From the preceding chapter it was shown that the "weak brother" of I Cor. 8 was not a Christian, or "saved" person, based upon the words of Paul in the next chapter, where he says that he "became weak that I might gain (save) the weak." (9: 22) Obviously then, "the weak" is not a description of "saved" or "gained" people, or of Christians, but of unsaved people, or non-Christians. This fact is not only clear from 9: 22, but also from other things stated in the context of chapters 8-11, the three chapters that are connected with this subject.
"The Weak" vs. "The Strong"
The Greek word for "weak" is "asthenēs" and means weak, infirm, feeble, impotent. In the AV it is translated as weak (12), sick (6), weakness (2), weaker (1), weak things (1), impotent (1), more feeble (1), without strength (1). "The weak" refers to a class of people who are spiritually sick and impotent. They are contrasted with another class who are "the strong." Paul implies this opposite class in chapters 8-11 and specifically labels them as such in Romans 15: 1, where he sets "the weak" over against "the strong," and claims that he and the Roman Christians were members of the class of "the strong." The strong are the saved or gained class, those who are no longer spiritually weak or impotent, but spiritually healthy and potent. Saved people (Christians) are "the strong" and lost people are "the weak." Further, "the weak" are described as those who do not have Christian knowledge, while those who are not weak are those who have Christian "knowledge." Thus, it is a distinction of "weak" versus "strong," of the "haves" and the "have nots."
The idea of "the weak" versus "the strong" has a long tradition. Among the Greeks there was this categorizing of persons into these two classes. A person was judged as either weak or strong. If one was viewed as strong, either by natural abilities or acquired skills, he would then enjoy superior rights and privileges over the weak. The Greeks had other criteria at hand in their judgment of men as either weak or strong. What was the ancestry or bloodline of the person? Was he of "high birth" (noble birth)? Of what social and economic class were his parents? What titles are connected with the family name? Was the person born into peasantry or slavery?
One sees some of this criteria in Paul's epistle to the Corinthians. In chapter one he says "not many mighty, not many noble (of high birth) are called." The mighty, or the strong, according to Greek thinking, were they who were of high or noble birth, who had power, economically, socially, civilly, and politically. They were the "elite," or the "elect." They were the heads of society, while the weak were the tails. The strong were destined to rule over the weak, to gain the victory.
Paul uses this ancient division of men into two classes of weak and strong to describe Christians and non-Christians. He shows, however, that the Greek or worldly division is false, being based upon false criteria. Paul shows that the divine criteria, however, for labeling one either weak or strong, is different than that of the Graeco Roman world. There are similarities, but there are contrasts as well.
Men of various philosophical and religious traditions have had other dichotomies whereby men were distinguished. The children of light (day) versus the children of darkness (night) is an old one. The wise versus the foolish has also been another of long standing. Strong versus weak is but one of several of these ancient classes.
The Greeks, like the Romans and other civilizations, placed a great value on "power." A man was great depending upon the amount of power he possessed. Power, of course, has its variety. There is physical power, political power, economic power, mental power, etc. Power involved influence and control and was one of the "keys" to success.
The Sophist philosophy was strong in ancient Greece and Rome. It was strong in Corinth too.
"In Roman society rank was a prized possession. It determined one's behaviour, relationships and legal privileges. All people belonged to one of two classes: the honestiores or the humiliores, the high or the low. The former was made up of the nobility - senators, equestrians and, away from Rome itself, decurions. These were men who, together with their womenfolk, were esteemed for their dignitas and often possessed great power and fortune. The humiliores - plebs, freedmen and slaves - lacked dignitas and were held in no honour by the nobility. Since rank was hereditary, movement from one class to the other was virtually impossible." (Power Through Weakness: Paul's Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians" by Timothy B Savage, page 20) See here
In first Corinthians chapter one Paul addresses the Sophistic criteria for judging between the "wise" and "foolish," between the "strong" (powerful) and the "weak."
"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." (26-31)
"Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." (vs. 24)
This is Paul's criteria for who is wise and strong versus who is foolish and weak. Does a man have Christ? If yes, then he has wisdom and power and is himself wise and strong. He is so in the eyes of God, although not so in the eyes of the Greek and Roman world, or world at large. If a man, therefore, is judged as wise and strong by the Greek (worldly) standard, then those who have Christ (Christians) are foolish and weak. Paul attacks the worldly standard and focuses on three standards, power, wisdom, birth status (nobility).
To the world the Christian is weak. Christians are weak-minded and weak because they extol pacifism, mercy, forgiveness, meekness, humility, lowliness of mind, etc., and because they do not prize ambition, pride (hubris), financial success, social status, etc. Christianity is also viewed as antagonistic to manliness and courage and is a belief system that leads to low self esteem and lack of success.
All this was true of the Corinthians. The first adult converts to Christ in Corinth had a lot of philosophical and theological "baggage" from which to divorce themselves. Paul was sent by God to these Greek converts to help them get rid of this baggage. In order to do this, he begins by taking up Greek concepts about wisdom, power, nobility, and elect status. In the next chapter, these ideas will be enlarged upon as the context of the first epistle to the Corinthians is more particularly investigated.
But, clearly, in this paradigm of "two classes," sometimes designated as wise verses foolish, or strong versus weak, or high born versus low born, Paul makes use of this paradigm, though he advocates a different criteria. Who does Paul think is wise and strong? Is it not the Christian who is in Christ? Does Paul not think that those who are not Christians are the ones who are foolish and weak? So, this is further evidence that Paul is not describing two kinds of saved people, two kinds of Christians, but of the two kinds of people in the world, the saved and the lost. The weak need to be saved and won (gained) to Christ. The strong are they who have been saved and won.
Dec 27, 2010
Dec 26, 2010
Augustine on I Cor. 4: 7
Chapter 7 [III.]— Augustine Confesses that He Had Formerly Been in Error Concerning the Grace of God.
"It was not thus that that pious and humble teacher thought— I speak of the most blessed Cyprian— when he said that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own. And in order to show this, he appealed to the apostle as a witness, where he said, For what have you that you have not received? And if you have received it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? 1 Corinthians 4:7. And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe in God is not God's gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. And this my error is sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my episcopate.
In the solution of this question I laboured indeed on behalf of the free choice of the human will, but God's grace overcame, and I could only reach that point where the apostle is perceived to have said with the most evident truth, 'For who makes you to differ? And what have you that you have not received? Now, if you have received it, why do you glory as if you received it not?' 1 Corinthians 4:7. And this the martyr Cyprian was also desirous of setting forth when he compressed the whole of it in that title: 'That we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own.' This is why I previously said that it was chiefly by this apostolic testimony that I myself had been convinced, when I thought otherwise concerning this matter; and this God revealed to me as I sought to solve this question when I was writing, as I said, to the Bishop Simplicianus. This testimony, therefore, of the apostle, when for the sake of repressing man's conceit he said, For what have you which you have not received? 1 Corinthians 4:7 does not allow any believer to say, I have faith which I received not. All the arrogance of this answer is absolutely repressed by these apostolic words. Moreover, it cannot even be said, Although I have not a perfected faith, yet I have its beginning, whereby I first of all believed in Christ. Because here also is answered: But what have you that you have not received? Now, if you have received it, why do you glory as if you received it not?
Chapter 9 [V.]— The Purpose of the Apostle in These Words.
