White: 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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: 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.

Sungenis: "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.

White: "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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: "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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: "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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: "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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: "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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: "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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: "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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: 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.

Sungenis: I already rebutted this point in my earlier remarks.

White: "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?

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

White: "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.

Sungenis: 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?

White: "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.

Sungenis: 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).

1 2 3 4 5