catholics/christians

[jlay]

Seriously? No the question is what it is exactly that you would equate bad work with other than sin.

Context.

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, [d]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 [e]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.

So you think in this context that sin is what is being discussed? Christians can do things sourced by the spirit, which is walking in the good works we were prepared for. And they can do things sourced in the flesh. Some of which can even seem noble if not good. (For example, lets build ornate buildings, have fancy robes, and create a governing body much like the Pharisaicall order.) So called ministries, charities and even churches are often started and run just under the power of man's will. Paul laid the foudation which is Jesus Christ. All believers are to build on that. That is a far cry from sins being purified in a place called purgatory.
In fact, I'd say this is a good example of the problems with church both Catholic and Protestant. Paul laid a foundation. Collecting and organizing the final canon, IMO, is a good example of building on that foundation. Adding long list of traditions, IMO, bad. Adding a hierarchy of pomp and circumstance, robes, and funny hats, IMO, bad.
Nothing personal Byb, but I think laying on that true foundation will not result in what we see in the Vatican today. That doesn't mean I don't think there isn't value in the history or the church. But yes, I think the day will show the quality of the work, and that which is genuine will be rewarded and the rest will be burned up.

[Byblos]

Seriously? No the question is what it is exactly that you would equate bad work with other than sin.

Context.

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, [d]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 [e]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.

So you think in this context that sin is what is being discussed? Christians can do things sourced by the spirit, which is walking in the good works we were prepared for. And they can do things sourced in the flesh. Some of which can even seem noble if not good. (For example, lets build ornate buildings, have fancy robes, and create a governing body much like the Pharisaicall order.) So called ministries, charities and even churches are often started and run just under the power of man's will. Paul laid the foudation which is Jesus Christ. All believers are to build on that. That is a far cry from sins being purified in a place called purgatory.
In fact, I'd say this is a good example of the problems with church both Catholic and Protestant. Paul laid a foundation. Collecting and organizing the final canon, IMO, is a good example of building on that foundation. Adding long list of traditions, IMO, bad. Adding a hierarchy of pomp and circumstance, robes, and funny hats, IMO, bad.
Nothing personal Byb, but I think laying on that true foundation will not result in what we see in the Vatican today. That doesn't mean I don't think there isn't value in the history or the church. But yes, I think the day will show the quality of the work, and that which is genuine will be rewarded and the rest will be burned up.

Context.

15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

You can ignore that all you want, it ain't going away.

[CallMeDave]

Answers in order -----

1. There are CONSEQUENCES that often follow our Sinful action , but the actual payment of that sin has been payed for by Christ IF the person is a genuine Christian. When Jesus said 'it is finished' on the cross , he meant the requirement for Gods complete forgiveness and redemption has been met, and that his (Jesus') atoning sacrifice was completed on our behalf. If you have to trust in Purgatory to really finished it , then youre not trusting fully in what Christ did on Calvary. In fact, RCC doctrine teaches that Christ only 'opened a door' when he suffered and thru a plethera of personal Catholic 'good works' , deeds, and personal sufferring ...it gets totally completed. Thus, the affront to Christ.

I'm sorry but I'm confused, on the one hand you say Christ's sacrifice paid for our sins, past, present, and future, and on the other you say there are STILL consequences to our sinful actions. Well which is it, are there consequences that we must still pay for or are they truly forgiven, past, present, and future? If you say there are consequences that we must pay (which I agree with) then either Christ's sacrifice was not enough or you have a misunderstanding of what his sacrifice actually accomplished. But even at that, let's put that aside for a moment, for we do agree that our sinful actions have consequences. The question I have for you is why would you think it is biblical that our sins have consequences here and not a final consequence en route to heaven? What is the difference?

2. If Christs sacrifice was enough, then there is 'therefore no condemnation left for us' , per scripture, and no further sacrificing left of ANY kind. How come the RCC wants their Followers to keep on personally atoning and even relying on dead catholics deposited good works to be applied toward a living Catholics eternal salvation (The Communion of Saints Teaching found in CCC1476-77) ? Thus, a huge affront to Christ.

