1 Corinthians 3:12-15
-
RyanSantaCruz
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:52 pm
- Location: Santa Cruz California
1 Corinthians 3:12-15
Hi, I’m still very new to the forum and to Christ for that matter. So I’d like to state that I love Jesus, and desire with all my heart to serve and obey Him, which is why I try to study the word and search for Him like hidden treasure. However, I am of a below average I.Q. and consequently get very frustrated when I run across ideas that I cant sort out, or statements that seem to contradict themselves. So I hope my questions don’t seem like an attack on the bible, or that I’m backsliding or something. I just desire to be in and of the way with everything I’ve got. Thanks for understanding. Now, can someone help me understand sort out this verse. How can a person be saved, and still teach what is apparently rubbish? It seems to agree with the teaching that we are saved by faith and not by works because the man is said to be saved despite his works being burned up. But it seems to disagree with all the exhortations in the new testament to be holy, walk in the spirit, be renewed, etc. Even though his ministry was considered refuse(it got burned up) by the Holy Fire the man himself is counted among the redeemed. How do you reconcile Christ’s teachings about the mouth revealing the condition of the heart? Or what comes out of the mouth is what defiles a man? I could be wrong, but I use those teachings as a general guideline when discerning whether someone is of Christ or not. Doesn’t the word teach that the true Christian will bear marks and the fruit of the Holy Spirit? I understand we all still sin from time to time and fall short, but this verse doesn’t sound like and accident here or there but rather a lifestyle, because Paul is talking about building a structure which takes time and planning and so forth. So how does a life that shows signs of not abiding in the word or Christ, end up being counted as one who’s life did manifest a state of abiding in the word and in Christ? As far as I can tell I don't believe in eternal security-eat, drink, and be merry, and go to heaven too, but this verse, on the surface, seems to advocate it. I’m thoroughly confused, please help. Thanks!
Re: 1 Corinthians 3:12-15
Hi Ryan,
It's good to have you posting here! I don't know if I can clear up the confusion of not, but I'll make a stab at it.
First, as you may already know (and your comments seem to reflect this awareness), the passage is specifically talking about Christian teachers like Paul and Apollos, which has been Paul's subject throughout the entire chapter, and especially in the verses immediately preceding the passage under consideration.
Paul says that his preaching in Corinth has laid a good foundation in Christ for the church there, and others (Apollos seems especially to be in view) have come and will come after Paul to add to the work he began—that is to build up the church by their teaching. Paul is not persuaded that all teachers will build as conscientiously nor as well as he did in his laying of the foundation—but he hopes that they will do so.
The church is to be built of "living stones" (1 Peter 2:5), which would be an image of true Christians. In this passages, such Christians are regarded as not only being "stones," but more specifically as "gold, silver and precious stones" (v.12). Paul seems to think there is a danger of some teachers building the church with inferior materials (not real Christians?), to which he refers as "wood, hay and straw" (ibid.).
It is a fair inference that the factor that determines what kind of people of which the church is made up has something to do with the kind of teaching is being presented. In the preceding context (chapters 1 and 2), Paul has distinguished between two approaches to preaching and teaching.
The approach of which he disapproves is preaching that makes its appeal to human wisdom (1:19-22; 2:1-5). It is quite possible that Paul saw Apollos as one who took this approach, since we know that Apollos was a great apologist for the faith (Acts 18:24-28).
By contrast, Paul said that his preaching depended upon a declaration of a messages that seemed foolish to many (1:18, 23; 2:2) and to which he depended upon the Holy Spirit to confirm by supernatural power (2:4-5).
If this is what is on Paul's mind in the present passage, then it may be that Paul was not questioning the salvation, the motives, or even the spirituality of the preacher, so much as the preacher's approach to presenting the gospel. If a preacher added to the church merely by appealing to natural wisdom and merely by convincing the minds of unbelievers, but not holding out for supernatural conversions, then Paul might feel that the "converts" made on such terms would not necessarily be truly regenerated or saved individuals, so that the church is "built"—but of wood, hay and straw.
Paul sees this as a mistake, I am sure, but his criticism is not so much of the man as of the method. Obviously, the man who employs such a method necessarily falls under this criticism, though Paul might allow that the preacher is well-intentioned and simply mistaken.