The notion, however, which they entertain, that these words, 'What have you that you have not received?' cannot be said of this faith, because it has remained in the same nature, although corrupted, which at first was endowed with health and perfection, is perceived to have no force for the purpose that they desire if it be considered why the apostle said these words. For he was concerned that no one should glory in man, because dissensions had sprung up among the Corinthian Christians, so that every one was saying, I, indeed, am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, and another, I am of Cephas; 1 Corinthians 1:12 and thence he went on to say: God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the strong things; and God has chosen the ignoble things of the world, and contemptible things, and those things which are not, to make of no account things which are; that no flesh should glory before God. 1 Corinthians 1:27. Here the intention of the apostle is of a certainty sufficiently plain against the pride of man, that no one should glory in man; and thus, no one should glory in himself. Finally, when he had said that no flesh should glory before God, in order to show in what man ought to glory, he immediately added, But it is of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who is made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that according as it is written, He that glories, let him glory in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 1:30 Thence that intention of his progressed, till afterwards rebuking them he says, For you are yet carnal; for whereas there are among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man? For while one says I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are you not men? What, then, is Apollos, and what Paul? Ministers by whom you believed; and to every one as the Lord has given. I have planted, and Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. Therefore, neither is he that plants anything, nor he that waters, but God that gives the increase. Do you not see that the sole purpose of the apostle is that man may be humbled, and God alone exalted? Since in all those things, indeed, which are planted and watered, he says that not even are the planter and the waterer anything, but God who gives the increase: and the very fact, also, that one plants and another waters he attributes not to themselves, but to God, when he says, To every one as the Lord has given; I have planted, Apollos watered. Hence, therefore, persisting in the same intention he comes to the point of saying, Therefore let no man glory in man, 1 Corinthians 3:21 for he had already said, He that glories, let him glory in the Lord. After these and some other matters which are associated therewith, that same intention of his is carried on in the words: And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes, that you might learn in us that no one of you should be puffed up for one against another above that which is written. For who makes you to differ? And what have you which you have not received? Now, if you have received it, why do you glory as if you received it not? 1 Corinthians 4:6
Chapter 10.— It is God's Grace Which Specially Distinguishes One Man from Another.
In this the apostle's most evident intention, in which he speaks against human pride, so that none should glory in man but in God, it is too absurd, as I think, to suppose God's natural gifts, whether man's entire and perfected nature itself as it was bestowed on him in his first state, or the remains, whatever they may be, of his degraded nature. For is it by such gifts as these, which are common to all men, that men are distinguished from men? But here he first said, For who makes you to differ? and then added, And what have you that you have not received? Because a man, puffed up against another, might say, My faith makes me to differ, or My righteousness, or anything else of the kind. In reply to such notions, the good teacher says, But what have you that you have not received? And from whom but from Him who makes you to differ from another, on whom He bestowed not what He bestowed on you? Now if, says he, you have received it, why do you glory as if you received it not? Is he concerned, I ask, about anything else save that he who glories should glory in the Lord? But nothing is so opposed to this feeling as for any one to glory concerning his own merits in such a way as if he himself had made them for himself, and not the grace of God—a grace, however, which makes the good to differ from the wicked, and is not common to the good and the wicked. Let the grace, therefore, whereby we are living and reasonable creatures, and are distinguished from cattle, be attributed to nature; let that grace also by which, among men themselves, the handsome are made to differ from the ill-formed, or the intelligent from the stupid, or anything of that kind, be ascribed to nature. But he whom the apostle was rebuking did not puff himself up as contrasted with cattle, nor as contrasted with any other man, in respect of any natural endowment which might be found even in the worst of men. But he ascribed to himself, and not to God, some good gift which pertained to a holy life, and was puffed up therewith when he deserved to hear the rebuke, Who has made you to differ? And what have you that you received not? For though the capacity to have faith is of nature, is it also of nature to have it? For all men have not faith, 2 Thessalonians 3:2 although all men have the capacity to have faith. But the apostle does not say, And what have you capacity to have, the capacity to have which you received not? but he says, And what have you which you received not? Accordingly, the capacity to have faith, as the capacity to have love, belongs to men's nature; but to have faith, even as to have love, belongs to the grace of believers. That nature, therefore, in which is given to us the capacity of having faith, does not distinguish man from man, but faith itself makes the believer to differ from the unbeliever. And thus, when it is said, For who makes you to differ? And what have you that you received not? if any one dare to say, I have faith of myself, I did not, therefore, receive it, he directly contradicts this most manifest truth—not because it is not in the choice of man's will to believe or not to believe, but because in the elect the will is prepared by the Lord. Thus, moreover, the passage, For who makes you to differ? And what have you that you received not? refers to that very faith which is in the will of man."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm
"It was not thus that that pious and humble teacher thought— I speak of the most blessed Cyprian— when he said that we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own. And in order to show this, he appealed to the apostle as a witness, where he said, For what have you that you have not received? And if you have received it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? 1 Corinthians 4:7. And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself also was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe in God is not God's gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitably ask, except that we could not believe if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. And this my error is sufficiently indicated in some small works of mine written before my episcopate.
In the solution of this question I laboured indeed on behalf of the free choice of the human will, but God's grace overcame, and I could only reach that point where the apostle is perceived to have said with the most evident truth, 'For who makes you to differ? And what have you that you have not received? Now, if you have received it, why do you glory as if you received it not?' 1 Corinthians 4:7. And this the martyr Cyprian was also desirous of setting forth when he compressed the whole of it in that title: 'That we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own.' This is why I previously said that it was chiefly by this apostolic testimony that I myself had been convinced, when I thought otherwise concerning this matter; and this God revealed to me as I sought to solve this question when I was writing, as I said, to the Bishop Simplicianus. This testimony, therefore, of the apostle, when for the sake of repressing man's conceit he said, For what have you which you have not received? 1 Corinthians 4:7 does not allow any believer to say, I have faith which I received not. All the arrogance of this answer is absolutely repressed by these apostolic words. Moreover, it cannot even be said, Although I have not a perfected faith, yet I have its beginning, whereby I first of all believed in Christ. Because here also is answered: But what have you that you have not received? Now, if you have received it, why do you glory as if you received it not?
Chapter 9 [V.]— The Purpose of the Apostle in These Words.
The notion, however, which they entertain, that these words, 'What have you that you have not received?' cannot be said of this faith, because it has remained in the same nature, although corrupted, which at first was endowed with health and perfection, is perceived to have no force for the purpose that they desire if it be considered why the apostle said these words. For he was concerned that no one should glory in man, because dissensions had sprung up among the Corinthian Christians, so that every one was saying, I, indeed, am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, and another, I am of Cephas; 1 Corinthians 1:12 and thence he went on to say: God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the strong things; and God has chosen the ignoble things of the world, and contemptible things, and those things which are not, to make of no account things which are; that no flesh should glory before God. 1 Corinthians 1:27. Here the intention of the apostle is of a certainty sufficiently plain against the pride of man, that no one should glory in man; and thus, no one should glory in himself. Finally, when he had said that no flesh should glory before God, in order to show in what man ought to glory, he immediately added, But it is of Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who is made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that according as it is written, He that glories, let him glory in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 1:30 Thence that intention of his progressed, till afterwards rebuking them he says, For you are yet carnal; for whereas there are among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man? For while one says I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are you not men? What, then, is Apollos, and what Paul? Ministers by whom you believed; and to every one as the Lord has given. I have planted, and Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. Therefore, neither is he that plants anything, nor he that waters, but God that gives the increase. Do you not see that the sole purpose of the apostle is that man may be humbled, and God alone exalted? Since in all those things, indeed, which are planted and watered, he says that not even are the planter and the waterer anything, but God who gives the increase: and the very fact, also, that one plants and another waters he attributes not to themselves, but to God, when he says, To every one as the Lord has given; I have planted, Apollos watered. Hence, therefore, persisting in the same intention he comes to the point of saying, Therefore let no man glory in man, 1 Corinthians 3:21 for he had already said, He that glories, let him glory in the Lord. After these and some other matters which are associated therewith, that same intention of his is carried on in the words: And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes, that you might learn in us that no one of you should be puffed up for one against another above that which is written. For who makes you to differ? And what have you which you have not received? Now, if you have received it, why do you glory as if you received it not? 1 Corinthians 4:6
Chapter 10.— It is God's Grace Which Specially Distinguishes One Man from Another.
