is wholly compatible with Scripture. Since "fire" is used in this way in other Scriptures (1 Pt 1:7, 17) it fits like a glove here in 1 Cor 3:15.

Modern Roman Catholics have started to move away from the term "fire" (though this was, inarguably, what attracted the attention of Rome to the passage in the first place), and seek to focus more upon the suffering of a loss, so that only the second group is seen as being relevant to purgatory. Of course, this is made possible by the constant repetition of the assertion, "Rome has never officially declared the meaning of this passage, nor that there is fire in purgatory, nor that purgatory is a place, nor that we experience time in purgatory..." etc and etc. The fact that one can go into history and determine with great clarity what was taught and believed only a few centuries ago does not seem to matter.

Finally, it should be noted that in Roman Catholic theology, a person sent to purgatory has already been judged to be in need of further purging (sanctification) before entering into the presence of God. Yet, there is no mention of such a judgment here; in fact, most RC interpretations see this as the judgment itself.

What? Is Dr. White looking for the word "judgment" in 1 Cor 3:15? And just because the word "judgment" is not used this gives Dr. White the right to decide that no judgment is involved? That is not the proper way to exegete Scripture. First, it is clear from the mention of "the day" (with the Greek article for emphasis pointing to a particular "day"), that the whole context is speaking about when the workers will be judged. Paul elaborates on this judgment in the very next chapter in 1 Cor 4:5, saying that Christ will disclose the things hidden in darkness. Second, 2 Cor 5:10 says that Christ will judge the good and bad deeds of men, as does Romans 14:10-12, Matt 16:27; Rev 22:11-12, et al. So, is there any difference between the judgment of 1 Cor 3:13-17 and the judgment of 1 Cor 4:5 and 2 Cor 5:10? No, all are talking about Christ's judgment of men, on that Day. The only difference in 1 Cor 3:15 is that in order for the man to come out on the positive end of this judgment and be "saved," he must "pass through the fire."

An Example From Roman Catholic Scholarship: The Jerome Biblical Commentary

A fascinating example of the divide between what the text says and what a Roman Catholic needs it to say is provided by the Jerome Biblical Commentary. Note the interpretation provided by this Roman Catholic source:

10. Developing the metaphor, Paul describes his ministry and the responsibility of all who follow him, as they build upon the foundation he has laid.11. Christ, as the unique foundation, may be an allusion to Is 28:16 or Ps 118:22 (cf. Eph 2:20 and 1 Pt 2:6-8). This Christ, Preached by Paul, dwells in the hearts of the faithful (Eph 3:17) and communicates his Spirit to them. Succeeding preachers must take care how they build on this foundation.13. the Day: The Lord's Day when Christ returns as victorious judge (1 Thes 5:4). fire: It is to test the quality of various building materials. Fire is the customary biblical metaphor describing the might and majesty of the divine judgment. it: Probably the neut. pron. auto refers to ergon, "work." The fire tests the work, destroying what is of poor quality and perishable.14. A wage will be paid only for good, durable work.15. The man whose work will not endure the searching test of judgment will suffer a loss. Like one escaping from a burning house, he will be saved, but his work and his reward will be lost. This metaphor clearly teaches the responsibility of ministers of the gospel, who will be rewarded or punished for the manner in which they have fulfilled their ministry. That the preacher will be saved implies that his sins were not serious and have not ruined the Christian community, because God destroys such a one.

To this point all is well: the Roman Catholic exegete follows the text, sees the context, recognizes the meaning of the words. But since Rome has defined more than this in her teachings, something must be said about purgatory:

Since Dr. White agrees with the above interpretation, I take it, then, that Dr. White agrees with the above statement from the Jerome Biblical Commentary: "That the preacher will be saved implies that his sins were not serious and have not ruined the Christian community, because God destroys such a one." If that is the case, then Dr. White has just admitted that the works of building with wood, hay and stubble are "sins," and sins that "were not as serious." This contradicts his remarks in his book The Fatal Flaw (pages 179-180) that the bad works are not sins, but merely bad "motivations."

White quoting the JBC: Although the doctrine of purgatory is not taught in this passage, it does find support in it. The metaphor suggests an expiatory punishment—which is not damnation—for faults that, although not excluding salvation, merit punishment. When Paul wrote this epistle he was still hoping for the coming of the Lord's Day in his lifetime. Consequently, he locates this expiatory punishment at the final judgment.

Where does one find the basis, in the exegesis offered by the commentary itself, for the assertion that there is an "expiatory punishment" in the passage, especially when this involves, in the Roman context, the punishment of the person and not an examination of the works he performed? All of the elements of Rome's concept of purgation, including temporal punishments, satispassio, etc., are absent from both the text and the interpretation offered by the commentary itself, and yet we have the unfounded assertion that while the text does not teach purgatory, purgatory finds support within the text.

The obvious answer is that the metaphors of the text need to be interpreted. As I said earlier, Paul already gave us a hint to this line of interpretation when he told us in 3:11 that the "foundation" is Christ, and in 3:9 that the "building" represents the Corinthians. In the same way, we do not leave standing the metaphor "If his work is burned he will suffer loss" without an interpretation. Dr. White interpreted the metaphor as representing the man losing his personal reward, but I pointed out that the text does not mention the word "reward" in 3:15. Rather, the man "suffers loss" because his work is burned up. And at this point, we assign soteriological meanings to these metaphors just as Paul did to the word "foundation" and "building."

We already saw from the context that the "wood, hay and straw" point to the false allegiances and false wisdom that the Corinthians were using to build the church (cf. 1 Cor 1-4). We see that the "fire" of 3:15, as it is portrayed in 3:13, refers to Christ's disclosure of the work of the man. We know from other texts that "fire" can either refer to eternal and unquenchable fire in Hell (Mark 9:44), or it can refer to a purging of impurities from the Christian (1 Peter 1:7; 4:12). Which one is Paul using in 1 Cor 3:15? Obviously, it can't refer to eternal fire, because the man is eventually "saved" from the fire. It can only refer to a temporary fire, since he eventually comes out of the fire. Dr White, on the other hand, has no answer to what the fire represents beyond the metaphor itself, since there is nothing in his theology that corresponds to a temporary fire.

