1 Corinthians 4:7: Does it Distinguish Between the Saved and the Unsaved? by Peter Lumpkins

    On my last piece, one commenter quoted Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 4:7 as indicative of the Apostle arguing that this gracious “system or paradigm of conversion” eliminates all boasting or crediting oneself with being saved.  He further noted that Paul says that those who reject the idea that they are different because of God's gift to them are ones who have grounds for boasting. In the course of the exchange, I offered some contextual matters necessary to understand Paul’s rhetorical questions he asked the Corinthians.

Paul writes, “For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?”(NASB)

In the end, however, context was ignored. Instead I was perceived as an “Arminian” who was “fighting” the proper application of 1 Corinthians 4:7 to salvation and “limiting” Paul’s “universalistic language” by demonstrating a “reluctance to apply the verse to all men as respecting all the gifts they receive in life” (if you’d like to read the exchange, you may find it beginning here).

I want to make two observations of unequal length.  First, the short one.  I do not think a better example exists than the exchange I had on 1 Corinthians 4:7 which visibly illustrates how strict Calvinism too often allows theology to drive the exegesis of Scripture.  Indeed it’s troubling when someone can take a verse like 1 Corinthians 4:7 and conclude, as did the commenter, God’s sovereign will makes the difference between two people who hear the gospel when no such thing is so much as implied in the words of the Apostle.

Second, I want to offer a brief exposition of 1 Corinthians 4:7 and in doing so demonstrate how some strict Calvinists do not deal with the text of Scripture at key junctures in their theology. Rather they bring unwarranted baggage to the text and read the text in light of their a priori notions about what must be.

What the Issue is and is not

Before we actually look at Paul’s words, I want to be clear about the issue with which I am concerned.  I am not denying all good things come from God. James is clear about this: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights…” (James 1:17). Nor am I denying, as the commenter put it, “all men as respecting all the gifts they receive in life” should give all glory to God. Indeed whether or not they acknowledge it, all persons—including the unbelieving world---are blessed alike with heaven’s rain (Matt 5:45). Nor is the issue whether people may boast in their salvation.  They may not, and nothing, so far as I know, I’ve ever written necessarily implies such a biblically repulsive notion. Nor is it necessarily of concern to me—at this juncture--if the Bible teaches God’s sovereign election as the distinguishing mark which separates believer and reprobate. Or, to put it another way, why, when two persons hear the gospel, one believes and the other does not. Rather the issue is, whether Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 4:7 have a major contribution to make to the query concerning why one believes and another does not.

Context of 1 Corinthians for Understanding 1 Corinthians 4:7

No church in the New Testament gave the Apostle more heartache than did Corinth. The division amongst the congregation is all but impossible to miss. Immediately after offering his greeting to the church, the Apostle brought up his unhappy occasion for writing:

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.  Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ” (1: 10-12, all emphasis mine here and below)

“For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” (3:3)

“For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it” (11:18)

Included in the many things over which the church divided were party spirits (1:12), wisdom (3:18), morality (5:1), lawsuits (6:1), marriage and divorce (7:1), meat offered to idols (8:1), apostolic support (9:1), Lord’s Supper (11:17), spiritual gifts (12:1), greatest commandment (13:1), tongues (14:1), resurrection (15:12), and giving one’s offerings (16:1). Hence, it is not too much to suggest that Paul’s concern for body unity and the Corinthians’ lack of it constitutes the major trajectory for Paul’s counsel to the church in his first letter.

With visible division as the established problem with which the Apostle dealt in the letter as a whole, let’s look at the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 4:7.

Immediate Context of 1 Corinthians 4:7

Paul exhorts the Corinthians to cease “passing judgment” upon each other. He writes, “Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God” (v.5).  In their party spirit, they forgot exactly to whom all of them belonged.  They all belonged to the Lord. As Paul made clear in his opening words, he was neither crucified for them nor was a single soul baptized in his name. In fact, in this sense no distinction could be made between one Corinthian and another! They are were equals under the Lord Jesus Christ. And, since God is quite able to discern the interior of all persons hearts, we are to “wait until the Lord comes.”