In this the apostle's most evident intention, in which he speaks against human pride, so that none should glory in man but in God, it is too absurd, as I think, to suppose God's natural gifts, whether man's entire and perfected nature itself as it was bestowed on him in his first state, or the remains, whatever they may be, of his degraded nature. For is it by such gifts as these, which are common to all men, that men are distinguished from men? But here he first said, For who makes you to differ? and then added, And what have you that you have not received? Because a man, puffed up against another, might say, My faith makes me to differ, or My righteousness, or anything else of the kind. In reply to such notions, the good teacher says, But what have you that you have not received? And from whom but from Him who makes you to differ from another, on whom He bestowed not what He bestowed on you? Now if, says he, you have received it, why do you glory as if you received it not? Is he concerned, I ask, about anything else save that he who glories should glory in the Lord? But nothing is so opposed to this feeling as for any one to glory concerning his own merits in such a way as if he himself had made them for himself, and not the grace of God—a grace, however, which makes the good to differ from the wicked, and is not common to the good and the wicked. Let the grace, therefore, whereby we are living and reasonable creatures, and are distinguished from cattle, be attributed to nature; let that grace also by which, among men themselves, the handsome are made to differ from the ill-formed, or the intelligent from the stupid, or anything of that kind, be ascribed to nature. But he whom the apostle was rebuking did not puff himself up as contrasted with cattle, nor as contrasted with any other man, in respect of any natural endowment which might be found even in the worst of men. But he ascribed to himself, and not to God, some good gift which pertained to a holy life, and was puffed up therewith when he deserved to hear the rebuke, Who has made you to differ? And what have you that you received not? For though the capacity to have faith is of nature, is it also of nature to have it? For all men have not faith, 2 Thessalonians 3:2 although all men have the capacity to have faith. But the apostle does not say, And what have you capacity to have, the capacity to have which you received not? but he says, And what have you which you received not? Accordingly, the capacity to have faith, as the capacity to have love, belongs to men's nature; but to have faith, even as to have love, belongs to the grace of believers. That nature, therefore, in which is given to us the capacity of having faith, does not distinguish man from man, but faith itself makes the believer to differ from the unbeliever. And thus, when it is said, For who makes you to differ? And what have you that you received not? if any one dare to say, I have faith of myself, I did not, therefore, receive it, he directly contradicts this most manifest truth—not because it is not in the choice of man's will to believe or not to believe, but because in the elect the will is prepared by the Lord. Thus, moreover, the passage, For who makes you to differ? And what have you that you received not? refers to that very faith which is in the will of man."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm
Commentaries on I Cor. 4; 7
"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?" (I Cor. 4: 7)
Charles Hodge
"It is here assumed that every thing, whether natural or gracious, by which one man is favorably distinguished from another, is due to God; and being thus due to him and not to the possessor, is a cause of gratitude, but not of self-complacency or of self-applause. This is true even of those things which are acquired by great self-denial and exertion."
Notice that Hodge does not limit "what you have" to a certain category of persons or gifts. He applies it broadly as I did in my discussion with Peter Lumpkins.
Matthew Henry
"We have no reason to be proud; all we have, or are, or do, that is good, is owing to the free and rich grace of God. A sinner snatched from destruction by sovereign grace alone, must be very absurd and inconsistent, if proud of the free gifts of God."
Matthew Henry saw "what you have" very broadly also, as universalistic language, a thing Peter Lumpkins refused to do in the passage.
Charles Hodge
"It is here assumed that every thing, whether natural or gracious, by which one man is favorably distinguished from another, is due to God; and being thus due to him and not to the possessor, is a cause of gratitude, but not of self-complacency or of self-applause. This is true even of those things which are acquired by great self-denial and exertion."
Notice that Hodge does not limit "what you have" to a certain category of persons or gifts. He applies it broadly as I did in my discussion with Peter Lumpkins.
Matthew Henry
"We have no reason to be proud; all we have, or are, or do, that is good, is owing to the free and rich grace of God. A sinner snatched from destruction by sovereign grace alone, must be very absurd and inconsistent, if proud of the free gifts of God."
Matthew Henry saw "what you have" very broadly also, as universalistic language, a thing Peter Lumpkins refused to do in the passage.
Dec 23, 2010
Weak Brethren I
Are the "weak brothers" mentioned in I Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 a reference to immature, yet saved Christians, or to unsaved non-Christians? Undoubtedly, the majority interpretation has historically argued that the "weak brothers" are Christians, although still retaining "scruples" regarding paganism or polytheism. In this treatis reasons will be presented for rejecting the majority interpretation and for accepting the proposition that the "weak" are not Christians at all, or monotheists, but pagan polytheists. It will be shown that there is no reason, contextually, for identifying "the weak ones" with Christians and believers.
Gaining The Weak
"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (I Cor. 9: 22)
How anyone can read this passage and affirm that the "weak" are saved people is incredible. Paul says that the weak are they who have not been "gained" or "saved." This verse alone ought to put interpreters on the right track for identifying who is meant by the "weak."
Now, one can, of course, follow the commentators, who avow that the "weak" are saved Christian people. But, accepting the majority view of commentators is not a reliable criterion for establishing truth. Oftentimes, the minority holds the correct view.
In the commentary of Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown, the authors refer to Greek scholar, Henry "Dean" Alford, who affirmed that "the 'weak' are not Christians at all, for these have been already 'won'; but those outside the Church, who are yet "without strength" to believe (Rom. 5:6)."
Alford, like some other commentators, was willing to affirm that the "weak" of I Cor. 9: 22 were lost people, or non-Christian, yet inconsistently affirmed that the "weak" of I Corinthians chapter eight were Christian. Such commentators do not see "the weak" of chapter nine as being the same as "the weak" of chapter eight. There is no contextual reason, however, for differentiating "the weak" of each chapter.
Some commentators are more consistent and affirm that "the weak" of chapter nine is the same group as "the weak" of chapter eight, and that in both cases, reference is to those Christians who are not yet fully established in Christian monotheism or in the singular lordship of Christ. These commentators do not believe that the "gaining" of the weak is a reference to the initial conversion or salvation of the weak, but to a post salvation "gaining" of them, a gaining or saving of them to further or confirmed knowledge. They are "saved" from their doubts, or from their "scruples."
John Gill, in his commentary, states that "the weak" are "weak Christians, who were weak in faith, and had not such clear knowledge of Gospel liberty," and then says that the "gaining" of the weak referred to "promoting their edification and welfare," a keeping them from "falling from" or "deserting the faith of the Gospel." Thus, "gaining" the "weak" is not a reference to conversion, or to an initial "saving" of the weak, according to Gill. However, when Paul speaks of "gaining" the Jews, or lawless Gentiles, Gill thinks there is a reference to the conversion and initial salvation of these groups. This is inconsistent and contradictory. Paul does not equivocate on the significance of "gaining" or "saving" in the passage.
"For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (19-22)
All these terms denote lost people, people who are not Christian, who are not believers in Jesus. The terms are 1) "men" and "all men" who have not been "gained" and, 2) "the Jews" who have not been "gained" and, 3) "those under the law" who have not been "gained," and, 4) "the weak" who have not been "gained." To affirm that the term "the weak" represents saved people, while the other terms represent unsaved people, is gross misinterpretation. To affirm that the "gaining" of Jews, lawless ones, yea, of all men, denotes initial conversion and salvation, but the "gaining" of the "weak" is not so, but a post conversion gaining, is gross misinterpretation.
The Impotent
The Greek word for "weak" is "asthenes" and means "weak, infirm, feeble." It is sometimes translated as "impotent." In Romans 5: 6 it is translated (KJV) as "without strength" and is applied to those who are "ungodly," to unsaved "sinners." This is further evidence that the class of people denoted by the term "the weak" is not the class of Christians.