Knowing that the fire is temporary, we then surmize that the word "saved" in 3:15, although in the metaphor refers to the man being saved from being burned up with the building, in reality, refers to the man receiving salvation in Christ. Note again, that the metaphors cannot be kept as metaphors. They must be interpreted. Similarly, we must interpret the metaphor of "suffer loss." As a metaphor it refers to losing the work which was built, but as a soteriological reality, it refers to the detriment the man suffers, or the penalty he will incur. That penalty is that he must pass through the fire in order to be saved. And that is precisely why the four aforementioned Greek lexicons all state that the metaphor of "suffer loss" in 1 Cor 3:15 is best represented by punishment.

Robert Sungenis' Attempt to Connect 1 Corinthians 3 with Purgatory

Not long after his conversion to Catholicism, Robert Sungenis wrote an article for the November/December, 1994 issue of The Catholic Answer (the article has been distributed widely on the Internet; here is one location: http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/prgtry01.htm). In it he attempts to conform the passage to the teachings of the Roman magisterium. In light of the above exegesis, a brief review of his comments is most useful.

For Protestants, 1 Corinthians 3:15 certainly ranks as one of the Pauline passages of which Peter comments in his second epistle: "In his writings there are some things hard to understand . . ."

This simply is not true. The passage is not difficult at all, and without the insertion of anachronistic Roman Catholic concepts that developed centuries later, there really would not be any meaningful question about its teaching.

The idea that Christ will someday judge the work of the Christian to determine its value, and that some Christians will suffer for their bad works done on earth but still be saved by fire, presents some difficult and complex ideas of Pauline theology that do not mesh well with the Protestant concept of justification by faith alone.

Mr. Sungenis, it should be remembered, swung from the Boston Church of Christ to the views of Harold Camping to Presbyterianism, all in a relatively short space of time. Hence, his recollections of what Protestants "believe" is often rather fuzzy, and hence inaccurate.

I was wondering when Dr. White was going to resort to this kind of cheap demagoguery. He never fails me. Nevertheless, I know quite well what Protestants believe, since I was in enough of their churches to get a panoramic view of their very diverse beliefs. Regarding the passage at hand, 1 Cor 3:15, any Protestant scholar worth his salt admits that it has been one of the more difficult passages in the New Testament to understand. I suggest that you browse a few commentaries to see this fact for yourself.

There is, of course, nothing contradictory between asserting that the motivations of Christian workers will be made known at the end of time and that those who had pure motives will receive a reward and those who did not will suffer loss (not "will suffer" as in a judicial sense of "satispassio"). There is nothing in justification by grace through faith alone that is in any way out of harmony with such a revelation of motivations, an opening of hearts.

The fact that Dr. White can't see the contradiction between being saved by faith alone, wherein works are merely the fruit of salvation but in no way salvific, and having one's works judged in order to determine whether he is saved or not, is probably the most telling feature of his attempt at exegeting the passage. His solution: You just pretend there is no problem.

Paul's emphasis on whether one is saved as a direct result of his works seems to defy the very tenets of justification by faith that Protestants thought he established so well in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians.

Of course, Paul makes no such emphasis here, or anywhere else. The judgment is of works relative to reward, not to salvation. All judged here were Christian workers: their salvation was already a matter of fact.

"No such emphasis"?? Then why does Paul mention the very words "saved" and its natural soteriological opposite "destroy" in the very context? And what about all the other passages that speak of judgment and reward in the New Testament? Look at Romans 2:6-8. Here Paul says that God gives a reward (Greek: mithsos can refer to reward or wage) to those who do good. The reward is represented in Rom 2:7 as "eternal life." In this passage, Paul is quoting from the Psalms, showing that this is a universal truth. Likewise, in Romans 14:10-12, everyone is standing at the judgment seat of God, Christians and non-Christians. The context previous to this (14:1-10) mentions some of the same sins that the Corinthians were committing. And again, in 14:10-12, Paul is quoting from the OT book of Isaiah, whose context tells us that this judgment is worldwide, and it is for salvation or damnation. Again, in 2 Cor 5:10 Paul speaks about being judged for works. In the next verse, he tells us that this is precisely why he "fears the Lord." Further in the context, he warns the Corinthians to be "reconciled to God" (verse 20), and in 2 Cor 6:1-2 he warns them that if they are not reconciled then they have "received the grace of God in vain." 2 Cor 12:20-21 then tells us that many of the Corinthians were not reconciled to God from these sins. In fact, Paul mentions the very sins of "jealousy and quarrelling" that he mentioned in 1 Cor 3:3, the very context under discussion. Paul then warns them in 2 Cor 13:5 that they may lose the test of salvation. Does all this sound as if Paul is speaking of mere rewards for good works with no threat of damnation for bad works? Hardly, but that's what Dr. White wants you to see.

As a result, Protestant theologians have formulated surprising interpretations of 1 Cor 3:15 in a desperate attempt to corroborate this obscure passage with the principles of sola fide theology.

This is little more than rhetoric. When one considers the highly anachronistic interpretations offered by Rome of all the passages relevant to purgatory, as well as such passages as John 19:26, or Luke 1:28, speaking of "desperate attempts" becomes almost humorous. In fact, as to the actual interpretation of the passage itself, the Jerome Biblical Commentary is in perfect harmony with Protestant interpretation. It is only after giving the obvious meaning that it attempts to find a way of attaching a purgatorial concept.

Oh really? Then, as I said earlier, Dr. White must then agree with the Jerome Commentary that the bad works of 1 Cor 3:13-15 are "sins," and not merely some judicially neutral actions. As for John 19:26 and Luke 1:28, we are not talking about those subjects right now, so it is pointless to bring them into this discussion.

In these efforts. Protestants find themselves stumbling over Paul's plain words, and as a consequence, end up producing all kinds of distortions to the text and contradictions to their own theology.

More rhetoric that lacks substantial backing.

Classical Catholic interpretation has always understood 1 Cor 3:15 as referring to the state of purgatory in which the temporal punishment due to sins committed on earth is sustained, as well as the purging of all imperfections not acceptable for entrance into heaven.

Roman Catholic apologists live in a world where double-standards abound. When speaking to their own followers, terms like "always" abound, as if there is a unified, consistent, easily discerned "tradition" to which to refer. But, as soon as anyone points out counter-citations from those same sources, all of a sudden we begin to hear either about how that was an early Father speaking "as a private theologian" and "not for the universal church," or, the spirit of Newman arises to make all historical issues "go away" since we can just rely upon "development" anyway. While Mr. Sungenis does not identify what "classical Catholic interpretation" is, given what comes after this, we can assume that he is not referring to the position taken only over the past few centuries.

