What is the 'work' that may or may not get burned up in 1 Corinthians 3:8-16?

[Jethro Bodine]

Is Paul writing to the temple at Corinth, or is he writing to the church at Corinth?

Both. They are one and the same thing:

"5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5 NASB)

The sum total of 'stones' is the temple.

How does it help to say you might be burned but Paul will be saved? It's ridiculous. And how does this benefit the church? What do you mean by it helps the church recognize who has your eternal interests at heart, and who does not? Paul being saved helps us recognize Paul has our best interests at heart? Them being burned is Paul's loss? People are burned, it's Paul loss so you can trust Paul?

What does that mean to the saints? They should take comfort in Paul being saved while they might be burned? Cold comfort in hell. How does Paul telling them he will be saved show Paul has their interests at heart?

Paul is showing them that his interest is for them to be saved, not lost at the Judgment, so he can receive a reward for his labor among them. Meanwhile, the false apostles are in it for immediate temporal gain, not at all concerned about whether they receive a reward at the Judgment, or if even those they speak to will be saved at that Judgment. Paul is saying, "what value is it to me for me to build you up into that which will not stand in the Judgment? I'm not even taking payment for my ministerial services among you. I'm thinking about the coming Judgment."

It's a mutual thing. It's not just a self-centered, self-serving doctrine about Paul and Paul alone and his salvation and his reward. He explains how they will rejoice in him just as much as he will in them at the resurrection:

"we are your reason to be proud as you also are ours, in the day of our Lord Jesus." (2 Corinthians 1:14 NASB)

See? It's a mutual thing. They get saved and Paul doesn't lose the reward of building a building that survives the coming Judgment. And both, Paul, and the people he preached to who make it through the Judgment, rejoice together at the restoration of the kingdom. I will listen to a teacher who has that agenda. That tells me they're in it for a holy and sincere purpose and not just trying to live a comfortable and famous life as a charismatic preacher in this life and who really doesn't give a crap about whether I hear a message that can save me or not, but who only preaches a message that makes him popular and loved...and rich.

 

[JLB]

How does it help to say you might be burned but Paul will be saved? It's ridiculous. And how does this benefit the church? What do you mean by it helps the church recognize who has your eternal interests at heart, and who does not? Paul being saved helps us recognize Paul has our best interests at heart? Them being burned is Paul's loss? People are burned, it's Paul loss so you can trust Paul?

What does that mean to the saints? They should take comfort in Paul being saved while they might be burned? Cold comfort in hell. How does Paul telling them he will be saved show Paul has their interests at heart?

When Paul says each man should take care, he means each man. And what you fail to understand is each man is a temple of God if the Spirit of God is in the man. Each man is a living stone. And the church is an assembly of believers. That's why it is called a church and not a temple. A temple is a place where God dwells. It can be a physical temple - Jesus referred to his body as a temple. It can also be a spiritual temple since that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 14:23
Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

No. You've got it all wrong!

Is Paul writing to the temple at Corinth, or is he writing to the church at Corinth?

Paul wrote these words to the Church at Corinth...

If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are. 1 Corinthians 3:17

You can't "explain away" God will destroy him.


JLB

 

[chessman]

Read carefully. Irenaeus was most definitely non-OSAS:

I have read carefully. That's how I know that the quotations you have posted here are not him saying that once saved people are sent to Hell. All you are doing is assuming that's what he means by "disinherited", etc. As I showed from his previous statement. He didn't mean "disinherited" = de-saved. He meant "disinherited" = never saved. He was explaining why God (The Father) would "disinherit" His creatures if someone (anyone, Jew or Gentile) never came to a saving faith in Jesus looking forward to Him (ancient Jews) or backward to Him (2nd Century Jews or Gentiles). You simply insert your own contrary meaning into Irenaeus' meaning as you do Paul's meaning of the work that gets burned up.

Neither meant that it was previuosly saved people that get burned/ disinherited.


Here, let's look carefully at your bolded/underlined quote, within his context, not yours. I can only assume that once again you are thinking Irenaeus means "no further forgiveness of sins" and/or "shut out from His Kingdom" as equal to "de-saved".

we obtain no further forgiveness of sins, but are shut out from His Kingdom.

