« Are Some Forms of Calvinism Hard to Swallow? Perhaps...by Peter Lumpkins | Main | May You have a Very Merry Christmas by Peter Lumpkins »

2010.12.20

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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

The comments to this entry are closed.