I wish Dr. White would be a little less vague and ambiguous. I don't know what "the position taken only over the past few centuries" is. I only know of one interpretation of 1 Cor 3:15 in the Catholic church - the view detailed by Augustine (Dr. White's mentor for things like predestination), and the view still maintained in the Catholic catechism, paragraph 1031.

The doctrine of purgatory has the unanimous support of the Church Fathers who addressed the matter, either in direct references to an intermediate state prior to heaven, or in reference to prayers for the dead. Fathers Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Jerome, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Venerable Bede and second-millennium theologians such as Anselm, Bernard, Aquinas and Bonaventure supported the doctrine of purgatory.

This is truly a classic example of the utter misuse of historical sources in the service of Rome. Consider, for example, the breadth of the beliefs represented by Tertullian or Gregory the Great---no serious scholar suggests that what Tertullian believed regarding prayers for the dead, for example, is the same as what Gregory the Great believed about purgation after death. Not only had there been a number of developments during the intervening centuries, but the sources Gregory accepted as relevant were much wider (and less orthodox) than those used by Tertullian. To say these all "supported the doctrine of purgatory" is to make a statement that has no meaning: Tertullian speaks of prayers for refrigerium for those who have died. This is nothing like Gregory; Augustine's view is different than either one. Origen's entire theology was wildly off-base, so throwing him into the mix is hardly a positive thing for anyone interested in truly biblical theology. And so it goes. To say these all "supported the doctrine of purgatory" puts words and concepts into the mouths and theologies of men who would not recognize the modern Roman dogma at all.

Although variations existed in each of the Father's views, the point remains that NONE of them held to Dr. White's concept that either prayers for the dead or purgatory are unnecessary since when one dies one only goes to heaven or hell. There isn't one Father who held to that theology, vary as they may have between the exact details. And as Dr. White usually does, he picks the most widely diverging Fathers (e.g., Tertullian, Origen) and tries to portray them as the consensus. But that is far from the case. There's a reason why Tertullian and Origen do not have the words "saint" before their name, and that is because they had a number of unorthodox ideas that were not accepted by the Church. The other Fathers were of one mind on this issue. Read pages 647-650 in Not By Faith Alone for an overview.

Both purgatory and prayers for the dead were upheld by the major councils, beginning with the Council of Carthage in 394 A.D. to the Council of Trent in 1554 A.D. Evidence of prayers for the dead also appeared in inscriptions on the walls of Christian catacombs in the very early years of the Church. In addition, all the liturgies of the early Church, without exception, made references to prayers for the dead.

What Mr. Sungenis does not mention is that these prayers were requests for refrigerium, that is, for the joy of those who have gone on, not for redemption or release from the sufferings of purgatory! The "prayers for the dead = purgatory" equation, despite its constant repetition, simply does not support the weight put upon it.

That is pure speculation, if not nonsense. I know of no credible scholarly source that says that either the writings on the catacombs or the liturgies of the church referred to the "refrigerium." If Dr. White insists on making such boasts, I suggest he give us the reference for his assertion. Obvoiusly, the catacomb walls gave no commentary on why they were praying for the dead. In fact, most scholars recognize that the early Christians were continuing the practice of the ancient Jews, as portrayed in the book of Maccabees. If one checks Maccabees he will see no reference to the "refrigerium." Again, read the quotes from the Fathers I put in Not By Faith Alone. You will see that NONE of them refer to a "refrigerium" when the speak about praying for the dead, except perhaps Tertullian who was known to be aberrant in many things.

Despite this evidence, the Protestant Reformation rejected the doctrine of purgatory, as well as prayers for the dead.

It would be significantly more accurate to point out the exegetical and historical reasons non-Catholics have presented against purgatory than to misrepresent the situation as a mere ignoring of supposed "evidence," especially when that "evidence" fails muster, as we have seen.

However, not until the later stages of the Reformation was the doctrine of purgatory rejected outright. Luther, as late as 1519, had said that the existence of purgatory was undeniable.

The reader familiar with the history of the Reformation cannot help but smile a bit at the phrase, "as late as 1519…." Given that Luther viewed himself as a faithful son of the Church in October of 1517, and that he went through his greatest period of study, consideration, and writing between 1518 and 1521, to speak of 1519 as "late" in the Reformation is humorous. In reality, 1519 is "within a matter of months of the posting of the 95 Theses," and very early in the history of the Reformation.

I'm not quite sure why Dr. White thinks this is so humorous. Perhaps if he would get his facts straight he might not be laughing so much, or perhaps, he may end up laughing at himself. Here is what I actually wrote in The Catholic Answer in 1994:

"However, not until the later stages of the Reformation was the doctrine of purgatory rejected outright. Luther, as late as 1519, had said that the existence of purgatory was undeniable. This view held sway UNTIL 1530 when he lessened his support, saying that its existence could not be proven. He later rejected it THAT SAME YEAR. In 1543, however, he permitted the insertion of prayers for the dead in the official edition of his church directory." Obviously, when I said "later stages" I was referring to 1530, not 1519. As the old saying goes, he who laughs last, laughs the loudest.

James R. White, a staunch Calvinist and prolific anti-Catholic,

Remember, "anti-Catholic" is the term RC apologists use to make sure their Roman Catholic readers will be biased against the person they are citing. If Protestants introduced Roman Catholic apologists as "anti-Protestants" or "anti-Baptists" with such regularity there would be no end to the complaints. The double-standard has always been, and remains, striking.

No, we use the word "anti-Catholic" because people like Dr. White make a living off of critiquing the Catholic Church. Most of his ministry is directed toward trying to bring people out of the Catholic Church. As a Catholic apologist, I will not stand for this, and thus I spend my time refuting people like him. We don't go after any particular denomination or group. That is not our purpose. We only go after those who claim that the Catholic church teaches false doctrine. Dr. White takes the initiative here. If he would cease his diatribes against the Catholic church, I could probably close up shop and do something else more pleasurable to me. But as long as he is insistent, I will be insistent.

has written the following on 1 Cor 3:15: "But aside from this, nothing can be found to substantiate a concept of purgatory. What is judged is the sort or kind of works the Christian has done. Sins, and their punishments, are not even mentioned. It is works that are judged and put through the fire ... we must strongly affirm that this judgment is not a judgment relative to sin but to works and rewards."

That's from The Fatal Flaw, p. 179.