What's the chapter about?

"Chapter XXVII-The Sins of the Men of Old Time, Which Incurred the Displeasure of God, Were, by His Providence, Committed to Writing, that We Might Derive Instruction Thereby, and Not Be Filled with Pride."​

Notice that it's NOT about '... that we might not be sent to Hell'

Who's one of his prime examples in this chapter of a "men of old time" which incurred the displeasure of God so we might derive instruction from him? King David!

For as God is no respecter of persons, He inflicted a proper punishment on deeds displeasing to Him. As in the case of David, when he suffered persecution from Saul for righteousness' sake, and fled from King Saul, and would not avenge himself of his enemy, he both sung the advent of Christ, and instructed the nations in wisdom, and did everything after the Spirit's guidance, and pleased God. But when his lust prompted him to take Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, the Scripture said concerning him, "Now, the thing (sermo) which David had done appeared wicked in the eyes of the Lord;​

David received his proper punishment for his unforgiven sin. But it wasn't Hell!

Who's another example he gives? King Solomon!

For Solomon was a servant, but Christ is indeed the Son of God, and the Lord of Solomon. While, therefore, he served God without blame, and ministered to His dispensations, then was he glorified: but when he took wives from all nations, and permitted them to set up idols in Israel, the Scripture spake thus concerning him: "And King Solomon was a lover of women, and he took to himself foreign women; and it came to pass, when Solomon was old, his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God. And the foreign women turned away his heart after strange gods. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord: he did not walk after the Lord, as did David his father. And the Lord was angry with Solomon; for his heart was not perfect with the Lord, as was the heart of David his father." The Scripture has thus sufficiently reproved him, as the presbyter remarked, in order that no flesh may glory in the sight of the Lord.​

Both of these men received God's punishment for their sins in accordance with God's displeasure (as do we). But sent to Eternal Destruction??? Nope!

You are simply pulling partial quotes from their context and inserting your own personal meaning into these phrases.

As you have inserted your own personal meaning into "the work" of each man into Paul's different meaning.

 

[JLB]

He didn't mean "disinherited" = de-saved. He meant "disinherited" = never saved.

(EDITED BY STAFF)
dis·in·her·it
ˌdisənˈherit/
verb
past tense: disinherited; past participle: disinherited

1. change one's will or take other steps to prevent (someone) from inheriting one's property.
   synonyms: cut someone out of one's will, cut off, dispossess;
   disown, repudiate, reject, cast off/aside, wash one's hands of, have nothing more to do with, turn one's back on;
   informal cut off without a penny
   "his parents disinherited him when he joined a cult"

C'mon Chessman, I know you are better than that.

JLB

 

[MarkT]

Both. They are one and the same thing:

"5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5 NASB)

The sum total of 'stones' is the temple.


Paul is showing them that his interest is for them to be saved, not lost at the Judgment, so he can receive a reward for his labor among them. Meanwhile, the false apostles are in it for immediate temporal gain, not at all concerned about whether they receive a reward at the Judgment, or if even those they speak to will be saved at that Judgment. Paul is saying, "what value is it to me for me to build you up into that which will not stand in the Judgment? I'm not even taking payment for my ministerial services among you. I'm thinking about the coming Judgment."

It's a mutual thing. It's not just a self-centered, self-serving doctrine about Paul and Paul alone and his salvation and his reward. He explains how they will rejoice in him just as much as he will in them at the resurrection:

"we are your reason to be proud as you also are ours, in the day of our Lord Jesus." (2 Corinthians 1:14 NASB)

See? It's a mutual thing. They get saved and Paul doesn't lose the reward of building a building that survives the coming Judgment. And both, Paul, and the people he preached to who make it through the Judgment, rejoice together at the restoration of the kingdom. I will listen to a teacher who has that agenda. That tells me they're in it for a holy and sincere purpose and not just trying to live a comfortable and famous life as a charismatic preacher in this life and who really doesn't give a crap about whether I hear a message that can save me or not, but who only preaches a message that makes him popular and loved...and rich.