Paul further writes, "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other." (1 Co 4:6). Apparently Paul meant to convey he was applying the Scriptures to himself and Apollos as an example for the Corinthians to follow.  In other words, if they followed what the Scriptures taught, there would be no reason to make unhelpful, unwarranted distinctions between them which only led to jealousies and strife. The New Living Translation has it, “I have used Apollos and myself to illustrate what I’ve been saying. If you pay attention to what I have quoted from the Scriptures, you won’t be proud of one of your leaders at the expense of another”.

And, the Good News Translation has it, “"For your sake, my brothers and sisters, I have applied all this to Apollos and me, using the two of us as an example, so that you may learn what the saying means, “Observe the proper rules.” None of you should be proud of one person and despise another." (1 Co 4:6).  As one may easily see, the various translations bring out the fact that Paul had in mind to squelch the Corinthians’ nasty habit of making distinctions between one man and another—in this case between Paul and Apollos—thus establishing a party spirit, the very issue the Apostle insisted was a problem (1:10-12).

What must be clear at this point in the context is, the very notion for which some strict Calvinists contend—i.e, that Paul was arguing for a salvific distinction between elect and reprobate persons in 1 Cor. 4:7—is not only absent in the context leading up to verse 7, but the Calvinistic notion seems to be explicitly contradicted by the Apostle!

Paul then asks a trio of rhetorical questions: "For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (1 Co 4:7). Why does Paul ask the questions at this juncture?  Is it likely he asked the questions to contrast the point he just made in the previous verses? Namely, correcting the Corinthians’ party spirit by flat-lining any distinction between Paul on the one hand and Apollos on the other?  Personally I do not see how.

This leads to suggesting two possible interpretations of the rhetorical questions. David Garland explains:

The first question lends itself to two possible answers. It may be interpreted negatively as referring to their presumption: “Who in the world sees anything special in you?” (Moffatt 1938: 48); “Who concedes you any superiority?” (P. Marshall 1987: 205); “Who made you so special?” (Kuck 1992a: 215). The question can also be interpreted positively. They are special, but they forget that it was God who makes them special: Who differentiates you? Who defines you?” (David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament, 136)

Commentators are divided over precisely what Paul may have meant.  While C.K. Barrett sees merit in the “negative” way, he cautions it has it’s difficulties to overcome (C.K. Barrett, 1 Corinthians, p.108). In addition, Craig Blomberg opts for the “negative” view taking the sense that Paul was questioning them concerning their arrogant belief in superiority over other believers (Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, p.90).  Both Barrett and Blomberg cite reservations about  Augustine’s tendency to “wring out of the text more theology than intended” (Barrett, who favors Calvin’s interpretation over Augustine’s) because [Augustine’s] theological inferences “go far beyond Paul’s immediate point of dealing with the Corinthians’ arrogance” (Blomberg, p.94).  In Augustine's debates with Pelagius, he repeatedly cited 1 Cor. 4:7 as demonstrating nothing good existed in depraved man and hence, God distinguishes His sovereign elect through the good gifts He effacaciously bestowes.  For Augustine, irresistible grace and sovereign election were the warp and woof of this passage.  However, for Barrett and Blomberg, the text only bears “broadly theological inferences,” hardly a hook upon which to hang one's theological cloak. 

Conclusion

From only a brief look at 1 Corinthians 4:7, it seems several conclusions are in order.  First, to make this verse into a “paradigm” of conversion when the Apostle is not dealing with conversion is wrong-headed at best and irresponsible at worst.

Second, the Apostle Paul is not promoting distinctions among persons but encouraging Christians to deny them since comparing one’s giftedness with another can only lead to jealousy.

Third, Paul is dealing with a practical church matter not election, not predestination, not efficacious calling, and not irresistible grace. To bring these notions to the text mocks the author’s original intent making historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture into an unnecessary activity.  In fact, it stands as the worst kind of “proof-texting” imaginable, the kind of “proof-texting” conservative Christians have deplored within sectarian “Christian” groups for centuries.

Fourth, Paul’s counsel was given within the context of the believer’s fellowship. The working assumption is, both parties were assumed to be within the redeemed community. Hence, to strip this verse from its context and squeeze it into “proving” that God’s sovereign election makes the difference between two people who hear the gospel is highly suspect and for that reason alone to be rejected.  If irresistible grace and/or efficacious calling stand upon passages as weakly supportive as 1 Corinthians 4:7, it remains hard to believe how one is expected to accept that strict Calvinism is based upon sola sciptura as its adherents maintain. 