Similar to White's view, the typical evangelical/fundamentalist interpretation of 1 Cor 3:14-15 views it as a preliminary judgment for Christians in which those with an abundance of good works will be personally rewarded with a crown, or some other accolade, while those with an excess of bad works will lose their chance for a personal reward. The rewards depend on the type and amount of good work performed.

The reader should realize that Mr. Sungenis' experience of the "evangelical/fundamentalist" viewpoint included such wildly divergent groups as Harold Camping's "Family Radio" and the Boston Church of Christ. It is surely not the Reformed, or even scholarly, interpretation of the passage that is here presented.

For the second time in this rebuttal Dr. White has resorted to cheap demagoguery. He is trying to portray me as some kind of theological drifter who really can't be trusted because I happened to be associated with some questionable groups at one time. Be that as it may, the truth is that I was with Camping (in his more sane days) for only two years (1982-1984). I left his organization due to his peculiar bible interpretations. In his earlier days, Camping was much more respected. He used to have meetings with some of the people (e.g., Cornelius Van Til) who taught at my seminary, Westminister Theological Seminary. Robert Godfrey, who is now the president of Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, was a student in Camping's Sunday school class for many years. It wasn't until Camping touted his prediction of the end of the world in 1994 that his true agenda came out, but I had long left his group 10 years earlier. In fact, I wrote a book, Shockwave 2000, against Camping's prediction, with a foreword written by the president of Dallas Theological Seminary, John F. Walvoord, a very prestigious name in prophetic circles. As for the Boston Church of Christ, I was there less than one year (1991-1992). I soon found out that, although they are nice and pretty on the outside, they are full of heresy and deception on the inside. Had I stayed there, Dr. White would have a case, but as it stands, he doesn't. All he is trying to do is poison your mind against me.

The passage is plainly about Christian leaders and their building upon the "foundation" that Paul had laid. Surely there are those who may provide a shallow, or a-contextual reading of the text, but that is hardly relevant to the point at hand.

I already rebutted this point in my earlier remarks.

The notion of "barely being saved" is even borne out in Protestant translations of the verse which paraphrase it into a description of a man who narrowly escapes from a burning building, (e.g., The New International Version: "He himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through flames").

The Jerome Biblical Commentary has, "Like one escaping from a burning house, he will be saved, but his work and his reward will be lost." Why would a Catholic commentary "paraphrase" the text as well?

Because they are INTERPRETING, not TRANSLATING. The NIV has chosen to INTERPRET rather than TRANSLATE, a common mistake in most modern translations.

The most curious aspect about these interpretations of 1 Cor 3:14-15 is that they seem more Catholic than Protestant, and as a result, are not very consistent with sola fide theology. Works are not supposed to be a criterion for how close or far one is from salvation since, in Protestant theology, one is saved strictly by faith, not works.

Again, Mr. Sungenis' knowledge of what he calls "sola fide theology" is highly suspect. The passage does not in any way identify works as a "criterion for how close or far one is from salvation" in the first place; further, in actual historic Protestant theology, one is saved strictly by grace through faith.

Again, Dr. White knows precious little about my theological carreer. Aside from his repeated demogogic comments about my association with Camping and the COC, which only comprise 3 years out of my 18 years as a Protestant, he really doesn't know anything of my knowledge about "sola fide theology." But I'll let my work speak for itself. Please read my book, Not By Faith Alone, and then tell me what you think of my knowledge of "sola fide theology."

As for the passage implying that works are a criterion for how close or far one is from salvation, I think that it is rather obvious in the NIV translation: "but only as one escaping through flames" says it all. There is only one image that translation portrays - someone who just barely makes it out alive. But how can that be if, as the NIV and Dr. White believe, that works play no part in whether one escapes, does not escape, or whether he escapes in the nick of time?

The logical question that surfaces is: If faith, as Protestants believe, is the only virtue that justifies one before God,

Of course, the actual position is, "Christ's work, finished and complete, is the perfect basis of one's relationship with God." The "virtue," if one will even use such a term, is all of Christ, not of man.

Come now, Dr. White. Let's not play word games. Christ's work, finished and complete, is the perfect basis of Catholic salvation, too, but the point at issue is HOW one receives that finished work. Is it by faith alone or not? If it is by faith alone, as you claim in your books, then there is absolutely no room in your theology for works to be a criterion for whether someone is saved, or whether he must pass through the fire (keeping in mind that you have given us no soteriological representation for what the "fire" of 1 Cor. 3:15 is, rather, you just keep it as a metaphor since you have no answer to that issue).

on what basis can someone's works advance or retard his chances for salvation? In addition, if works are just "fruits of salvation," as Protestants teach, why are these works being judged at all, and on what judicial basis are they rewarded or rejected'?

Because, as the text clearly indicates, it is God's will to reveal the motivations of Christian leaders at the end of time, and to reward those servants who engaged in His work of ministry with proper motivations. They are judged on the basis of God's knowledge of the hearts of all men.

Sorry, the text does not list "motivations" in 1 Cor 3:10-17 as even an issue up for discussion. Granted, motivations play a vital part in someone's relationship with God, but even then, they aren't the only thing. You see, folks, Dr. White is desperate to limit the issue in 1 Cor 3:15 to "motivations," simply because his theology cannot tolerate any reference to SIN or its punishments in the passage. The reason: His theology says that Christians can't be judged for sin any longer, since Christ paid the price for all their sins on the cross. The result: He must then empty the notion of SIN from the passage, and he must also convince you that bad motivations are not sins or are not judged even if they are sins. A hard task, indeed, especially since the NT does not support either of those ideas.

By the way, this is also why Dr. White is desperate to separate 1 Cor 3:16-17 from 1 Cor 3:10-15, since he knows that the phrasing of 3:16-17 is clearly one of SIN and damnation. His solution: Just say that 1 Cor 3:16-17 is talking about a completely different group of people - people who sin. He claims this even in the face of the remaining context of 1 Cor 3:18-22 which shows us that Paul is talking about the same people that he was talking about in chapters 1 and 2, which concerned the false allegiances and false wisdom of the Corinthian Christians.

"Works" are understood as judicially neutral actions that have no possibility of making one fall under God's eternal judgment. Hence, anytime the Scripture specifies a judgment for the Christian's works, Protestants presuppose that the bad works cannot be equated with sin. Since it is believed that Christ paid the punishment for all the Christian's sins, thus making judgment for sin complete, it is concluded that the judgment for bad works in 1 Cor 3:13-15 must necessarily exclude any evaluation or penalty for one's sins. Once they are made to be totally separate from sin, Protestant "works" are then available to be judged by their own merits or demerits.