It's one thing to say 'you are my pride and joy, my crown of boasting', in an affectionate manner. It's quite another thing to say if you don't survive, I don't get my reward, but I'll still be saved.

Is this solid food? Where is the food in saying if you survive I will get you for a reward. But don't worry about me. If you don't survive, I'll still be saved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

don't worry about me. If you don't survive, I'll still be saved.

You're spinning what he said. He never said, "don't worry about me." He said I'll pass through the fire, but I won't have the reward of your presence on the other side if you don't. That's hardly selfish and unfeeling as you are demonizing the passage to say.

"15If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1 Corinthians 3:15 NASB)

Paul is proving the sincerity and truthfulness of his message by explaining to them his responsibility to be a faithful minister of the gospel of grace:

1Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy." (1 Corinthians 4:1-2 NASB)

See, the context hasn't changed. This is still about 'servants of Christ' charged with the duty of serving in the field and building of God (the Corinthians). By explaining his personal responsibility to God for his work among them he hopes to win them over to Christ and away from the false apostles at work among them with their false gospel that can not save them from the coming fire of Judgment.

 

[JLB]

It's one thing to say 'you are my pride and joy, my crown of boasting', in an affectionate manner. It's quite another thing to say if you don't survive, I don't get my reward, but I'll still be saved.

Is this solid food? Where is the food in saying if you survive I will get you for a reward. But don't worry about me. If you don't survive, I'll still be saved.

It's a warning to these very carnal Christians to stop being "immature" and following man ("I am of Paul and I am of Apollos") and focus on being followers of Christ and being led by the Spirit, rather than being "spoon fed" by man because if man feeds you [teaches you] with things that are not of Christ, it may cause you to become defiled.

Context:

1 Corinthians 2:13-3:5, 17 -

13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?


17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.



JLB

 

[chessman]

Your joking right?

Nope. No joke.

Have you even read the book from which this quote is taken? Here's how Irenaeus is using the word: (just read the whole thing. It only takes a few minutes). The link JB provides is NOT the book. It's simply the quotes pulled out of their original context with the same wrong assumption being made about it.

Here's the link to the whole book:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book4.html

Here Irenaeus explains why he calls humankind (all people, not just saved people) "sons of God:

According to nature, then -that is, according to creation, so to speak-we are all sons of God, because we have all been created by God.
​

Here he explains what he means by "disinherited" sons. It's condemnation of those people that are never saved to begin with:

This, then, is a clear point, that those who disallow his salvation, and frame the idea of another God besides Him who made the promise to Abraham, are outside the kingdom of God, and are disinherited from [the gift of] incorruption,
​

Here he explains how those humans that do not allow His salvation, are disinherited. Notice, these are humans that were never saved!

For as, among men, those sons who disobey their fathers, being disinherited, are still their sons in the course of nature, but by law are disinherited, for they do not become the heirs of their natural parents; so in the same way is it with God,-those who do not obey Him being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons. Wherefore they cannot receive His inheritance: as David says, "Sinners are alienated from the womb;
​

He means these "disinherited" people have never been saved in the first place, (they are His sons because He created them, not because they have ever obeyed Him). Your assumption is they were once saved. Irenaeus doesn't mean they were saved then disinherited.

Even though they are creatures of God (i.e. His sons from their birth) He will disinherit them if they do not accept Christ. That's his point.
You and JB are not reading the man for what he's saying and merely assuming he means previously saved people are de-saved.

I seen some really lame attempts to rearrange and redefine the meanings of words in an attempt to prop up the OSAS doctrine, but this one takes the cake.

If I had posted this about anti-OSAS, it would have been edited/deleted by now. It has zero apologetic support/defense of your interpretation.

​

in·her·it

ˌdisənˈherit/
verb
past tense: disinherited; past participle: disinherited

1. change one's will or take other steps to prevent (someone) from inheriting one's property.
   synonyms: cut someone out of one's will, cut off, dispossess;
   disown, repudiate, reject, cast off/aside, wash one's hands of, have nothing more to do with, turn one's back on;
   informal cut off without a penny
   "his parents disinherited him when he joined a cult"

Notice, none of these definitions is 'lose your salvation'.​

 

[JLB]

Nope. No joke.