One modern commentator, Dr. Mark Nanos, has written against the traditional view. Published in 2008, Dr. Nanos wrote "The Polytheist Identity of the 'Weak,' And Paul's Strategy to 'Gain' Them: A New Reading of 1 Corinthians 8:1—11:1." Dr. Nanos takes the same view as this treatise. His writing is available on the internet here
Wrote Dr. Nanos (emphasis mine):
"When it comes to identifying those Paul describes as asthenes in 1 Corinthians 8— usually translated "weak"— there are many interpretations on offer. But when it comes to the question of their identity as Christbelievers, there is only one. That they are Christbelievers is apparently so obvious that interpreters often proceed without discussion. However, I propose that the consensus is likely mistaken, that the asthenes are "polytheists" who do not believe in the message of good in Jesus Christ that Paul proclaims, and in which his recipients believe. From Paul's perspective, the Corinthians need to recognize that the adelphos are also adelphoi (brothers/sisters) on behalf of whom Christ died. They should thus be sincerely concerned with the harmful impact that their proposed eating of idol food as if merely ordinary food would have upon these 'unbelievers.'"
Dr. Nanos prefers the term "impaired" for the Greek word "asthenes." He does not wholly favor using the term "pagan" in reference to them. He writes:
"I will employ the translation "impaired" to refer to the asthenes. Impaired highlights that they are being objectified by Paul (if not already by his audience as well) to be unable to function in the way that he expects of those with properly working sensibilities, lacking the proper sense of what is true about the divine.
The term "polytheist" is adopted to denote those who are neither Jews nor Christ-believers, even though some Greco-Roman philosophers might not be helpfully described as polytheists either, but continued reference to them as "non-Christ-believing-non-Jews," or something similar, is cumbersome.
"Greeks" is misleading, since most Jews and Christ-believers are likely also Greeks in Corinth, and a similar problem applies to using Romans; "idolaters" could be confusing, because many interpreters understand the Corinthians to be Christ-believers who are still in some sense idolaters; "pagan" is anachronistic, although it could have also been adopted, with similar caveats."
In this treatise the term "pagan" has been selected as best for describing the class of "weak ones," but the term "polytheist" is also used. It is agreed that this class represents, as Dr. Nanos said, "non-Christ-believing-non-Jews."
Under the sub-heading "The Prevailing Views for the Identity of the Impaired," Dr. Nanos wrote:
"The 'impaired' are generally perceived to be Christ-believers insecure about the implications of their newly found faith. They are unable to eat food dedicated to idols as if religiously meaningless, having been 'until now accustomed to eating idol food as if [sanctified] to idols' (8:7). If they were to see the knowledgeable ones 'reclining at an idol's temple,' they might 'be strengthened to eat food sacrificed to idols' (8:10), against their own sense of what is right, which has not yet adjusted to Christ-believing ideals.
The consensus view that the impaired ones are specifically Christ-believers appears to be based on several factors. Although often not discussed, the primary reason is probably that Paul refers to the impaired ones as adelphoi/ (brothers/sisters) of his 'knowledgeable' audience, who have the ability to trip up and thus harm the impaired if they continue to eat idol food in their presence. Also, Paul refers to Christ having died on behalf of the impaired brothers/sisters, so that sinning against them is sinning against Christ (8:11-12)."
In opposition to the "consensus view," the view of the majority of interpreters, Dr. Nanos then wrote in favor of the view that "the weak ones" were not Christians under the sub-heading "A New Proposal: The Impaired as non-Christ-believing Polytheists."
He wrote:
"In spite of several reasons to identify the impaired ones to be Christ-believers, which have been discussed, the consensus view is nevertheless far from certain, and I do not think that it is probable. I am neither convinced that from Paul's perspective the impaired ones are insecure in their faith, specifically, that they are troubled by eating idol food, nor that he fears they will revert to idolatry if the knowledgeable behave against their sensibilities. Rather, I propose that the impaired are polytheist idolaters with whom the Christ-believers in Corinth interact, even those to whom they are proclaiming the gospel message. The impaired are not resistant to eating idol food; rather, the impaired have always eaten idol food as an act of religious significance. After all, is it not more logical to suppose that Christ-believers "know" the truth about idols now, by definition, being Christ-believers? In what sense have they become Christ-believers if not by confessing the truth of the One, thus turning from the truth they had supposed before about idols and other gods and lords?"
Dr. Nanos speaks about one of the dangers of the majority view when he indicates that the majority view is forced to redefine what it means to be a Christian. Non-Christians are "by definition" those who do not know the truth about idols, do not know that there is one God and one Lord. Doubtless this consequence has been felt by those holding the "consensus view." On one internet web site, where this issue was being discussed, the writer said:
"...some of those who do not recognize there is only one God were weak Christians. Am I missing something or is this saying some of these early Christians still believed the gods behind the idols were real? Did they just agree that Jehovah was the supreme God? Could polytheists be Christians as long as they did not honor those other “gods”? Help me out on this one."
In response to this query, a commenter wrote:
"Isn’t Paul teaching the Christians here to be patient with these new and weak brethren as they would be taught out of their polytheism?"
These bible students, though following the "consensus view," nevertheless realized the implications of it. They saw that the consensus view forced them to affirm that one could still hold to polytheistic beliefs and be called Christian. Yet, they were reluctant to do so. Why? Is it not because, "by definition," a "Christian" is one who has wholly rejected polytheism?
Another commenter said:
"Good thoughts on necessary inference! I had not thought of this passage as an example of it before now.
To me, the lack of knowledge that some brethren in Corinth had is defined in vs. 7 – they “eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled.” Those pagans who were converted had been taught that the idol is nothing, and acceptance of this point was a key part in their conversion to Christ. Consider Paul’s Mars Hill sermon, which must have been preached in Corinth as well. He taught that they, “ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man,” and then commanded repentance (Acts 17:29-30). So the fact that “polytheism is false” was known even to the new converts."
See here
Again, it is obvious to those who have been taught, and even embraced the majority view, that the "consensus view" presents theological problems. On the one hand, the scriptures define a Christian as one who has come to certain knowledge about the falsity of idols and polytheism, yet the consensus view regarding "the weak ones" forces one to deny this defining aspect of what it means to be Christian.
On another internet web site, Richard Oster ("1 Corinthians") says (emphasis mine):
"By his statement here that not everyone knows this, Paul is making it explicit that not all the believers in the church of God at Corinth totally accepted the Christian monotheistic position that he and certain other believers embraced.
While it may sound surprising at first to hear Paul acknowledging that there are believers in Corinth who do not embrace monotheism fully, this should really come as no surprise to the modern interpreter. As has been pointed out before, many of those Christians at Corinth who received this letter had been Christians for less than forty-eight months. It is not surprising, therefore, that certain ones from a pagan idolatrous background would in some cases continue to have pagan polytheistic baggage with them in their Christian walk.
It is indeed "surprising" that any Christian bible commentator or teacher should affirm that a person could be a "believer" or "Christian" and yet still retain convictions regarding polytheism. The writer then attempts to dispel this surprising phenomenon by affirming that it really ought not to be surprising after all. Oster thinks that it was to be expected that new converts from paganism would not be fully convinced of Christian monotheism.
Oster then says:
"Some modern (Western World) interpreters find it hard to conceive that certain believers could truly still be having difficulty with tensions concerning idols and monotheistic convictions."
Not only should "modern interpreters" of the "Western World" seem reluctant, or "find it hard" to think of Christians as "still having difficulty concerning idols and monotheistic convictions," but so should every bible believer. There is no scripture anywhere that would define a believer or a Christian as someone who only half-heartedly believes in one God and one Lord Jesus Christ.
Oster writes:
"Gordon Fee, likewise, does not want any of these weak Corinthian believers to still embrace polytheism. To be certain, Paul is not accusing these believers of being guilty of blatant and cavalier idolatry. Nevertheless, since the issues discussed in this chapter are in terms of what individual believers "know" or "do not know," it does seem to be the case that this issue of monotheism versus polytheism is at the center."
Obviously those who accept the "consensus view" perceive the difficulties with affirming that the "weak ones" are Christians. It seems the problem lies in students of the word relying too heavily on what the majority of commentators believe.