It's not an affront to anything because it does NOT deny Christ's work. It merely states that one must account for the good deeds as well as the bad. Look at 1 Cor 3:13-15 says again:

13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Note verse 13 talks about testing with fire. Also note verse 14 talks about good works that survive the test for which the builder will receive a just reward. Let's now look at verse 15, not only does it contradict what you are saying that bad deeds are burnt and forgotten about, it specifically says 2 other things, 1) that the builder will suffer a loss (even though he is saved), and 2) how is he saved? As though escaping through fire (i.e. by the hair on his chinny-chin-chin). What do loss and escaping through fire imply? You guessed it, shame and suffering.

3. Youre not trusting in the FINISHED sacrifice of Christ if you are relying on personally suffering for your sins and trying to work them off via purgatory , penance, gaining indulgences, etc...

4. You are relying on the personal suffering in a fanciful Purgatory to finished the job which Christ said he completed on Calvary. He didnt open any door for you to finish the job....He IS the door which you must enter thru.

I think you need to go back and look up corporate redemption and what being in a covenantal relationship means.

5. The Judgement Seat of Christ is for rewards based on how a genuine Christian used his time, talents, and treasures to honor and respresent God after he was saved. The Persons sins were already dealt with by Christs substitionary atonement ...that why its called a SUBSTITIONARY death for us. At the Judgement Seat of Christ, ALL genuine Christians are saved and go to Heaven....but its their works performed after salvation that are reviewed and rewarded for faithful service , and works that have no merit are burned up and not considered.

Unfortunately (for you) 1 Cor 3:15 disagrees with you as shown above.

The RCC has confused whats necessary for salvation with what is called sanctification by Gods Holy Spirit active in our lives AFTER we are saved. And, the RCC has placed many additional measures and requirements which is alledgedly supposed to help in a persons eventual eternal salvation -- trouble is, if a person makes it to heaven it is because of NO personal merit of anyone but Christ himself.

So, the answer is this : Stop trusting in additional suffering after you die since Jesus himself warned people not to die IN their sins and to get them all dealt with from his sacrifical death, and to stop applying a whole plethera of your own as well as dead catholics deposited good works, deeds, etc.. thinking it will help toward eternal life (which none of it will) . Im afraid that the RCC has become extremely apostate over the centuries ...to the point where it nullifies essential Bible Doctrine including the very (finished) work of Christ himself. Just trust in Christ ALONE (something which the RCC Canon declares as 'blasphemous and deserving of anathema / eternal damnation') . Which are you going to go with --- trusting fully in what Christ has done, or, trying to add to it your own personal efforts which then nullifies Christs COMPLETED work. ? Your answer and future demonstrated actions determines your eternal destiny so please be very very careful. Its either Christ in full, or, the way of the RCC. Regards.

Thanks for the sermon but I'll stick with the Church that Christ himself established. It's the only way I can be sure I am following his entire counsel and not the tradition of men.

Youve been shown by myself and others your question in number 1. You can suffer the human consequences for an action decided here and now, but the guilt of the sin is removed by Christ. Any personal effort in suffering, performing rituals , or doing things to 'expiate' the sin is an affront to the One who has expiated sins.

It may be tempting to place your trust in an Institution which you think Christ ordained , and Popes and Councils who have continuously invented new rituals , and a Headquarters who is forever telling their Consituency that their church 'is the visible sacrament of salvation' ....but even in the time of the Apostles there was such deception going on as we read in the New Testament amongst Church Leaders. You only have to compare what is coming out of the mouths of these Popes to the Bible, and it is very easy to see they are untruthful ... and it doesnt matter if they keep up their charade of being 'infallable' and looking so because of the finest silk garb that they wear to impress the Masses. Your salvation isnt based on any of this, but on what Christ ALONE did....and that is what God gives as a free undeserved gift to us all. It has to be recieved as such.

[jlay]

I'm not ignoring. I addressed both in the last post.

First of all, where did Paul lay the foundation? You've yet to even show that this verse applies to heavenly judgments as opposed to earthly. You've certainly not shown where 'sin' is even at issue. Is this verse, based in its context, really where eschatological doctrines should be formed? You certainly won't get it reading the chapter prior and following. Or is the main focus on the earthly work of the church built on the foundation laid by Paul, in Christ Jesus.