Have you even read the book from which this quote is taken? Here's how Irenaeus is using the word: (just read the whole thing. It only takes a few minutes). The link JB provides is NOT the book. It's simply the quotes pulled out of their original context with the same wrong assumption being made about it.

Here's the link to the whole book:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book4.html

Here Irenaeus explains why he calls humankind (all people, not just saved people) "sons of God:

According to nature, then -that is, according to creation, so to speak-we are all sons of God, because we have all been created by God.
Here he explains what he means by "disinherited" sons. It's condemnation of those people that are never saved to begin with:

This, then, is a clear point, that those who disallow his salvation, and frame the idea of another God besides Him who made the promise to Abraham, are outside the kingdom of God, and are disinherited from [the gift of] incorruption,
Here he explains how those humans that do not allow His salvation, are disinherited. Notice, these are humans that were never saved!

For as, among men, those sons who disobey their fathers, being disinherited, are still their sons in the course of nature, but by law are disinherited, for they do not become the heirs of their natural parents; so in the same way is it with God,-those who do not obey Him being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons. Wherefore they cannot receive His inheritance: as David says, "Sinners are alienated from the womb;
He means these "disinherited" people have never been saved in the first place, (they are His sons because He created them, not because they have ever obeyed Him). Your assumption is they were once saved. Irenaeus doesn't mean they were saved then disinherited.

Even though they are creatures of God (i.e. His sons from their birth) He will disinherit them if they do not accept Christ. That's his point.
You and JB are not reading the man for what he's saying and merely assuming he means previously saved people are de-saved.

Disinherited means to cut someone off from what they would receive, if otherwise not cut off, or dis-inherited.


IOW disinherited is not used to describe someone who was never going to inherit.

dis·in·her·it
ˌdisənˈherit/
verb
past tense: disinherited; past participle: disinherited

1. change one's will or take other steps to prevent (someone) from inheriting one's property.
   synonyms: cut someone out of one's will, cut off, dispossess;
   disown, repudiate, reject, cast off/aside, wash one's hands of, have nothing more to do with, turn one's back on;
   informal cut off without a penny
   "his parents disinherited him when he joined a cult"

Here's how your definition of disinherited would be used....


My Grandfather disinherited the Islamic extremist from inheriting his estate.


The IE was never in the inheritance.

Disinherited is for those who are actually named in the inheritance, and denotes a change in the inheritance to cut them out.


Unsaved people are going to inherit the kingdom of God.
Saved people who become disinherited, will no longer inherit the kingdom of God.

“Those who do not obey Him, but being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.” [Against Heresies4.41.3]


... having ceased to be His sons.



JLB

 

[JLB]

Notice, none of these definitions is 'lose your salvation'.

Being a son of God, then ceasing to be a son of God is the epitome of losing your salvation.


Just like the angels, sons of God, who were cast down to hell.


JLB

 

[MarkT]

You're spinning what he said. He never said, "don't worry about me." He said I'll pass through the fire, but I won't have the reward of your presence on the other side if you don't. That's hardly selfish and unfeeling as you are demonizing the passage to say.

"15If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1 Corinthians 3:15 NASB)

Paul is proving the sincerity and truthfulness of his message by explaining to them his responsibility to be a faithful minister of the gospel of grace:

1Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy." (1 Corinthians 4:1-2 NASB)

See, the context hasn't changed. This is still about 'servants of Christ' charged with the duty of serving in the field and building of God (the Corinthians). By explaining his personal responsibility to God for his work among them he hopes to win them over to Christ and away from the false apostles at work among them with their false gospel that can not save them from the coming fire of Judgment.

Sorry. Who is he talking to? The letter is to the church. Who is he talking to when he says he could not address them as spiritual men? The church. Who is he talking to when he says, 'You are God's field'? The church. Who is he talking to when he says, 'Let each man take care? The church. Who is he talking to when he says, 'you are God's temple'? The church. Who is he talking to when he says, 'Let no one deceive himself'? The church. I could go on. Who is he talking to when he says,' This is how one should regard us.'? The church And when he says, I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit', who is he talking to? The church.