Note that the context of this referring to Christian leaders is ignored.

No, I haven't ignored it. As I said earlier, the text does not distinguish between the leaders of the church and its parishioners. If Dr. White thinks otherwise, let him show us the verse that makes this crucial distinction.

Beyond this, the statement of the text itself, that the judgment is not in regards to salvation, but to reward, is skipped over.

I already answered this earlier, but let me emphasize again that the text clearly sets itself in a salvation/damnation context by the acute polarity between the "saved" of verse 15 and those "destroyed" in verse 17. Dr. White's answer to this is that verse 17 is talking about completely different people, but we already saw that such an idea is totally fallacious. There is no break in the context. The false wisdom which is being used to build the church runs from chapter 1 through the end of chapter 3, and into chapter 4. 1 Cor 3:15 and 3:17 are right smack in the middle of that context, and Dr. White has no other context in which to appeal to make the distinction he is seeking. Furthermore, I already showed that Paul identifies "reward" with salvation and eternal life, which he does in Romans 2:6-8 and other passages. So it is no surprise that he has the same concept of "reward" in 1 Cor 3:14. In fact, Paul never really defines what the "reward" is in 1 Cor 3:14, other than his reference to being "saved" in 1 Cor 3:15. Dr. White thinks the "reward" is some personal adjulation certain Christians are going to receive over other Christians, but that is nowhere specified in the text of 1 Cor 3.

It is hard to avoid concluding that Mr. Sungenis does not, in fact, believe that Christ paid the punishment for all the Christian's sins, and this is indeed his position. As he asserted in our debate on justification in May of 2000, many sons of God will be in hell.

Let's tell the whole story, shall we? I said that they are "sons" by means of their baptism, but because they have broken the covenant with their Father, they are now "disinherited sons." This is the same terminology that Paul uses of Christians who fall away from the faith in 1 Cor 6:9-10; Ephesians 5:5 and Galatians 5:21 (and their natural opposites in Colossians 3:24; Hebrews 6:12; Rev 21:7).

The vast chasm that separates the God-centered gospel of Scripture and the man-centered message of Rome can hardly be more highly contrasted than in these discussions.

Please, Lord! Give me patience.

The fact that the "works that are burned" in 1 Cor 3:15 refer to sin can be gleaned from many biblical sources, not the least of which is the immediate and extended context of the passage itself. For example, in verse 17, Paul includes the warning that if anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him. How one builds for God has been a pivotal point of discussion in the preceding context. For example, some are said to build with gold, silver and precious stone, while others build with wood, hay and stubble (verse 12). Apparently, those who persistently and deliberately build with defective materials, and end up destroying the temple of God, will receive the worst punishment - it is stipulated that they will be destroyed by God (verse 17).

I hope the reader will note well the reverse order of interpretation that leads to this glaring example of eisegesis. Written and spoken words start at one point and move to the next: we interpret them by starting at the beginning and moving forward. You interpret verse 1, then verse 2, etc. Surely, verse 27 may have something to do with verse 1, but you don't jump in at verse 27 and use the conclusions you come to there to interpret verse 1.

Oh? Is verse 12 so far away from verse 17 that there is some overwhelming reason why the two cannot be related? What in the context forces us to make a disjuncture between verse 12 and verse 17? I'll tell you what it is. It is Dr. White's theology, and only his theology. Again, you must see that Dr. White, at all costs, must keep verse 17 totally separate from any association with verses 10-15, otherwise, he will have to admit that the verses are talking about the same people, albeit some are good and some are bad. Since he can't have that in his theology, Dr. White then creates this hermeneutical ruse, as he did above.

In the same way, the logical means of understanding Paul's point here is to start at the beginning of chapter three, determine the context, and follow the train of thought through the passage. When one does this, one realizes that there is a great distinction between 16-17 and 14-15: specifically, in 14-15 we have Christian workers who build, but in 16-17 we have an individual who does not build, but instead, tears down or destroys. Mr. Sungenis needs to find a way around Paul's direct point, so he does so by 1) ignoring the context (the revelation of the motives of Christian workers),

As I said before, there is no mention of the Christian's "motivations" in the context. The only things the context points out in this regard are the sins of "jealousy and quarrelling" in 3:3, and the "false wisdom" in 3:18-20, the same exact themes with which Paul began this epistle in chapters 1-2.

2) bringing up issues of sin vs. bad or good works,

Because that is THE issue, as far as Dr. White's interpretation is concerned. He has assumed, at least in his book The Fatal Flaw, that the bad works of 1 Cor 3:13-15 are not sins!? Can he tell us anywhere in the Bible where such a distinction is made? Does the Bible ever say that bad works are not sins? NO, never. So where does Dr. White get this distinction? He gets it from his preconceived theology which he superimposes on the text. But he doesn't like when I point this out, so he tries to turn it into some type of misdirection attempt on my part.

3) jumping to verse 17 and taking its warning and inserting it back into a previous (and contradictory) context,

Already answered above.

4) turns the building of God into the temple (this transition is made in 16, but Sungenis pushes it back into the previous context), and finally,

No, PAUL turns the building of God into the temple of God. He does so by telling us first in 1 Cor 3:9 that the Corinthians are the building ("you are...God's building") and then telling us in 1 Cor 3:16 that the Corinthians are also the temple ("you are God's temple").

5) conflating, against the context of the text itself, 16-17 and coming up with a concept utterly unfounded in the text itself: the creation of a group who "persistently and deliberately build with defective materials, and end up destroying the temple of God."

Dr. White ought to read more of the New Testament, especially Corinthians. In almost every chapter Paul complains about their selfish, boastful pride (1 Cor 1-4); about people living in sin and condoning sin (1 Cor 5); about those who are committing all kinds of other sins (1 Cor 6); about those who are so bad that they have to be compared to the sinning Israelites who perished in the desert for their unbelief (1 Cor 10); about those who were abusing the Eucharist and being put to death by God for it (1 Cor 11); about those who were vying for gifts of prominence and disrupting the church (1 Cor 12-14); about those denying the resurrection (1 Cor 15); and then we find in 2 Cor 12:20-21, in his last address to them, that most of them had not stopped the sinning they started during the writing of the first letter.

Listen to what he says: 20: "or I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances; 21 I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced."

