White: "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,

Sungenis: 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.

White: 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.

White: 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).

Sungenis: 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.

White: 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,

Sungenis: 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.

White: 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.

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

White: 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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: "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?

Sungenis: 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.

White: "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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: "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.

Sungenis: 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.

White: 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.

Sungenis: 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.

1 2 3 4 5