Oster then writes:
"Their defilement is a result of the fact that they do not with full spiritual conviction possess monotheistic loyalty to the one God. Consequently, because of their lack of a robust monotheism and because they are still partially caught in the web of polytheism, their conscience is defiled."
One wonders how any bible student could affirm that a person can be a Christian who lacks "full spiritual conviction" regarding the fact that there is "one God, the Father," and "one Lord, Jesus Christ." But, this position is the consequence of erroneously identifying "the weak ones" with born again Christians. See Oster's writing here
Dr. Nanos, conversely, was correct to write:
"I thus suggest that the impaired are not insecure in their faith, they do not share faith in Christ with the knowledgeable. They are not troubled by eating idol food, that is what they do and have always done as a matter of course, "until now." Thus Paul's concern is not that the impaired will revert to idolatry, but that they will never turn away from it. If they witness that even Christ-believers, who otherwise deny their convictions, nevertheless still eat idol food, they will continue to sense that idolatry is right, leading to their self-destruction, when it should be the role of the knowledgeable to live in such a way as to prevent that outcome."
One should have solid grounds for taking the minority view on any biblical subject. This treatuse will offer strong reasons why the popular interpretation is false, the view that identifies "the weak ones" as inferior Christians, or semi converts, and "the strong" as mature Christians, or the full converts.
Gaining The Weak
"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (I Cor. 9: 22)
How anyone can read this passage and affirm that the "weak" are saved people is incredible. Paul says that the weak are they who have not been "gained" or "saved." This verse alone ought to put interpreters on the right track for identifying who is meant by the "weak."
Now, one can, of course, follow the commentators, who avow that the "weak" are saved Christian people. But, accepting the majority view of commentators is not a reliable criterion for establishing truth. Oftentimes, the minority holds the correct view.
In the commentary of Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown, the authors refer to Greek scholar, Henry "Dean" Alford, who affirmed that "the 'weak' are not Christians at all, for these have been already 'won'; but those outside the Church, who are yet "without strength" to believe (Rom. 5:6)."
Alford, like some other commentators, was willing to affirm that the "weak" of I Cor. 9: 22 were lost people, or non-Christian, yet inconsistently affirmed that the "weak" of I Corinthians chapter eight were Christian. Such commentators do not see "the weak" of chapter nine as being the same as "the weak" of chapter eight. There is no contextual reason, however, for differentiating "the weak" of each chapter.
Some commentators are more consistent and affirm that "the weak" of chapter nine is the same group as "the weak" of chapter eight, and that in both cases, reference is to those Christians who are not yet fully established in Christian monotheism or in the singular lordship of Christ. These commentators do not believe that the "gaining" of the weak is a reference to the initial conversion or salvation of the weak, but to a post salvation "gaining" of them, a gaining or saving of them to further or confirmed knowledge. They are "saved" from their doubts, or from their "scruples."
John Gill, in his commentary, states that "the weak" are "weak Christians, who were weak in faith, and had not such clear knowledge of Gospel liberty," and then says that the "gaining" of the weak referred to "promoting their edification and welfare," a keeping them from "falling from" or "deserting the faith of the Gospel." Thus, "gaining" the "weak" is not a reference to conversion, or to an initial "saving" of the weak, according to Gill. However, when Paul speaks of "gaining" the Jews, or lawless Gentiles, Gill thinks there is a reference to the conversion and initial salvation of these groups. This is inconsistent and contradictory. Paul does not equivocate on the significance of "gaining" or "saving" in the passage.
"For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (19-22)
All these terms denote lost people, people who are not Christian, who are not believers in Jesus. The terms are 1) "men" and "all men" who have not been "gained" and, 2) "the Jews" who have not been "gained" and, 3) "those under the law" who have not been "gained," and, 4) "the weak" who have not been "gained." To affirm that the term "the weak" represents saved people, while the other terms represent unsaved people, is gross misinterpretation. To affirm that the "gaining" of Jews, lawless ones, yea, of all men, denotes initial conversion and salvation, but the "gaining" of the "weak" is not so, but a post conversion gaining, is gross misinterpretation.
The Impotent
The Greek word for "weak" is "asthenes" and means "weak, infirm, feeble." It is sometimes translated as "impotent." In Romans 5: 6 it is translated (KJV) as "without strength" and is applied to those who are "ungodly," to unsaved "sinners." This is further evidence that the class of people denoted by the term "the weak" is not the class of Christians.
One modern commentator, Dr. Mark Nanos, has written against the traditional view. Published in 2008, Dr. Nanos wrote "The Polytheist Identity of the 'Weak,' And Paul's Strategy to 'Gain' Them: A New Reading of 1 Corinthians 8:1—11:1." Dr. Nanos takes the same view as this treatise. His writing is available on the internet here
Wrote Dr. Nanos (emphasis mine):
"When it comes to identifying those Paul describes as asthenes in 1 Corinthians 8— usually translated "weak"— there are many interpretations on offer. But when it comes to the question of their identity as Christbelievers, there is only one. That they are Christbelievers is apparently so obvious that interpreters often proceed without discussion. However, I propose that the consensus is likely mistaken, that the asthenes are "polytheists" who do not believe in the message of good in Jesus Christ that Paul proclaims, and in which his recipients believe. From Paul's perspective, the Corinthians need to recognize that the adelphos are also adelphoi (brothers/sisters) on behalf of whom Christ died. They should thus be sincerely concerned with the harmful impact that their proposed eating of idol food as if merely ordinary food would have upon these 'unbelievers.'"
Dr. Nanos prefers the term "impaired" for the Greek word "asthenes." He does not wholly favor using the term "pagan" in reference to them. He writes:
"I will employ the translation "impaired" to refer to the asthenes. Impaired highlights that they are being objectified by Paul (if not already by his audience as well) to be unable to function in the way that he expects of those with properly working sensibilities, lacking the proper sense of what is true about the divine.
The term "polytheist" is adopted to denote those who are neither Jews nor Christ-believers, even though some Greco-Roman philosophers might not be helpfully described as polytheists either, but continued reference to them as "non-Christ-believing-non-Jews," or something similar, is cumbersome.
"Greeks" is misleading, since most Jews and Christ-believers are likely also Greeks in Corinth, and a similar problem applies to using Romans; "idolaters" could be confusing, because many interpreters understand the Corinthians to be Christ-believers who are still in some sense idolaters; "pagan" is anachronistic, although it could have also been adopted, with similar caveats."
In this treatise the term "pagan" has been selected as best for describing the class of "weak ones," but the term "polytheist" is also used. It is agreed that this class represents, as Dr. Nanos said, "non-Christ-believing-non-Jews."
Under the sub-heading "The Prevailing Views for the Identity of the Impaired," Dr. Nanos wrote:
"The 'impaired' are generally perceived to be Christ-believers insecure about the implications of their newly found faith. They are unable to eat food dedicated to idols as if religiously meaningless, having been 'until now accustomed to eating idol food as if [sanctified] to idols' (8:7). If they were to see the knowledgeable ones 'reclining at an idol's temple,' they might 'be strengthened to eat food sacrificed to idols' (8:10), against their own sense of what is right, which has not yet adjusted to Christ-believing ideals.
The consensus view that the impaired ones are specifically Christ-believers appears to be based on several factors. Although often not discussed, the primary reason is probably that Paul refers to the impaired ones as adelphoi/ (brothers/sisters) of his 'knowledgeable' audience, who have the ability to trip up and thus harm the impaired if they continue to eat idol food in their presence. Also, Paul refers to Christ having died on behalf of the impaired brothers/sisters, so that sinning against them is sinning against Christ (8:11-12)."
In opposition to the "consensus view," the view of the majority of interpreters, Dr. Nanos then wrote in favor of the view that "the weak ones" were not Christians under the sub-heading "A New Proposal: The Impaired as non-Christ-believing Polytheists."