Fifth, 1 Corinthians 4:7 doesn’t mention a single word which necessarily implies any notion particular to strict Calvinism.  In fact, the entire verse is made up of questions, questions which no answer is explicitly given.  One must supply the answers.  Strict Calvinists maintain they have “*the* biblical answer” when no clear or compelling answer is furnished by the Apostle himself.

Sixth, scholarly commentators are divided over the meaning of 1 Corinthians 4:7.  Indeed even Reformed scholars who embrace predestination, unconditional election, and irresistible grace are among those who do not employ this verse as evidence for God sovereignly distinguishing between the elect and the non-elect (e.g. Calvin himself,  Barrett, p.108). Yet we are confidently told by many strict Calvinists (via Augustine) this verse definitively proves God secretly and unbeknown to men, sovereignly distinguishes between two people who hear the gospel—one is made to believe and the other is not. Is this acceptable exegesis?  We think not.

Seventh, 1 Corinthians 4:7 says exactly nothing about faith being a specifically endowed gift from God.  Faith is not mentioned in the verse nor implied in the questions. Yet some strict Calvinists insist since Paul employs “universalistic language” in this verse, we should not “fight” the proper application of it by demonstrating a “reluctance to apply the verse to all men as respecting all the gifts they receive in life.” As we have seen, Paul is not concerned with arguing for common grace. Rather he specifically addresses believers in this verse.  Nor does he mention faith.  Yet strict Calvinists nonetheless say Paul implies it. 

However, supposing we grant, for argument's sake, that Paul implies he’s speaking of the gift of faith, what does that do to the “universalistic language”?  Put another way, if Paul meant to imply “all men as respecting all the gifts they receive in life,” and he specifically had faith in mind, is he not implying all men receive faith? If so, the strict Calvinist defeats his own position.

The fact remains, nothing is said here of faith being a gift and even more significantly, Paul implies nor explicitly states a single word to lead us to believe that if faith were a specific gift, it is a gift given to the elect and the elect only.

Hence, the strict Calvinist must prove his or her case concerning sovereign election, irresistible grace, total depravity, and/or any other peculiar doctrinal focus of their system elsewhere. It simply does not reside in 1 Corinthians 4:7

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[Chris Gilliam]

TY.

[Darby Livingston]

Good post Peter. I especially appreciate your humility in the section What the issue is and is not. I think I agree with all your points concerning this text. I actually, as a Calvinist, have referred to this text in its context as a corrective to Calvinist pride. Do you think that is an acceptable principle to draw from this text? IOW, don't be proud about all the knowledge of God's mysterious ways you think you possess, because even if it turns out to be true, it was simply a gift from God anyway and no reason to hold others to it.

[peter lumpkins]

Darby

Thanks brother. And I think directing the rhetorical questions toward one's "puffed up" spirit is fully consistent with the text, given the preference of the first "way" to view Paul's questions (according to Garland above). Undoubtedly, the believers at Corinth were feeling "proud" which assists a "party spirit."

Trust your Christmas is a wonderful one.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Stephen Garrett]

Dear Peter:

I though you were done with discussing this?

Any way, you can read my response on my blog.

http://www.baptistgadfly.blogspot.com/

Blessings,

Stephen

[peter]

Stephen,

Well, I did say I was done.  But, I obviously meant done exchanging with you concerning 1 Cor. 4:7.  In fact, I put up a comment immediately after my last comment to you informing those who may still be interested that I was going to put up an entire piece on 1 Cor. 4:7.  So, “yes” so far as my exchange with you was concerned, I was done, but “no” so far as dealing with the verse exclusively in a separate piece.

And, I checked your link, Stephen.  Interesting.  I commend it to anyone who’d like a tangible example concerning how to write an extra long “rebuttal” without really engaging the intended target.  Two observations:  the first “tip-off” was in your very first line: “Peter Lumpkins has written an entire diatribe against my use of I Cor. 4:7…”  In fact, twice again you reduce this piece to a “diatribe” which fundamentally means a bitter or sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism. Synonyms routinely include “tirade,” “harangue,” and “denunciation.” It’s really hard to be sympathetic with your description, Stephen.