What loss is being suffered?

[Byblos]

I'm not ignoring. I addressed both in the last post.

First of all, where did Paul lay the foundation? You've yet to even show that this verse applies to heavenly judgments as opposed to earthly.

Of course I have, it's right there in verse 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". Which day is this that Paul is talking about? If he were referring to earthly foundations then necessarily he would be referring to earthly rewards as well. Moreover, he certainly would not be talking about a 'day' (singular) in which earthly rewards are meted out. No, Paul is referring to the day of the Lord, the day of judgment. In fact, many Bible translations render it exactly that 'day of the Lord' in verse 13. And that, by the way, is most Protestants' understanding as well since, as I said before, it is why this verse is used in support of the Bema Seat Judgment of Christ.

You've certainly not shown where 'sin' is even at issue. Is this verse, based in its context, really where eschatological doctrines should be formed? You certainly won't get it reading the chapter prior and following. Or is the main focus on the earthly work of the church built on the foundation laid by Paul, in Christ Jesus.

I'm sorry but to state that bad deeds (that will be burnt up) are not equated with sin is just rather silly. Even if we take your examples into consideration, I don't see how one does not see them as sin. Anything done through personal effort, apart from the grace of God is a sin, no matter how well intentioned.

What loss is being suffered?

Loss of rewards J (and don't forget the last part of verse 15 either).

[jlay]

The quality of one's work? And you equate this to bad deeds, which is never mentioned in the text.

His context of what he established, is what he established in his ministry, which was on earth. Paul certainly had comments on both heaven and earth.
'The day of the Lord." If that is in fact what day Paul is referring to, then how do you equate that to the heavenly judgment. The term, I think, is mentioned about 30 or so times. (mostly in OT) But I don't recall anything in this other than earthly judgments, certainly no purgatory cleansing for believers.

For example: But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:10)

most Protestants' understanding as well since

"Most protestants" have little to no understanding of such things.

Loss of rewards J (and don't forget the last part of verse 15 either).

The context says the fire will test the quality of EACH man's work.

[Byblos]

The quality of one's work? And you equate this to bad deeds, which is never mentioned in the text.

Yes, I do. But I understand why you wouldn't agree (although I'm still at a loss at what you do equate it with).

His context of what he established, is what he established in his ministry, which was on earth. Paul certainly had comments on both heaven and earth.
'The day of the Lord." If that is in fact what day Paul is referring to, then how do you equate that to the heavenly judgment. The term, I think, is mentioned about 30 or so times. (mostly in OT) But I don't recall anything in this other than earthly judgments.

For example: But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:10)

And you can honestly say this is not in fact referring to the judgment day?

most Protestants' understanding as well since

"Most protestants" have little to no understanding of such things.

Okay J, whatever you say.

Loss of rewards J (and don't forget the last part of verse 15 either).

The context says the fire will test the quality of EACH man's work.

For the last time, YES, each man's WORK, for which they will either receive a reward, or SUFFER A LOSS.

Honestly, I'm not sure how many ways I can say this so again, peace.

[jlay]

And you can honestly say this is not in fact referring to the judgment day?

Sure, regarding 2 peter. However, I doubt we are going to agree on our eschatology.

Yes, I do. But I understand why you wouldn't agree (although I'm still at a loss at what you do equate it with).

Sorry Byb, I see that I left out part of my statement.

The quality of one's work? And you equate this to bad deeds, which is never mentioned in the text.. as sin.

The term bad deeds is never used. And I find one is reading one's presumptions into the text, which is certainly your perogitive.

[Thyczko]

Catholics ARE Christian. I have no idea why people keep saying they're not. -____________-

Some are but alot miss the boat. They believe in the Church but don't understand the relationship to Jesus that is preached by that Church

Truth be told Paul wrote this about the Church : Some believers will keep someday holier than others , others will keep everyday the same Some churchs have different customs but It's about Preaching the Gospel which all true believing churches teach So were not to make arguements if were basically on the same side lol Instead of battling protastants and catholics how about tring to spend your time converting athiests instead

[Byblos]

Sorry Byb, I see that I left out part of my statement.