Listen to what Ezekiel 13:10-16 says of the sinning "builders" in Israel (the very people to whom Paul compares the Corinthians in 1 Cor 10:1-11):

10 "It is definitely because they have misled My people by saying, 'Peace!' when there is no peace. And when anyone builds a wall, behold, they plaster it over with whitewash; 11 so tell those who plaster it over with whitewash, that it will fall. A flooding rain will come, and you, O hailstones, will fall; and a violent wind will break out. 12 "Behold, when the wall has fallen, will you not be asked, 'Where is the plaster with which you plastered it?'" 13 Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, "I will make a violent wind break out in My wrath. There will also be in My anger a flooding rain and hailstones to consume it in wrath. 14 "So I will tear down the wall which you plastered over with whitewash and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation is laid bare; and when it falls, you will be consumed in its midst. And you will know that I am the LORD. 15 "Thus I will spend My wrath on the wall and on those who have plastered it over with whitewash; and I will say to you, 'The wall is gone and its plasterers are gone, 16 along with the prophets of Israel who prophesy to Jerusalem, and who see visions of peace for her when there is no peace,' declares the Lord GOD.

Sounds a lot like what was going on in Corinth, doesn't it? Yes, and that's why Paul quotes from the Old Testament SIX times in 1 Cor 1-4 concerning false wisdom that destroys the people of God. Now can you see why Paul is so adamant in 1 Cor 3:17 that those who "destroy the temple God will destroy him"? Is there any indication that these sinners Paul addresses are some group of people outside the Corinthian church? NO, there is not one passage in the whole epistle that suggests such a thing, yet Dr. White keeps insisting that verses 16-17 are talking about completely different people.

Paul nowhere says that those who were builders become those who tear down.

It seems as if Dr. White is expecting for Paul to say: "Now pay attention, readers. I am now going to switch from using the building metaphor to using the temple metaphor, but I'm talking about the same thing," and that if Paul doesn't say that, then we can't say that the builders who build with wood, hay and straw are destroying the temple, no matter how much sense it makes.

But let's look a little more closely at this. In 1 Cor 3:6-8, Paul uses plant metaphors to describe himself and the Corinthians. Then in 1 Cor 3:9-15, he makes a shift to building metaphors. Now, are we suddenly puzzled and confused because Paul is switching metaphors in mid-stream? Of course not. We know that he is talking about the same people. How do we know? Because Paul tells us in 3:9 as he says, "For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building." Now, let's carry this a step further. When Paul again switches metaphors in 1 Cor 3:16-17 from a generic building to a holy temple, are we suddenly puzzled and confused as to whether he is talking about the same people? No, just as we weren't confused in his switch of metaphors in 1 Cor 3:6-15. Why? Because Paul gives us the same information in 1 Cor 3:16 that he gave us in 3:9, that is, he says that the "temple" represents the Corinthians, just as the plants and building represent the Corinthians. Does Paul ever indictate that he is talking about a completely different people in any of these veses? NO, never. Does Paul change the theme with which he began the epistle? NO, the same theme of false wisdom and false allegiances is carried into 1 Cor 3:18-22 as was true in 1 Cor 1-2. So why is Dr. White trying to make a distinction? Because his theology demands it, that's why, and that is the only reason why. Unfortunately, he is too blinded by his theology to catch his error.

Verses 16-17 emphasize the importance of God's people as His temple, and His concern for its purity, and the grave danger awaiting His enemies. Since Paul's point in the previous verses will not support the Roman position, eisegesis is the last resort.

I think anyone with half a brain will see that my previous paragraph is not eisegesis at all. The enemies of the church come right from the church itself. Is that not what the New Testament warns us about? Look at Acts 20:30 ("and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be on the alert..."). The NT is filled with this kind of warning - the apostates will come from within the very church itself, seeking to destroy the church. Listen again to what Ezekiel says in 22:27-30:

19 "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because ye are all become dross, behold, therefore I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem. 20 As they gather silver, and brass, and iron, and lead, and tin, into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so will I gather you in mine anger and in my fury, and I will leave you there, and melt you. 21 Yea, I will gather you, and blow upon you in the fire of my wrath, and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof. 22 As silver is melted in the midst of the furnace, so shall ye be melted in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I the LORD have poured out my fury upon you. 23 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 24 Son of man, say unto her, Thou art the land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation. 25 There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows in the midst thereof. 26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. 27 Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain. 28 And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when the LORD hath not spoken. 29 The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully."

Do we have any wonder why Paul says to the Corinthains in 1 Cor 10:5-6:

"But with many of them [the Israelites] God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted."

And then in verses 11-12 the warning:

"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

But the problem is that Dr. White doesn't think that Christians can "fall" from salvation, therefore, warnings like this are neutralized of their power.

Obviously, in light of such harsh punishment, Paul does not view the actions of the brother who deliberately builds with defective materials and eventually destroys the temple as judicially neutral. He has committed a very serious sin which is adjudicated by a very serious punishment. Since the man of verse 15 has also built the temple with defective materials, albeit less destructive than the man of verse 17, his sin is of a lesser degree - but it is still sin

Very little of the rest of Mr. Sungenis' comments are really relevant, since this is the heart of his assertion. Notice that he speaks of the one destroyed by God as a "brother." It is vital that he extend the context of 10-15 to include 16-17 so that he can define the works which are judged as sins which can also bring the final judgment of God. Without this effort, his entire attempt fails. But we have already seen that, in fact, this entire effort contradicts the text and is unwarranted. Sungenis' position collapses when it is seen as the eisegetical effort it truly is.

Speaking of assertions, that's all the Dr. White gives us above. He has not proved one facet of his teaching to us. All he has done is said "It can't be the way Sungenis is saying." We know why now.

Later in his article Sungenis continues to attempt to turn Paul's discussion of the revelation of the motives of Christian leaders into a discussion of sin and its punishment. In passing he says,

These definitions of sin do not leave much room for the so-called "bad works" of Protestant theology to be anything other than sin. One of the typical ways in which Protestant theologians attempt to show some difference between sins and bad works is by stressing the "motivation" of the action. Hence, James White claims in his book "The Fatal Flaw,": "For the Christian, the idea of not being able to present to his Lord works that were done for the proper motivation ... is a terrifying one indeed." This is another example of a theological fabrication to make the verse fit into one's preconceived ideas.

Given that we have already listened to the apostle Paul himself speak of the testing of the works of Christian leaders so that it might be made known "of what sort" they are (something Paul never says of sins!), we can see very quickly who is actually engaging in the "theological fabrication" so as to fit a text into one's preconceived ideas!