Second, another memorable line in your “response” concerns your emblazoned indifference toward reputable scholars. After I cited three scholars whose expertise is unquestionable, you simply brushed them aside like some aggravating nuisance without the least hesitation : 

“Whether or not commentators are divided over the precise meaning of Paul is immaterial. We do not need the commentators or scholarly opinion to know what Paul is saying” (emphasis mine).

I’m afraid, Stephen, we have more differences with one another than Calvinism, brother.  And, while only a fool would place all his or her eggs in the “scholars” basket, so to speak, to outright dismiss their necessary contribution to our understanding of Scripture, dubbing it  “immaterial” is patently absurd.  Nor do you even practice such yourself.

Note…

The very first comment you logged on the original thread cited 19th century scholar, Albert Barnes (albeit wrongly) and came back with a follow-up comment quoting John Gill. You then took exception when you thought I was challenging Gill’s statement!  You wrote, “[Gill] is nevertheless a reliable citation, unless we want to make Gill into a liar…”  In addition, you judged that the Remonstrant, Grevinchovius was “stating the true Arminian position.” Tell, me, Stephen, do you consider Gill a scholar and were you not asking us to rely on him? To accept him as a credible, scholarly witness?   You finally quoted Charles Spurgeon.  Why did you do so, Stephen, unless you hold Spurgeon as a reliable, scholarly witness and expect us to do the same?

And if that’s not enough to show you do not believe scholarship to *really* be “immaterial” to our understanding what either the Bible teaches or the development of our theology, my brother Stephen, (instead you may only say you do when the right kind of scholars are not quoted), my guess is, you can fluently read or translate neither Greek, Hebrew, nor Aramaic (I stand corrected if I am mistaken). Like 99.999%+ of all other Christians who cannot translate the Word of God from the original languages—at least with any measure of scholarly confidence—we are stuck relying on scholars to do so for us—the very God-called ministers you claimed above were “immaterial” to “know what Paul was saying.”

I’d sit back and take a long, deep breath were I you and think hard on what you’ve penned, brother.

I trust you and yours have a wonderful Christmas and a gracious New Year.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Robert]

Hello Peter,

I read your “diatribe” and found it to be a good presentation of the 1 Cor. 4:7 text and Paul’s intended meaning. I also believe it is wise of you not to waste much time with Stephen on his arguments for determinism.

As has become all too clear the guy is a proof texting machine constantly misinterpreting scripture by proof texting from it to “prove” his determinism.

Stephen is a zealous determinist willing to proof text and twist scripture beyond recognition in order to “defend” and support his deterministic beliefs. Sadly his efforts are full of mistakes and truly bizarre “interpretations”. The 1 Cor. 4:7 attempt is a clear illustration of proof texting. I could not resist taking a peek at his “answer” to your “diatribe.”

And in his “answer” he engages in proof texting to support his proof texting from 1 Cor. 4:7!

It becomes a loop of proof texting that just turns in on itself like a mobius strip! :-)

Now here’s news to me (and probably 99.9999% of the rest of the Christian world), the “weak” in 1 Cor. 8 according to Stephen are not believers they are PAGANS!

Note what Stephen says about 1 Cor. 8:

“Whether or not commentators are divided over the precise meaning of Paul is immaterial. We do not need the commentators or scholarly opinion to know what Paul is saying. Why would anyone want to limit Paul's injunction against boasting to only Christians against other Christians? Does Peter believe that the boasting of the Greek Christians in Corinth had no relation to pagan Greeks? In I Cor. 8 Paul deals with the superiority of "strong" brethren in Corinth against the "weak." In this chapter the "strong" are the Christians and the "weak" are pagans. Paul attacks the boasting of the strong (Christians) against the weak (pagans).”

That is a really bizarre interpretation of 1 Cor. 8!

Again, Stephen is attempting to proof text from 1 Cor. 8 to somehow support his views. But note what the biblical text actually says (I will emphasize it by uppercasing certain words):

“11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, THE BROTHER for whose sake Christ died.
12 And so, by SINNING AGAINST THE BRETHREN and WOUNDING THEIR CONSCIENCE when it is weak, you SIN AGAINST CHRIST.
13 Therefore, if food causes MY BROTHER to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause MY BROTHER to stumble.”

How in the world does Stephen Garrett ever get the conclusion that the WEAK in 1 Cor. 8 are pagans???