The quality of one's work? And you equate this to bad deeds, which is never mentioned in the text.. as sin.

The term bad deeds is never used. And I find one is reading one's presumptions into the text, which is certainly your perogitive.

The term bad deeds is never used and yet throughout 1 Cor 3:1-23 we see a theme Paul is building (pun intended). On the one hand we have a solid foundation (of belief in Christ, a work for which a reward will be given - 1 Cor. 3:8-9), as opposed to shady work with no foundation based on Christ that will not withstand fire and will be burnt up (for which a loss will be suffered - 1 Cor. 3:12-15 ). Please give us some examples of those types of works that will be burned up (not founded in Christ) and for which a loss will be suffered but do not equate to sin.

[jlay]

I would look at it from works. Obviously the emphasis of this section of 1 Cor 3 is to emphasize rewards. The quality of work. The foundation that it is built upon. To take this verse and build a doctrine of purgatory is spurious at best.

Let's take chrarity for example.
On one hand you have someone, compelled by the spirit to meet the needs of the less fortunate. The work is genuinely sourced by God, and the person is walking in the good works prepared beforehand. And thus, they are building on the foundation of Christ.

On the other you have someone under compulsion of guilt, who gives out a motive not genuinely sourced. The world has no way to distinquish the motive. God still works the good in and through it, but there is nothing built on the foundation of Christ. Those things will be burned up in a sense, and what is left will be the genuine. Does fire in this case refer to a punative time and place? Again, seems like a spurious place to attempt to build or support such a doctrine.

FWIW, I have no problem calling the latter sin. Of course the bible doesn't say faith without workd is sin, but dead. But I think we can both agree that the sin of this is different than the sin of say adultery or murder. In fact the corinthians are told not to even associate with a believer than engages in such things. I think you would have a hard time reconciling within the RCC doctrine that there is no distinction in such things. Paul gave warnings of zeal without right knowledge. (Rom. 10:3) He speaks of maturity versus infancy. Spirit versus flesh, in terms of which resource the believer is operating out of.

Fundementally, we can infer that there were some problems with the Corinthian church. And, that some were related to the church genuinely walking versus things being done out of self-sourcing. In fact, do as you say, and look at 1 Cor 3. Paul says, And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking [a]like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?
5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 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 [c]field, God’s building.
Ok, so what is the distinction of spiritual and fleshly. Is it committing agregious sins? No, maturity versus immaturity.
We could add, what then is Peter? God is building the church, and growing it, and as we see here, there is nothing to do with Peter being a pope or some other central legislative authority. In fact, we know scripturally that Peter went to the Jews and Paul went to the gentiles. Paul was called by Christ himself to be the apostle to the gentiles. The people are God's building.

[jlay]

I would look at it from works. Obviously the emphasis of this section of 1 Cor 3 is to emphasize rewards. The quality of work. The foundation that it is built upon. To take this verse and build a doctrine of purgatory is spurious at best.

Let's take chrarity for example.
On one hand you have someone, compelled by the spirit to meet the needs of the less fortunate. The work is genuinely sourced by God, and the person is walking in the good works prepared beforehand. And thus, they are building on the foundation of Christ.

On the other you have someone under compulsion of guilt, who gives out a motive not genuinely sourced. The world has no way to distinquish the motive. God still works the good in and through it, but there is nothing built on the foundation of Christ. Those things will be burned up in a sense, and what is left will be the genuine. Does fire in this case refer to a punative time and place? Again, seems like a spurious place to attempt to build or support such a doctrine.

FWIW, I have no problem calling the latter sin. Of course the bible doesn't say faith without workd is sin, but dead. But I think we can both agree that the sin of this is different than the sin of say adultery or murder. In fact the corinthians are told not to even associate with a believer than engages in such things. I think you would have a hard time reconciling within the RCC doctrine that there is no distinction in such things. Paul gave warnings of zeal without right knowledge. (Rom. 10:3) He speaks of maturity versus infancy. Spirit versus flesh, in terms of which resource the believer is operating out of.