If you look at it in the light of who is he talking to, there is no question he is talking to each man when he says each man. Paul is not talking to himself.

 

[JLB]

Sorry. Who is he talking to? The letter is to the church. Who is he talking to when he says he could not address them as spiritual men? The church. Who is he talking to when he says, 'You are God's field'? The church. Who is he talking to when he says, 'Let each man take care? The church. Who is he talking to when he says, 'you are God's temple'? The church. Who is he talking to when he says, 'Let no one deceive himself'? The church. I could go on. Who is he talking to when he says,' This is how one should regard us.'? The church And when he says, I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit', who is he talking to? The church.

If you look at it in the light of who is he talking to, there is no question he is talking to each man when he says each man. Paul is not talking to himself.

Who's he talking to when he says...If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

Who's he referring to when he says...If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.

The Church, who is being built into a holy Temple.

If someone who is part of the Temple, ends up defiling the Temple, God will destroy him.


The OSAS doctrine denies this, even though Paul warns that it will happen.



JLB

 

[chessman]

Disinherited means to cut someone off from what they would receive, if otherwise not cut off, or dis-inherited.

The reason dictionaries give a list of different meanings for a word is because the word means different things within different contexts and when used by different people. You (nor I, nor JB, nor whoever owns the website JB referenced) get's to rightfully pick whichever meaning we like from the list. You go with the author's meaning.

disinherited is not used to describe someone who was never going to inherit

I didn't say it was used that way. And more to the point, Irenaeus didn't use it that way either. He clearly tells us who the "those" are in the following quotation (and it's NOT saved people, people who have been given Eternal Life, as you assume it is):

Those who do not obey Him, but being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.” [Against Heresies4.41.3]

He says the "those" are:

"According to nature, then, they are [His] children, because they have been so created; but with regard to their works, they are not His children."

This quotation of Irenaeus' is clearly made by him to help explain why (in his opinion) it is God gives natural life to all human children in the womb, yet never gives some of them Eternal Life. To use this quotation to mean God removes Eternal Life from some of His children is a fraudulent usage.

Being a son of God, then ceasing to be a son of God is the epitome of losing your salvation.

Do you think Irenaeus equates being a "son of God" to being saved?

And again, have you even read his book?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If you look at it in the light of who is he talking to, there is no question he is talking to each man when he says each man. Paul is not talking to himself.

I don't understand how this is so hard for you to grasp. Paul himself plainly says is talking about himself and other servants/ workers in the field and building of God to the Corinthians.

" these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes" (1 Corinthians 4:6 NASB bold mine)

What is it about "myself and Apollos" that you do not understand? Why are you expanding it to mean every single Christian and what he builds in his own personal spiritual life while Paul talks about his and Apollos' labor of building outside of themselves?

These questions are not just for you. They are for every Christian who has adopted the traditional view of the passage. The traditional view is not consistent with the context of the passage. The passage is about the servant/worker laboring in the field and building of God (outside of themselves) who has specifically been entrusted with the dispensing of the mystery of the gospel, and the potential reward, or loss of reward for doing so, which will be based on how/what he has built. And all of which is being explained to the Corinthians so they can stop following and elevating the various servants/workers among them and instead recognize Christ at work in the laborer (or lack thereof) as evidenced by their goal and how they are achieving it.

 

[JLB]

The reason dictionaries give a list of different meanings for a word is because the word means different things within different contexts and when used by different people. You (nor I, nor JB, nor whoever owns the website JB referenced) get's to rightfully pick whichever meaning we like from the list. You go with the author's meaning.


I didn't say it was used that way. And more to the point, Irenaeus didn't use it that way either. He clearly tells us who the "those" are in the following quotation (and it's NOT saved people, people who have been given Eternal Life, as you assume it is):

Those who do not obey Him, but being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.” [Against Heresies4.41.3]

He says the "those" are:

"According to nature, then, they are [His] children, because they have been so created; but with regard to their works, they are not His children."

This quotation of Irenaeus' is clearly made by him to help explain why (in his opinion) it is God gives natural life to all human children in the womb, yet never gives some of them Eternal Life. To use this quotation to mean God removes Eternal Life from some of His children is a fraudulent usage.