This is one of the most bizarre and off base interpretations of scripture that I have ever seen.

But bizarre and off the wall “interpretations” are stock and trade when someone is engaging in proof texting and ignoring the context of the texts.

Robert

[Stephen Garrett]

Dear Robert:

If you can make the "weak" (impotent) brother a born again child of God, then you are the worst interpreter, not I.

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse." (I Cor. 8: 6-8)

According to this passage the "weak brother" is a pagan who does not believe in one God and one Lord Jesus Christ. He believes that his diet affects his standing with the gods. The weak brother is a polytheist. He is one who does not have "that knowledge."

Also, the word "weak" means sick or impotent, hardly descriptions of born again people.

Blessings,

Stephen

[Stephen Garrett]

Dear Robert:

One other thing. Your only argument to prove that the weak were brothers in Jesus was the fact that Paul referred to them as "brothers." Do you think that this term is never used by the apostles to refer to those who are not saved? If you will study the context, you will see that "brother" is synonymous with "neighbor."

Blessings,

Stephen

[peter]

 

Stephen,

I don’t want to trample on Robert’s response, but I would ask a question:  do you still think John Gill to be a reliable witness and a reputable scholar as you did day before yesterday?  If so, it’s very hard to reconcile your firm conclusion concerning “weak brothers” with Gill’s understanding, not to mention your dubbing Robert “the worst interpreter, not I.”  You write:

“According to this passage the "weak brother" is a pagan who does not believe in one God and one Lord Jesus Christ. He believes that his diet affects his standing with the gods. The weak brother is a polytheist. He is one who does not have "that knowledge" (emphasis mine)

Comparing your confident conclusion, John Gill writes of the same “weak brother,” the one you interpret as a “pagan,” a “polytheist,” and (in the follow-up comment) a mere “neighbor”:   

“The apostle is not speaking of Heathens… but of Christians, in whom there was the knowledge of these things, but not in all of them…”

“that is, there were some persons even at that very time, though they had been so long converted from Heathenism to Christianity, yet had such an opinion of an idol… that there were something in an idol, they could not well tell what, that defiled meats offered to it, and made them unlawful to be eaten”

“he owns they had a liberty…of eating, or not eating, as they pleased; but then they ought to be cautious, lest they should be the means of offending, or causing to offend, such who were weak in the faith…” (//link)

“That is, not any person whatever… but one that is weak in the faith, that has not such a clear sight of the doctrine of Christian liberty…” (//link)

“…this is not said of any person, but a "brother", to whom the strongest affection, and strictest regard, should be shown; and a "weak" brother, of whom the greater care should be taken…those that have knowledge should know better, and improve it to the edification, and not the destruction of fellow Christians…but what aggravates most of all is, that this affects a person for "whom Christ died"…the "perishing" of this weak brother is to be understood of his peace and comfort…and not of his eternal damnation in hell; which could never enter into the apostle's thought…and so is no proof of Christ's dying for such as perish eternally… which will for ever secure them from perishing in such sense (//link)

Stephen, I’m sorry to do this brother.  But you leave me little choice by leaving such fantastically unwarranted statements on this site (not to mention on your own site). Once again you demonstrate you have little regard for contextual matters. I did a quick check of several dozen resources looking for some clue as to where you came up with your interpretation, included among them well known Calvinist scholars. I came up empty. I also checked several older resources online including Barnes’ commentaries and the 1560 Geneva Study Bible notes among them. Nothing.  They all say the same. They affirm Robert’s interpretation—the interpreter whom you boldly described as “the worst interpreter, not I”—the sources all unanimously affirmed his view contra yours. If you are correct, then it follows that beginning with John Calvin and coming forward, they are all the worst interpreters, not you! 

I realize this may sound condescending but I assure you I have no intention of it being so.  If I were you, Stephen, I would learn to consult some solid, time tested resources before publicly recording an interpretation which simply cannot be sustained biblically, theologically, or historically no matter how much you believe it to be so.  Indeed this should be a wake-up call to you to evaluate your apparent disdain for scholarship. While scholars cannot determine what’s true or false, Bible-believing scholars can, at minimum, remain a reliable “sounding board” off which we may test our understanding when we do our personal study of the Word of God.