He wrote:
"In spite of several reasons to identify the impaired ones to be Christ-believers, which have been discussed, the consensus view is nevertheless far from certain, and I do not think that it is probable. I am neither convinced that from Paul's perspective the impaired ones are insecure in their faith, specifically, that they are troubled by eating idol food, nor that he fears they will revert to idolatry if the knowledgeable behave against their sensibilities. Rather, I propose that the impaired are polytheist idolaters with whom the Christ-believers in Corinth interact, even those to whom they are proclaiming the gospel message. The impaired are not resistant to eating idol food; rather, the impaired have always eaten idol food as an act of religious significance. After all, is it not more logical to suppose that Christ-believers "know" the truth about idols now, by definition, being Christ-believers? In what sense have they become Christ-believers if not by confessing the truth of the One, thus turning from the truth they had supposed before about idols and other gods and lords?"
Dr. Nanos speaks about one of the dangers of the majority view when he indicates that the majority view is forced to redefine what it means to be a Christian. Non-Christians are "by definition" those who do not know the truth about idols, do not know that there is one God and one Lord. Doubtless this consequence has been felt by those holding the "consensus view." On one internet web site, where this issue was being discussed, the writer said:
"...some of those who do not recognize there is only one God were weak Christians. Am I missing something or is this saying some of these early Christians still believed the gods behind the idols were real? Did they just agree that Jehovah was the supreme God? Could polytheists be Christians as long as they did not honor those other “gods”? Help me out on this one."
In response to this query, a commenter wrote:
"Isn’t Paul teaching the Christians here to be patient with these new and weak brethren as they would be taught out of their polytheism?"
These bible students, though following the "consensus view," nevertheless realized the implications of it. They saw that the consensus view forced them to affirm that one could still hold to polytheistic beliefs and be called Christian. Yet, they were reluctant to do so. Why? Is it not because, "by definition," a "Christian" is one who has wholly rejected polytheism?
Another commenter said:
"Good thoughts on necessary inference! I had not thought of this passage as an example of it before now.
To me, the lack of knowledge that some brethren in Corinth had is defined in vs. 7 – they “eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled.” Those pagans who were converted had been taught that the idol is nothing, and acceptance of this point was a key part in their conversion to Christ. Consider Paul’s Mars Hill sermon, which must have been preached in Corinth as well. He taught that they, “ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man,” and then commanded repentance (Acts 17:29-30). So the fact that “polytheism is false” was known even to the new converts."
See here
Again, it is obvious to those who have been taught, and even embraced the majority view, that the "consensus view" presents theological problems. On the one hand, the scriptures define a Christian as one who has come to certain knowledge about the falsity of idols and polytheism, yet the consensus view regarding "the weak ones" forces one to deny this defining aspect of what it means to be Christian.
On another internet web site, Richard Oster ("1 Corinthians") says (emphasis mine):
"By his statement here that not everyone knows this, Paul is making it explicit that not all the believers in the church of God at Corinth totally accepted the Christian monotheistic position that he and certain other believers embraced.
While it may sound surprising at first to hear Paul acknowledging that there are believers in Corinth who do not embrace monotheism fully, this should really come as no surprise to the modern interpreter. As has been pointed out before, many of those Christians at Corinth who received this letter had been Christians for less than forty-eight months. It is not surprising, therefore, that certain ones from a pagan idolatrous background would in some cases continue to have pagan polytheistic baggage with them in their Christian walk.
It is indeed "surprising" that any Christian bible commentator or teacher should affirm that a person could be a "believer" or "Christian" and yet still retain convictions regarding polytheism. The writer then attempts to dispel this surprising phenomenon by affirming that it really ought not to be surprising after all. Oster thinks that it was to be expected that new converts from paganism would not be fully convinced of Christian monotheism.
Oster then says:
"Some modern (Western World) interpreters find it hard to conceive that certain believers could truly still be having difficulty with tensions concerning idols and monotheistic convictions."
Not only should "modern interpreters" of the "Western World" seem reluctant, or "find it hard" to think of Christians as "still having difficulty concerning idols and monotheistic convictions," but so should every bible believer. There is no scripture anywhere that would define a believer or a Christian as someone who only half-heartedly believes in one God and one Lord Jesus Christ.
Oster writes:
"Gordon Fee, likewise, does not want any of these weak Corinthian believers to still embrace polytheism. To be certain, Paul is not accusing these believers of being guilty of blatant and cavalier idolatry. Nevertheless, since the issues discussed in this chapter are in terms of what individual believers "know" or "do not know," it does seem to be the case that this issue of monotheism versus polytheism is at the center."
Obviously those who accept the "consensus view" perceive the difficulties with affirming that the "weak ones" are Christians. It seems the problem lies in students of the word relying too heavily on what the majority of commentators believe.
Oster then writes:
"Their defilement is a result of the fact that they do not with full spiritual conviction possess monotheistic loyalty to the one God. Consequently, because of their lack of a robust monotheism and because they are still partially caught in the web of polytheism, their conscience is defiled."
One wonders how any bible student could affirm that a person can be a Christian who lacks "full spiritual conviction" regarding the fact that there is "one God, the Father," and "one Lord, Jesus Christ." But, this position is the consequence of erroneously identifying "the weak ones" with born again Christians. See Oster's writing here
Dr. Nanos, conversely, was correct to write:
"I thus suggest that the impaired are not insecure in their faith, they do not share faith in Christ with the knowledgeable. They are not troubled by eating idol food, that is what they do and have always done as a matter of course, "until now." Thus Paul's concern is not that the impaired will revert to idolatry, but that they will never turn away from it. If they witness that even Christ-believers, who otherwise deny their convictions, nevertheless still eat idol food, they will continue to sense that idolatry is right, leading to their self-destruction, when it should be the role of the knowledgeable to live in such a way as to prevent that outcome."
One should have solid grounds for taking the minority view on any biblical subject. This treatuse will offer strong reasons why the popular interpretation is false, the view that identifies "the weak ones" as inferior Christians, or semi converts, and "the strong" as mature Christians, or the full converts.
Dec 21, 2010
Lumpkins I Cor. 4: 7
Peter Lumpkins has written an entire diatribe against my use of I Cor. 4:7 in the context of salvation. See here
Peter and I have had a couple battles over the Calvinist/Arminian debate. The first concerned whether Baptists of Southern Baptist heritage believed in "original sin," that all are born into the world in a condemned state because of the sin of Adam. Peter claimed that a denial of original sin was characteristic of that heritage. He cited John Smyth, a leader of the General Baptists, as proof. But, this was no proof at all, for the General Baptists were a separate group from those Baptists who founded the SBC. Those Baptists endorsed the London and Philadelphia confessions and these confessions uphold the doctrine of original sin, and affirm that all men are born slaves to sin. I was surprised to see a SBC pastor deny such fundamental Bible and Baptist beliefs.
The latest controversy came as a result of my comments on Peter's post regarding Billy Birch's Arminian apologetic regarding whether Arminianism takes away from God all the glory and credit for salvation. Peter and Billy say that they give all the glory and credit to God for their salvation and that their Arminian soteriology does the same. I was glad for their confession and do not affirm that they claim credit for their salvation, but that their doctrine, when fairly analyzed, does in fact deny to God all the credit and gives some of it to the creature.
Billy gave the illustration of people who are trapped in a burning house and who are offered the opportunity of being saved by fire rescue personel. Billy claimed that those who responded to the offer of salvation could claim no credit for being saved, even though they were saved, in part at least, because they responded to the offer of rescue, while others were lost in the fire because they refused the offer. Billy and Peter claimed that the one rescued could not, would not, claim any credit for their being rescued. Those who responded to the offer of salvation could not thank anyone for their salvation but would give all thanks to the one who offered to, and who did in fact, rescue them. Yet, whether any in such a situation do or don't accept any praise or thanks, is besides the point. The question is - can they legitimately take any credit to themselves for the rescue? I affirm that they can, and sometimes do.