Theological fabrication? Then Dr. White must say the same thing of Paul when Paul says in Romans 2:6-8 that God will judge the WORKS of men, some of the works are good, such as seeking glory, honor and immortality, and other works are sins, such as "selfish ambition" and "obeying unrighteousness"; and from these works some will receive "eternal life" (Rm 2:7), and the rest will receive "wrath" (Rm 2:8). And isn't it interesting that the "selfish ambition" of Rom 2:8 is remarkably similar to the selfish allegiances and false wisdom of those in Corinth? Or let Dr. White deal with Romans 14:1-20, which lists the greivous sins of contempt against a brother, and right in the middle of this Paul warns the Romans about God's coming "judgment seat." When you examine the quote from Isaiah from which Paul takes this (Isaiah 45) you see that the context speaks about sin, salvation and damnation for the whole world. There are many other passages I could mention. Suffice it to say, Dr. White's theology is the only fabrication that is taking place.

Scripture simply does not teach that bad motivations are sinless.

This is another common debate tactic: prove what is not disputed. What Mr. Sungenis fails to allow for is that 1) Paul can address the revelation of who engaged in ministry for proper reasons and who did not without turning the context into one of judgment of sin,

This is really getting ridiculous. It appears that Dr. White wants his cake and wants to eat it, too. Remember the change in his viewpoint that I warned you about earlier? Well here it is. He now agrees that bad motivations are sins (in direct contradiction to his books The Fatal Flaw and The Roman Catholic Controversy), but he doesn't want to say that the bad motivations in 1 Cor 3 are sins that will be judged. What kind of theology is this? Where does the Bible ever teach us that sinful actions will not be judged?? This is an example of the absurd lengths a theology like Dr. White's has to go to in order to keep everything together. They end up making absurd distinctions out of things that cannot be distinguished. Wouldn't it be much easier to agree that the judgment by fire in 1 Cor 3:15 and the judgment of destruction in 1 Cor 3:17 are put there precisely to judge the bad motivations, which are sins, of the men who built with wood, hay and straw?! Of course, but Dr. White can't have it that way, otherwise he will end up giving room to the Catholic interpretation, which at any cost, he does not want. He is even willing to create heretical ideas, as he did above in suggesting that bad motivations are not subject to judgment as sin, in order to preserve his pet theory. I am truly amazed.

2) that a person can be a Christian, have their sins forgiven completely in Christ, and still have the quality of their works as a Christian revealed in the last day. Evidently, Paul could never address the examination of the motives of Christian leaders working in the church without at the same time raising the issue of the punishment of sin.

Sungenis: That's right, and if Dr. White can't find a passage in the New Testament that teaches his viewpoint, rather than merely asserting his viewpoint, then he doesn't have a case. So far, he has not shown us one other passage that supports his contention (i.e., that the sin of bad motivations will not be judged as sin, and therefore not result in punishment). But I have shown numerous passages, such as Rom 2:6-8; Rom 14:10-12f; 2 Cor 5:10f; and many others, which specifically deny the type of interpretation Dr. White is trying to foist onto 1 Cor 3:10-17.

Following this, Sungenis attempts to draw parallels to other passages, but each one fails the simple test of context: he simply will not allow for the reading of the text provided above. Of course, given that Mr. Sungenis likewise rejects sola scriptura and embraces the ultimate authority of Rome, I would assert that true textually-based exegesis is not something he can faithfully engage in anyway (i.e., this would involve a fundamental contradiction of his beginning commitment to Rome's authority).

This is just more cheap demagoguery from Dr. White. Did I appeal to "Rome's authority" anywhere in this discussion? NO. My entire rebuttal to Dr. White, and the previous rebuttal I posted a few months age, were entirely exegetical in nature. Its comments like these from Dr. White that just show he's not interested in sticking to the exegetical issues.

Under "The Catholic Solution," Sungenis takes the over-riding thesis he has attempted to argue (mainly from texts other than the one allegedly under consideration), that being that "bad works" are sins (hence, if Christian worker's motivations are judged, this must mean there is a post-mortem judgment for sin), and says:

Consequently, since "bad works" are sins, as Catholic theology teaches, then indeed Christians will be judged for their sins and recompensed accordingly. Some will be "destroyed," some will "be saved by fire," and others will receive their heavenly reward immediately.

We again note that this ignores the text's own distinction between 14-15 and 16-17,

We again note that Dr. White's insistence on a distinction between 14-15 and 16-17 has yet to be proven exegetically. Apparently Dr. White thinks that if he merely asserts there is a distinction, well then, by golly, there is a distinction. Furthermore, in this case it doesn't even matter if there is a distinction between 14-15 and 16-17, since Dr. White has already admitted that the man of 15 has bad motivations; and he has admitted that those bad motivations are sins. So, just sticking with the man in verse 15, Dr. White still has a huge problem, that is, explaining to us how the sin of bad motivations can escape the judgment of God, since God judges every other sin we commit. You see, we're slowly watching Dr. White paint himself into a corner, out of which there will be no escape.

and it likewise makes a mockery of Jesus' ability to save His own. Of course, Roman Catholic soteriology is very man-centered, hence, the idea that Jesus is able to save completely without human cooperation is not a part of the system.

I'll have to bite my tongue on this one.

Note just a few more elements of this article:

First, it is clear from 1 Cor 3:17 that those who deliberately and consistently build with defective materials in an attempt to destroy the temple of God are to receive the ultimate punishment - they will be destroyed by God Himself.

There is, of course, nothing in the text that speaks of "deliberately and consistently building with defective materials," but Mr. Sungenis is certain of it anyhow. This is pure eisegesis.

Eisegesis? Poppycock. I have shown very clearly, both from 1 Cor 3; its surrounding context concerning false allegiances and false wisdom; and other Scriptural passages that speak of men from within the church rising up to destroy those in the church, that the man of 1Cor 3:17 has deliberately and consistently built with defective materials. Dr. White is now to the point that if he doesn't see the exact words "deliberately and consistently" then he accuses his opponent of inventing something. But it is quite obvious that since both the "building" and the "temple" are representative of the Corinthians themselves (cf., 3:9 and 3:16), then those who built the building are also those who built the temple. It is also obvous that if a man can destroy the temple, he can also do the opposite, which is build it up. On what basis does Dr. White claim that if a man has the ability to destroy the temple he does not also have the ability to build the temple, or vice-versa? This is merely another one of Dr. White's infamous distinctions in order to save his pet interpretation.