Do you think Irenaeus equates being a "son of God" to being saved?

And again, have you even read his book?

Those who do not obey Him, but being disinherited by Him, have ceased to be His sons.” [Against Heresies4.41.3]

Ceased to be sons... Is irrefutable.

They were sons of God, then were disinherited and ceased to be sons of God.

You just can't explain this away, no matter how you try.


JLB

 

[MarkT]

I don't understand how this is so hard for you to grasp. Paul himself plainly says is talking about himself and other servants/ workers in the field and building of God to the Corinthians.

" these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes" (1 Corinthians 4:6 NASB bold mine)

What is it about "myself and Apollos" that you do not understand? Why are you expanding it to mean every single Christian and what he builds in his own personal spiritual life while Paul talks about his and Apollos' labor of building outside of themselves?

These questions are not just for you. They are for every Christian who has adopted the traditional view of the passage. The traditional view is not consistent with the context of the passage. The passage is about the servant/worker laboring in the field and building of God (outside of themselves) who has specifically been entrusted with the dispensing of the mystery of the gospel, and the potential reward, or loss of reward for doing so, which will be based on how/what he has built. And all of which is being explained to the Corinthians so they can stop following and elevating the various servants/workers among them and instead recognize Christ at work in the laborer (or lack thereof) as evidenced by their goal and how they are achieving it.

Because he is talking to the church and every man 'Then every man will receive his commendation from God'. 1 Cor. 4:5

If Paul's teaching is about Paul for Paul, then Paul's teaching is nothing and Paul is aggrandizing himself. But if his teaching is for every man, then his teaching is something.

I wouldn't say Paul is working in God's field. The field, according to Jesus, is the world. "the field is the world, and the good seed means the sons of the kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one, Mt. 13:38
So Paul and Apollos are in the world planting and watering God's field. And they are not building in God's building. Every one who possesses the Spirit of God is God's building, and every man who possesses the Spirit builds on the knowledge of Jesus Christ and him crucified. Hopefully his understanding comes from above.

(EDITED BY STAFF) How does it benefit the church to know they might be burned but Paul will be saved? Is that the good news?

And I wouldn't say the passage is out of context since he is instructing the church in various things. To the church he says all things belong to them. 1 Cor. 3:21-23

 

[MarkT]

And 1 Cor. 4:6 isn't about Paul and Apollos. It's about how one should regard Paul and Apollos. You're really grasping at straws to make the passage 1 Cor. 3:10-15 be about Paul and Apollos.

 

[MarkT]

Paul would be foolish if he didn't follow his own instruction. He said, do not pronounce judgment before the time 1 Cor. 4:5, which is what Jesus taught, and he said each man should take care how he builds on the foundation he laid. So the instruction is to build on the foundation and the foundation is the knowledge of Christ. So our work is to build on the knowledge of Christ by understanding the word of God. It's like building a house. So when a man does those things which are written in the scriptures (proverbs) he becomes a temple of God, a place where God dwells, as Jesus said, "Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." John 14:23

So Paul's instruction is for the church, to benefit the church, and, as he said, he has applied it to himself and Apollos. 1 Cor. 4:6

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes Moses died and was gathered to his people.

That's a reference to Abraham's Bosom.

That is not a reference to the pit, or Sheol or Hell.


JLB

Yet, Heb 3:19 relates directly to Moses, who was prevented from entering the promised land for his unfaithfulness.

And of course, he did go to heaven after he died.

 

[FreeGrace]

Those who practice such things in the context of the scripture I quoted.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21

Paul list's them for you... and adds, and the like.

Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Do you know what, will not inherit the kingdom of God means?

It means rejected from being are part of God's Kingdom, and sentenced to the everlasting fires of hell, along with the devil and his angels.JLB

Please support your understanding of this meaning from Scripture.

I have shown that Gal 5:19-21 is a parallel passage to 1 Cor 6 and Eph 5. All 3 list behaviors that result in either "not inheriting the kingdom" or "have no inheritance IN the kingdom". Both phrases mean the same thing.

And having no inheritance IN the kingdom clearly indicates that one will be IN the kingdom. They'll just not have any inheritance IN the kingdom.