If the two classes of persons address each other about why they were saved or lost, can the persons rescued not say to those burned - "it is to your fault that you were not saved and it is to our credit that we are saved"? How can all the credit be given to the rescuer if the ultimate outcome depends upon the choice of those in danger? Indeed, the one choosing to be rescued must, to some degree, thank himself for having enough sense to make the right decision. In the end, what made the ultimate "difference" between those who perished and those who were rescued? It can't be the rescuer, for he offered the same salvation to both classes. Can the ones who chose to be rescued give thanks to the rescuer for their good sense and right decision? No. The decision itself was not due to the efforts of the rescuer but to the good sense of those rescued.
Peter and I exchanged comments on I Cor. 4: 7 until Peter cut off our discussion by saying he was done with commenting further. But, he chose instead to write a separate posting on the passage with the idea of demonstrating a classic case of Calvinistic "eisegeses." It is that posting that I want to reply to in this writing.
Peter wrote:
"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."
I stand by those statements. Anyone who reads the passage honestly will see that Paul says that "boasting" (bragging) is impossible to one who is superior due to the gift and work of God alone. Paul implies that boasting is possible in cases where one is superior because of his own abilities, in those areas where God did not make the difference by his gift. In other words, if God gave you what you have, you are different because of that gift, and you can only thank God for that difference. For Peter to limit this paradigm about boasting to those who are saved, is an error. For Peter to limit this paradigm to only the supernatural gifts of the Spirit is also an error. Peter seems to think that this verse has no bearing upon the boasting that Christians may do relative to any special gifts or abilities they have naturally, or apart from the supernatural ones mentioned in the epistle. Is this correct? Is Paul only condemning boasting of Christians in relation to other Christians, or all boasting, of any man?
Peter then wrote:
"I offered some contextual matters necessary to understand Paul’s rhetorical questions he asked the Corinthians.
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.”
The contextual observations by Peter are not denied by me, as Peter insinuates. But, I believe Peter fails to see the larger context, leaving out other contextual considerations. He implies that Paul is not at all concerned about any boasting that pertains to salvation, but this is clearly false. Notice these words of Paul from the first chapter.
"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth (boasts or brags), let him glory in the Lord." (I Cor. 1: 26-31)
Notice how "boasting" is here connected with the subject of salvation. Yet, Peter claims that Paul is not talking about salvation boasting in I Cor. 4: 7, claiming that it is all out of context! Clearly, context is not ignored, as Peter falsely claimed. Further, if one looks at the context of I Cor. chapter one, he will see what kinds of things the Corinthians were boasting in. They boasted of their superior wisdom and power, of their superior birth status as Corinthian Greeks. This was part of their Greek heritage. The Greeks were a proud boastful people. They had Sophists in Corinth, people who boasted of their rhetorical and oratorical abilities, things that did not relate to the supernatural gifts of the Spirit or to the saints of God alone. Peter wants to exclude the words of Paul, in I Cor. 4: 7, as having anything to do with boasting about natural abilites or gifts, as though the boasting of the Corinthians did not include these things.
Elsewhere in Paul's epistles, we see him repeat his comments about boasting as it pertains to salvation. In Ephesians 2: 9 Paul says - "Not of works, lest any man should boast." Why could they not boast? Because salvation is "the gift of God." They could not boast in anything in which God is the giver or reason for the saving difference.
Also the passage above, in talking about boasting, says God acts a certain way in order thatn "no flesh should glory in his presence." "No flesh" takes in more than just Christian boasting.
When Paul asks - "what do you have (possess) that you did not receive (as a gift from God)? - he is not limiting the question to things they possess in the area of spiritual gifts, nor is he limiting his antidote against boasting to only Christians. The words of Paul may aptly be addressed to any creature who is boasting. If Paul wanted to limit the context of his censure of boasting to only that boasting about spiritual gifts which only Christians possess, then he would have limited his language, saying - "what do you have as Christians." Is Paul excluding boasting that Christians do regarding their natural gifts and abilities? Peter would have to say yes, that Paul is saying nothing about such boasting in I Cor. 4: 7. It is universalistic language. "What you have" does not exclude anything they have, either as mere men or as Christians. He reminds the Corinthians about his theology which affirms that no human being can boast about anything for God is the one who distinguishes men by the gifts he gives to them. Paul taught the same as others in this regard.
John the Baptist said - "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven." (John 3: 27) I even cited this verse to Peter to demonstrate that Paul was affirming the same principle in I Cor. 4: 7. Peter did not see the relationship between the Baptist's and Paul's statements. However, in his diatribe, he does acknowledge the truth that all the good things a man possesses are his by God's sovereign gift and cites another verse to prove it (James 1: 17). He is willing to admit that John 3: 27 and James 1: 17 affirm that people are different because of God's gifts to them, but simply refuses to allow that Paul is saying the same thing in I Cor. 4: 7. Paul said, in Acts 17: 25 - "he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things."
Peter then wrote:
"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."
In response I say, in similar language to that used by Peter, that "I do not think a better example exists which illustrates how strict Arminians refuse to see the broad implications of Paul's questions." Why is Peter even denying the proposition, that in salvation, God is the one who ultimately "makes the difference"? Only a strict Arminian would find fault with someone who avers that God makes the difference in salvation. Clearly, by his diatribe, Peter does not want to affirm that God is the one who makes the difference in why one is saved and another is not. He wants to avow that God gets all the credit for him being different, for him being a believer, but then argues against that doctrine which gives him all the credit. "The legs of the lame are not equal."
I Cor. 4: 7 is also similar to these words of God.
"But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." (Exo. 11: 7)
This "difference" that God made between the Israelites and the Egyptians does not concern salvation? Could the Israelites boast for being Israelites and not being Egyptians?
Peter then wrote:
"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."
But, as has been seen thus far, Peter has not shown how I Cor. 4: 7 is limited to a particular kind of boasting which only Christians, with supernatural gifts, may be guilty of. Peter charges me with some harsh things, in these words, but they are unfounded and I appeal to the Lord and his people to judge between us.
Peter wrote:
"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."
Then what is the issue? He is agreeing with all I said but simply believes I used the wrong text? Is that what is irritating him so much? I think his loud rejection of the implications of I Cor. 4: 7 is very revealing. If Paul believes that all gifts come from God, and that men cannot therefore boast in anything, then why would he not remind the Corinthians of this general principle and then apply it to their particular case? Peter would have to deny that Paul is applying a general principle to the case at hand.
Peter wrote:
"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."
It was of concern, however, to the apostle Paul, who addressed sovereign election in I Cor. chapter one. Peter, being the Arminian that he is, would of course deny that God's sovereign election is "the distinguishing mark which separates believer and reprobate." He believes that sinners distinguish themselves by their election of God. Here we have the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinists owe their faith to God's election and Arminians owe their election by God to their faith.
Peter wrote:
"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)."
Peter's failure here is in not seeing that Paul is condemning any and all kinds of boasting, and not just a limited kind of boasting. As I have already shown, the Corinthians, being Greeks, were in the habit of boasting, even before they became Christians. They did not boast simply about their spiritual gifts, but also about their natural abilities.
Peter wrote;
"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!"
What is clear about the context is that Paul is contending against any and all boasting that Christians, or any man, may do. If Peter wanted to use a word from scripture against the boasting of non-Christians, what word and argumentation would he use? Would he not ask the unsaved man - "what do you have that you did not receive as a gift from God? So, why do you boast?" As I have shown, Paul included salvation in regards to boasting, as I have shown, from chapter one.
How is the "Calvinistic notion" "explicitly contradicted by the Apostle"? Peter never showed us this! Is Paul denying that saving differences are also due to the gifting of God?
Peter wrote:
"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)"
I do not believe the translation of Paul's words can be interpreted as sarcasm. I believe rather that he is asking them questions that he knows they have acknowledged the answers to. God made them different, God made them special, God defined them. But, defined them, in what respect? Not in the sense of salvation? Not as Christians? If faith is what defines them, then God must have been the one who gave them faith. If God did not give them faith, then he did not define them, but they defined themselves!
Peter wrote:
"Commentators are divided over precisely what Paul may have meant.
