Sungenis: 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.

White: ""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.

Sungenis: 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.

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

Sungenis: 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.

White: 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.

Sungenis: 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).

White: 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.

Sungenis: Please, Lord! Give me patience.

White: "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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: 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),

Sungenis: 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.

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

Sungenis: 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.

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

Sungenis: Already answered above.

White: 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,

Sungenis: 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").

White: 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."

Sungenis: 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.

White: 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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: "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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: 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!

Sungenis: 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.

1 2 3 4 5