The final destruction Paul has in view refers to eternal damnation (cf., Ezekiel 13:10-16; 22:28-30; Luke 12:47; Hebrews 10:26-39). Second, 1 Cor 3:8 and 3:14 speaks of those whose work survives the test of fire and who will be rewarded according to their labor. The better his work, the better his reward. The reward refers to the eternal state of heaven in which, as Catholic doctrine teaches, those who have been more dedicated to the work of Christ will receive a greater reward or higher place in heaven.

One immediately has to ask, if this is true, what the "loss" of those "saved by fire" is? If the "reward" is the eternal state of heaven, and those whose works are burned up do not receive a reward, as v. 15 says, yet they are saved, then where do they go?

The "loss" is the loss of the work they did, not the reward. There is no mention of the man of 3:15 losing any reward. As I said earlier, it is just delayed. He must first pass through the fire to be saved, and then he will receive his reward. After all, is not salvation a reward? But now let me turn the tables. Dr. White insists that the "loss" is a loss of reward. Where does the text say that? It says this: "If a man's work is burned up he will suffer loss." The natural grammatical interpretation of this is that since the work was lost by being burned up, the man thus suffers the loss of that work. That work is gone forever, but that is not the case with the reward, for the reward is not mentioned as being lost.

Third, 1 Cor 3:15 speaks of a man who builds with defective material, but it is not to the same degree as the man in verse 17 who ends up destroying the temple.

One looks in vain for "same degree" or greater degree or anything even slightly relevant thereto in the text.

Let's answer this. Look at the man of 3:14. What is his disposition and consequence? He is rewarded immediately for his work. Contrast him to the man in 3:15. The man in 3:15 does not receive his reward immediately. In fact, bad things have been discovered in his life and he must now pass through the fire. Now, is there not a distinction between the man of 3:14 and the man of 3:15? And do not distinctions come in degrees? Yes, most definitely. So now let's apply the same principle to a contrast between the man of 3:14 and the man of 3:17. One is rewarded, the other destroyed. Is there not a distinction between these two? Yes, most definitely. Is not this a distinction of degree, since there is no other way distinctions can be made? Yes. So the only issue remaining, then, is whether the man of 3:14 and the man of 3:17 represent the people in the Corinthian church, or, as Dr. White wants to suggest, that they represent two totally different groups, one being the Corinthians, and the other being, ah well..., Dr. White has never specified who he thinks the man of verse 17 represents, at least in reference to the context of 1 Cor 3.

Now, has Dr. White proved that the man of 3:14, 3:15 and 3:17 represent anyone other people than the people in the Corinthian church? NO. Has he ever shown us how building with wood, hay and straw is not the same thing as destroying the temple? NO. Has he ever answered any of the other passages I have cited which show that Paul holds the Corinthians under the judgment of God if they sin (e.g., 1 Cor 10:1-12; 2 Cor 12:20-21-13:5)? NO. Has Dr. White ever answered any of the passages in which Paul also speaks about a judgment from God upon Christians for their good and bad deeds (e.g., Rom 2:6-8; 14:10-12; 2 Cor 5:10-6:2, et al)? NO. Dr. White just makes assertions without proof.

Based on the difference in degree, the man in verse 15 is eventually saved, but the man in verse 17 is not. The "fire" endured by the man in verse 15 that eventually leads to his salvation is what Catholic theology understands as the state of purgatory.

The person who has carefully followed the argument cannot help but see the tremendous self-contradiction the Roman position brings to the text. Those in v. 14 have their works tested by fire…but according to Sungenis, they receive eternal salvation, since theirs are "good works." But wait…if the fire that burns up the works of those in v. 15 is purgatory, why isn't it for those in v. 14? See what happens when you force Roman tradition upon a simple Scripture that has nothing to do with what Rome says it is teaching? The result is endless contradiction.

Very simple. The fire of 3:13 tests the quality of each man's work. The fire discovers that, after testing the works of the man in 3:14, he has no works that are of bad quality, so he is immediately rewarded. The fire does not touch this man; only his works. But the fire discovers that the man in 3:15 has some bad works, which it burns up. As a consequence for his bad works, the man of 3:15 must himself pass through the fire in order to purge him of the very things that led him to produce the bad works in the first place. The distinction, then, between the man of 3:14 and the man of 3:15 is that the former is not touched by the fire, but the latter is. Thus, there is no contradiction. By the way, this interpretation goes hand-in-hand with the Greek grammar of the adverb houtos, which forms the adverbial clause "yet so as by fire." I stated earlier that the adverb "yet so" is modifying the verb "saved," and telling us HOW the man of 3:15 is saved. That is, he is saved by passing through the fire.

Despite the glaring contradictions already seen, Sungenis plows on,

Hence, the three divisions of 1 Cor 3:14-17 are describing: heaven (verse 14), purgatory (verse 15) and hell (verse 17).

As we have seen, 14-15 both experience the same testing, destroying the glib, and erroneous, distinction Sungenis inserts into the text.

The Catholic understanding of mortal and venial sins also comes into play here. The man of 1 Cor 3:17 has committed unrepentant mortal sin, and thus he is banished to hell (1 Jn 5:16). In God's eyes, blaspheming His name and destroying His Church are very serious sins. On the other hand, the man of 1 Cor 3:15 has also committed sin, but not as seriously or consistently. These types of sins are what Catholic theology calls venial sins (1 Jn 5:17). They do not take away sanctifying grace that leads to eternal life, but one is accountable to God for them, and will suffer the temporal punishment due them either in this life or in purgatory.

The reader can readily see that in fact this is where Sungenis is deriving his teaching. Indeed, the text of 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 is more of a hindrance to him, than a help. Paul knew nothing of mortal versus venial sins, and all the rest of this kind of theology, that Rome imports into the text. Following this, Sungenis discusses the Greek term translated "suffer loss" and, of course, opts for the idea of "punishment," though he does not deal with the information we presented above, that being that the context does not support the rendering "punishment," as the phrase is directly parallel to verse 14. In Sungenis' eisegesis, there is a great chasm between 14 and 15, not only regarding this term and its parallel to "receive a reward," but in regards to the idea of types of sin, rewards, etc.

I have already answered this at length in my earlier remarks. I have dealt with every single facet of the passage that Dr. White has brought up. Besides this, if Dr. White would like to have a formal debate on this topic, I would be more than willing to engage him. I guarantee that it will not be of the same nature that he experienced this past summer in New York.