Fundementally, we can infer that there were some problems with the Corinthian church. And, that some were related to the church genuinely walking versus things being done out of self-sourcing. In fact, do as you say, and look at 1 Cor 3. Paul says, And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking [a]like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?
5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 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 [c]field, God’s building.
Ok, so what is the distinction of spiritual and fleshly. Is it committing agregious sins? No, maturity versus immaturity.
We could add, what then is Peter? God is building the church, and growing it, and as we see here, there is nothing to do with Peter being a pope or some other central legislative authority. In fact, we know scripturally that Peter went to the Jews and Paul went to the gentiles. Paul was called by Christ himself to be the apostle to the gentiles. The people are God's building.

[Byblos]

I would look at it from works. Obviously the emphasis of this section of 1 Cor 3 is to emphasize rewards. The quality of work. The foundation that it is built upon.

Nowhere did I disagree with this.

To take this verse and build a doctrine of purgatory is spurious at best.

First of all, in this entire thread I was not defending purgatory per se, I was merely showing the similarities between it and the Bema seat judgment based on 1 Cor. 3:13-15 alone, there are of course others. So to state that the doctrine is based on one verse is to show ignorance of the discussion at hand and of the doctrine itself.

Let's take chrarity for example.
On one hand you have someone, compelled by the spirit to meet the needs of the less fortunate. The work is genuinely sourced by God, and the person is walking in the good works prepared beforehand. And thus, they are building on the foundation of Christ.

On the other you have someone under compulsion of guilt, who gives out a motive not genuinely sourced. The world has no way to distinquish the motive. God still works the good in and through it, but there is nothing built on the foundation of Christ.

Anything that is not built on Chirst J, what is it built on? Greed, self promotion and self aggrandizement, boasting of one's abilities, etc, etc. I don't know about you but I would think almost everyone else sees those as sins. And of course God uses such for good, He's been know to use even evil acts for the greater good. But what does that have to do with anything? The intention of the act is still what it is and it is NOT built on Christ, therefore it is a sin. I really don't know how many ways you can spin out of that one.

Those things will be burned up in a sense, and what is left will be the genuine.

Now who's adding things scripture doesn't say? Nowhere does 1 Cor 3 say that there would be something genuine left out of anything burnt up.

Does fire in this case refer to a punative time and place?

That is exactly the understanding of not only the loss suffered due to works that are burnt up, but also that the person is still saved but only as though escaping through fire. The imagery Paul is painting is unmistakable.

Again, seems like a spurious place to attempt to build or support such a doctrine.

Not spurious at all when taken into consideration with other scripture, but yet again, I'm not here to defend purgatory. You asked a question and I answered it.

FWIW, I have no problem calling the latter sin. Of course the bible doesn't say faith without workd is sin, but dead. But I think we can both agree that the sin of this is different than the sin of say adultery or murder. In fact the corinthians are told not to even associate with a believer than engages in such things. I think you would have a hard time reconciling within the RCC doctrine that there is no distinction in such things. Paul gave warnings of zeal without right knowledge. (Rom. 10:3) He speaks of maturity versus infancy. Spirit versus flesh, in terms of which resource the believer is operating out of.

Oh I agree totally, I hope I didn't give you the impression otherwise. Those are certainly not what we call mortal sins such as the ones you listed above. They are venial sins for which a temporal punishment would have been just before death and is still just to purify the soul before entering heaven, no more and no less.

Fundementally, we can infer that there were some problems with the Corinthian church. And, that some were related to the church genuinely walking versus things being done out of self-sourcing. In fact, do as you say, and look at 1 Cor 3. Paul says, And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking [a]like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?
5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 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 [c]field, God’s building.
Ok, so what is the distinction of spiritual and fleshly. Is it committing agregious sins? No, maturity versus immaturity.

Note the word I bolded and underlined. Nowhere did I say those were egregious sins. But I would certainly consider Immaturity (not maturing in Christ) for a Christian as a sin.

We could add, what then is Peter? God is building the church, and growing it, and as we see here, there is nothing to do with Peter being a pope or some other central legislative authority. In fact, we know scripturally that Peter went to the Jews and Paul went to the gentiles. Paul was called by Christ himself to be the apostle to the gentiles.