If this view of things is correct, then Paul would not wish to say that the man he criticizes is no Christian. In fact, Paul might even be remembering with regret that he himself had employed the same approach as Apollos in Athens—his preaching venue just prior to coming to Corinth—where he had experienced very little success by appealing to the sympathies of the Athenian philosophers (Acts 17:16-34). Some commentators think that Paul learned a lesson in Athens, which led him to take a different approach in Corinth—the approach he is now advocating. If so, then Paul might even have seen that he had been in danger of building a church in Athens of "wood, hay and straw," though, had he done so, it would not have reflected negatively on his being saved. It would only mean that he was growing in his understanding of which methods of ministry might be most effective in making true converts.
There is some measure of speculation in my analysis, but it seems to me to be a proper synthesis of the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians. I hope it may be of some help.
It's good to have you posting here! I don't know if I can clear up the confusion of not, but I'll make a stab at it.
First, as you may already know (and your comments seem to reflect this awareness), the passage is specifically talking about Christian teachers like Paul and Apollos, which has been Paul's subject throughout the entire chapter, and especially in the verses immediately preceding the passage under consideration.
Paul says that his preaching in Corinth has laid a good foundation in Christ for the church there, and others (Apollos seems especially to be in view) have come and will come after Paul to add to the work he began—that is to build up the church by their teaching. Paul is not persuaded that all teachers will build as conscientiously nor as well as he did in his laying of the foundation—but he hopes that they will do so.
The church is to be built of "living stones" (1 Peter 2:5), which would be an image of true Christians. In this passages, such Christians are regarded as not only being "stones," but more specifically as "gold, silver and precious stones" (v.12). Paul seems to think there is a danger of some teachers building the church with inferior materials (not real Christians?), to which he refers as "wood, hay and straw" (ibid.).
It is a fair inference that the factor that determines what kind of people of which the church is made up has something to do with the kind of teaching is being presented. In the preceding context (chapters 1 and 2), Paul has distinguished between two approaches to preaching and teaching.
The approach of which he disapproves is preaching that makes its appeal to human wisdom (1:19-22; 2:1-5). It is quite possible that Paul saw Apollos as one who took this approach, since we know that Apollos was a great apologist for the faith (Acts 18:24-28).
By contrast, Paul said that his preaching depended upon a declaration of a messages that seemed foolish to many (1:18, 23; 2:2) and to which he depended upon the Holy Spirit to confirm by supernatural power (2:4-5).
If this is what is on Paul's mind in the present passage, then it may be that Paul was not questioning the salvation, the motives, or even the spirituality of the preacher, so much as the preacher's approach to presenting the gospel. If a preacher added to the church merely by appealing to natural wisdom and merely by convincing the minds of unbelievers, but not holding out for supernatural conversions, then Paul might feel that the "converts" made on such terms would not necessarily be truly regenerated or saved individuals, so that the church is "built"—but of wood, hay and straw.
Paul sees this as a mistake, I am sure, but his criticism is not so much of the man as of the method. Obviously, the man who employs such a method necessarily falls under this criticism, though Paul might allow that the preacher is well-intentioned and simply mistaken.
If this view of things is correct, then Paul would not wish to say that the man he criticizes is no Christian. In fact, Paul might even be remembering with regret that he himself had employed the same approach as Apollos in Athens—his preaching venue just prior to coming to Corinth—where he had experienced very little success by appealing to the sympathies of the Athenian philosophers (Acts 17:16-34). Some commentators think that Paul learned a lesson in Athens, which led him to take a different approach in Corinth—the approach he is now advocating. If so, then Paul might even have seen that he had been in danger of building a church in Athens of "wood, hay and straw," though, had he done so, it would not have reflected negatively on his being saved. It would only mean that he was growing in his understanding of which methods of ministry might be most effective in making true converts.
There is some measure of speculation in my analysis, but it seems to me to be a proper synthesis of the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians. I hope it may be of some help.
-
RyanSantaCruz
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:52 pm
- Location: Santa Cruz California
Re: 1 Corinthians 3:12-15
Yup, that helps clear things up a little. I guess I tend toward making the application of wood, hay, and stubble being the general conversation of an average Christian. But making a distinction from preacher/teacher, and average disciple definitely makes sense and puts the idea in the right framework. I guess most of us aren't really building the church in the same way as Paul and Apollos were. So in short, Paul basically has a specific ministry with it's own peculiar set of repercussions in mind, as opposed to me(for example) and what type of witness I have in general. Did I get that right? Thanks a million Steve! -Ryan
Re: 1 Corinthians 3:12-15
Yes. I think you got that right...at least if I got it right.