Have a great Christmas

With that, I am…

Peter

[Stephen Garrett]

Dear Peter:

I don't follow John Gill. I have been studying the Bible for 40 years and have consulted commentaries many times. But, unlike you, I do not guide my understanding of scripture based on what the majority opinion is. Also, I generally don't look at commentaries on a verse unless I don't understand it. Throughout this discussion, you have cited commentators. What does this prove?

Also, I did not cite either Gill or Spurgeon as scholars. I cited Gill for his citation from Grevinchovius. So, how can you say I cited him as a scholar? Also, the citation from Spurgeon was simply to let you know that my view on I Cor. 4: 7 was Baptistic.

How can you challenge my criticizing Robert for his interpretation when he lambasted me? Will you say something to him about the way he spoke to me? Even calling me "guy"?

You also have lambasted me and both you have been very unkind in your words to me. But, ironically, neither of you addressed my arguments on I Cor. 4: 7 or I Cor. 8. Until you address the arguments I will have nothing to say.

Blessings,

Stephen

[peter]

Stephen,

In the entire conversation we've had, Stephen, you seem to display little regard for what I actually write, inevitably drawing unwarranted conclusions. Indeed I challenge anyone reading this thread (as well as the other one) and the original post critiquing your view of 1 Cor. 4:7 to substantiate your complaint that through my comments I implied that I:

a) guide my understanding of scripture based on what the majority opinion is;
b) lambasted you and have been very unkind in my words to you;
c) not addressed your arguments on I Cor. 4: 7 or I Cor. 8

In addition, my brother Stephen, to now suggest you had no intention of quoting Gill "as a scholar" or Spurgeon as an authority (albeit Baptist authority but authority nonetheless)--both of whom I described in my comment as "reliable witness[es] and a reputable scholar[s]," the very implication you yourself made at least concerning Gill--remains incredible to say the least.

And, if you are offended at Robert's calling you "guy," my heavens, Stephen, I don't know how at all to respond. I will just leave it where it is. Readers are welcome to make up their own minds on this matter.

As before, wishing you and your family a very wonderful Christmas and gracious New Year.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Chris Gilliam]

Peter,

Sitting in the reformed camp, I want to thank you for pointing out how easy it is to force interpretation on passages. I also thank you for the humility in how you did it and even the love you displayed in the rebuke, it was...pastoral. I have read all the threads, arguments, and positions in this exchange and am convinced by the WORD itself, that you have accurately interpreted the text.

My prayer is that we might all be cautions and more contentious as to how much our presuppositions impose on our interpretations.

Have a great visit with family and a Merry Christmas. Drink a cup of Joe on me!
Chris

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Thanks for logging on, brother. And, I appreciate your encouraging words. They are especially meaningful coming from a convictional Calvinist.

May your Christmas be filled with God's amazing grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Stephen Garrett]

Dear Peter:

Here are the things Robert said to me:

"...the guy is a proof texting machine constantly misinterpreting scripture by proof texting from it to “prove” his determinism."

"Stephen is a zealous determinist willing to proof text and twist scripture beyond recognition..."

"Sadly his efforts are full of mistakes and truly bizarre “interpretations”."

"...a loop of proof texting that just turns in on itself like a mobius strip!"

"This is one of the most bizarre and off base interpretations of scripture that I have ever seen."

"...bizarre and off the wall “interpretations” are stock and trade..."

Now, Peter, you can attack me for saying something negative about Robert's interpretation and yet ignore all these derogatory comments?

Also, I was referring to Robert's lambasting, not yours! And, clearly, Robert was "lambasting."

Clearly, however, the "weak" brother does not have "that knowledge." Correct? What is "that knowledge" that the "weak" do not have? Is it not that there is one God and one Lord Jesus? Can a man be saved who does not have that knowledge? Why don't you simply answer the question?

Blessings,

Stephen

[peter]

Stephen,

"Attack" you? Oh my...

And, you now write, "I was referring to Robert's lambasting, not yours!" Really? Read your own comment, Stephen: "You also have lambasted me and both you have been very unkind in your words to me."

When you cannot recall your own words--indeed now issue a denial of your own words--you have the daring to suggest I enter into another exchange with you and "simply answer the question"? No, Stephen. It just doesn't work that way, brother.

I suggest you take a hiatus and think through how you'd like to present yourself and the gospel you defend, Stephen.

With that, I am...
Peter