This came out of left field and I certainly disagree with it but I will leave that for a different thread.

The people are God's building.

Yes, and some have a good foundation in Christ for which they will receive a just reward, and some have a weak foundation not in Christ for which they will suffer loss but still be saved as though through fire.

[jlay]

Anything that is not built on Chirst J, what is it built on? Greed, self promotion and self aggrandizement, boasting of one's abilities, etc, etc. I don't know about you but I would think almost everyone else sees those as sins. And of course God uses such for good, He's been know to use even evil acts for the greater good. But what does that have to do with anything? The intention of the act is still what it is and it is NOT built on Christ, therefore it is a sin. I really don't know how many ways you can spin out of that one.

Byb, you are welcome to see them as sins. I can promise you there are all kinds of 'churchy' activities that perhaps even you and I would say "good" to, but in fact have no spiritual life in them. It is not a matter of spin, but I would say our different perspectives. There are gobs of activity in the RCC and protestant chruches that are nothing more than religious activity. They might even look good to us, and I would say some if not many are done with NOBLE intentions. Not out of greed, or boasting. But that does not mean they are birthed in the spirit? And perhaps the reason I'm not so quick to start hurling stones at sin, is that when I honestly inventory my life, I am bound to find those areas that are fleshly and not spiritual. If you think you've got all the motives figured out, then more power to you. I would encourage you to read Oswald Chambers devotion for a year, and get back to me. The facts are that I see a lot of this in the church today. I hear sermons that point out legit shortcomings in the church today. They quote stats, etc. and they admonish people to change their ways. And many do, but does that make it sprititually genuine? No. A person can go serve all day long in the soup kitchen, but that doesn't mean it is building on the foundation. They can teach a Sunday school class. That doesn't mean its building on the foundation. They can even become a priest. It could just be that they are responding to worldly sorrow. Now, perhaps you are so spiritually mature that you think you know all the motives, and it's a clear cut thing in your eyes, but I'm not there.

Now who's adding things scripture doesn't say? Nowhere does 1 Cor 3 say that there would be something genuine left out of anything burnt up.

Not sure I'm following your criticism here.

That is exactly the understanding of not only the loss suffered due to works that are burnt up, but also that the person is still saved but only as though escaping through fire. The imagery Paul is painting is unmistakable.

The key word you said is imagery. Regardless, you've never shown that this verse is an adequate defenese of purgatory. If those holding a Bema Seat judgemnt use this in support, then I would say they are just as in error. Since I don't hold that position, I can only deal with how you used it, which seemed obvious too me. That this verse is a defense of the doctrine of purgatory. As I said, spurious at best. Your issues with how I am reading the verse ultimately don't change that fact.

I'll give you a personal example. Tithing. For years, I gave 10% to my local congregation (still do, but for different motives). The reason is that I had heard for years sermons on tithing. I listened and took the teaching to heart, without giving little thought to examining the scriptures to see if tithing is a principle that Gentile believers should practice today. I just wanted to obey. Later in life, as my spiritual walk 'matured' I began to do a little more research and found that tithing as it is preached by many, is a distortion of scriputre. Tithing was most certainly an OT practice, dictated in the law specifically for Israel to follow in regards to supporting the Levitical priesthood. The NT however is virtually silent on tithing, but does speak on giving. Giving in the NT is much different than OT tithing. Now, I give. In fact, I'm more generous and diverse in my giving of $$, time and talent than ever. (Praise be to God) So, are you ready to label all my pre-enlightenment 'tithing' as sin? Or, was I immature? Was I building on the foundation? No. I thought I was. My motives were good. But my motives are not an instant spritual litmus test.

[Byblos]

I think I've said what I set out to say on the subject. I was under no illusion that I will convince anyone by it, particularly since that was not the intention anyway. These are personal observations based on years of discussions with fellow Christians. Could they be wrong? Of course, it'd be nothing short of intellectual dishonesty to state otherwise. Are they completely off the mark? I believe they are not but as is often the case with these types of discussions, it comes down to a matter of interpretation.