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)."
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).
Peter wrote:
"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."
Peter's statement about Augustine taking the same view of the passage as myself is very interesting in light of the fact that Peter at first insinuated that I was giving forth a novel interpretation of the passage, one that he says is rarely used in the debate between Calvinists and Arminians.
Peter wrote:
"However, for Barrett and Blomberg, the text only bears “broadly theological inferences,” hardly a hook upon which to hang one's theological cloak."
I also agree, as I said in my exchange with Peter, that I Cor. 4: 7 states a "broad" theological principle and that Paul applies it to a particular case. What I don't agree with, however, is the idea that we cannot "hang one's theological cloak" upon broad theological principles. Does Peter not hang things upon broad theological principles?
Peter wrote:
"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."
The "broad principle" in the passage is what? That no one can boast in anything because God is the one who makes men different by the distribution of gifts. How can we divorce this broad principle from salvation? Why would Peter want to divorce this principle from salvation? The paradigm is applicable to conversion and the fact that Peter denies its applicability to salvation is very revealing about the nature and thinking of Arminianism. Why is Peter rejecting the idea of God making the difference being applicable to salvation?
Peter wrote:
"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."
This is false. The Greeks, as Paul knew, were a boastful people. Also, Paul was not only concerned about the Christian audience at Corinth, but of the pagan audience also. I have already shown how Paul cautioned them about boasting about things unrelated to the supernatural gifts of the Spirit.
Peter wrote:
"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."
Did not Paul deal with election and salvation, in the context of boasting, in chapter one? One is not bringing election and efficacious calling into the passage, but is seeing them implied in the language, and if a person was not biased against God making the difference, in conversion, he would see it.
Peter wrote:
"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 answer is given by the Apostle."
Unbelievable! Peter is saying that there are no biblical answers to Paul's questions? He does not know that Paul expects specific answers? When Paul asks - "who made you different from another" - he expects them to not to know what to say? Does he not know that they will affirm, as he taught them, that God was the one who made them to differ? When Paul asks - "what do you have that you did not receive?" - he did not expect them to say "nothing"?
Peter wrote:
"Seventh, 1 Corinthians 4:7 says exactly nothing about faith being a specifically endowed gift from God."
Yes, and I could say that John 3: 27 or James 1: 17 says nothing specific about faith. But, who would exclude faith? No one but an Arminian! If all the good one has is the gift of God, how can faith be excluded?
Peter wrote:
"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,
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.
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?"
Paul's language is just as universalistic as John 3: 27 and James 1: 17. Paul's principle applies to Christians and non-Christians. The same rhetoricals may be asked of both classes.
Peter and I have had a couple battles over the Calvinist/Arminian debate. The first concerned whether Baptists of Southern Baptist heritage believed in "original sin," that all are born into the world in a condemned state because of the sin of Adam. Peter claimed that a denial of original sin was characteristic of that heritage. He cited John Smyth, a leader of the General Baptists, as proof. But, this was no proof at all, for the General Baptists were a separate group from those Baptists who founded the SBC. Those Baptists endorsed the London and Philadelphia confessions and these confessions uphold the doctrine of original sin, and affirm that all men are born slaves to sin. I was surprised to see a SBC pastor deny such fundamental Bible and Baptist beliefs.
The latest controversy came as a result of my comments on Peter's post regarding Billy Birch's Arminian apologetic regarding whether Arminianism takes away from God all the glory and credit for salvation. Peter and Billy say that they give all the glory and credit to God for their salvation and that their Arminian soteriology does the same. I was glad for their confession and do not affirm that they claim credit for their salvation, but that their doctrine, when fairly analyzed, does in fact deny to God all the credit and gives some of it to the creature.
Billy gave the illustration of people who are trapped in a burning house and who are offered the opportunity of being saved by fire rescue personel. Billy claimed that those who responded to the offer of salvation could claim no credit for being saved, even though they were saved, in part at least, because they responded to the offer of rescue, while others were lost in the fire because they refused the offer. Billy and Peter claimed that the one rescued could not, would not, claim any credit for their being rescued. Those who responded to the offer of salvation could not thank anyone for their salvation but would give all thanks to the one who offered to, and who did in fact, rescue them. Yet, whether any in such a situation do or don't accept any praise or thanks, is besides the point. The question is - can they legitimately take any credit to themselves for the rescue? I affirm that they can, and sometimes do.
If the two classes of persons address each other about why they were saved or lost, can the persons rescued not say to those burned - "it is to your fault that you were not saved and it is to our credit that we are saved"? How can all the credit be given to the rescuer if the ultimate outcome depends upon the choice of those in danger? Indeed, the one choosing to be rescued must, to some degree, thank himself for having enough sense to make the right decision. In the end, what made the ultimate "difference" between those who perished and those who were rescued? It can't be the rescuer, for he offered the same salvation to both classes. Can the ones who chose to be rescued give thanks to the rescuer for their good sense and right decision? No. The decision itself was not due to the efforts of the rescuer but to the good sense of those rescued.
Peter and I exchanged comments on I Cor. 4: 7 until Peter cut off our discussion by saying he was done with commenting further. But, he chose instead to write a separate posting on the passage with the idea of demonstrating a classic case of Calvinistic "eisegeses." It is that posting that I want to reply to in this writing.
Peter wrote:
"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."
I stand by those statements. Anyone who reads the passage honestly will see that Paul says that "boasting" (bragging) is impossible to one who is superior due to the gift and work of God alone. Paul implies that boasting is possible in cases where one is superior because of his own abilities, in those areas where God did not make the difference by his gift. In other words, if God gave you what you have, you are different because of that gift, and you can only thank God for that difference. For Peter to limit this paradigm about boasting to those who are saved, is an error. For Peter to limit this paradigm to only the supernatural gifts of the Spirit is also an error. Peter seems to think that this verse has no bearing upon the boasting that Christians may do relative to any special gifts or abilities they have naturally, or apart from the supernatural ones mentioned in the epistle. Is this correct? Is Paul only condemning boasting of Christians in relation to other Christians, or all boasting, of any man?
Peter then wrote:
"I offered some contextual matters necessary to understand Paul’s rhetorical questions he asked the Corinthians.
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.”
The contextual observations by Peter are not denied by me, as Peter insinuates. But, I believe Peter fails to see the larger context, leaving out other contextual considerations. He implies that Paul is not at all concerned about any boasting that pertains to salvation, but this is clearly false. Notice these words of Paul from the first chapter.
"For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth (boasts or brags), let him glory in the Lord." (I Cor. 1: 26-31)
Notice how "boasting" is here connected with the subject of salvation. Yet, Peter claims that Paul is not talking about salvation boasting in I Cor. 4: 7, claiming that it is all out of context! Clearly, context is not ignored, as Peter falsely claimed. Further, if one looks at the context of I Cor. chapter one, he will see what kinds of things the Corinthians were boasting in. They boasted of their superior wisdom and power, of their superior birth status as Corinthian Greeks. This was part of their Greek heritage. The Greeks were a proud boastful people. They had Sophists in Corinth, people who boasted of their rhetorical and oratorical abilities, things that did not relate to the supernatural gifts of the Spirit or to the saints of God alone. Peter wants to exclude the words of Paul, in I Cor. 4: 7, as having anything to do with boasting about natural abilites or gifts, as though the boasting of the Corinthians did not include these things.
Elsewhere in Paul's epistles, we see him repeat his comments about boasting as it pertains to salvation. In Ephesians 2: 9 Paul says - "Not of works, lest any man should boast." Why could they not boast? Because salvation is "the gift of God." They could not boast in anything in which God is the giver or reason for the saving difference.
Also the passage above, in talking about boasting, says God acts a certain way in order thatn "no flesh should glory in his presence." "No flesh" takes in more than just Christian boasting.
When Paul asks - "what do you have (possess) that you did not receive (as a gift from God)? - he is not limiting the question to things they possess in the area of spiritual gifts, nor is he limiting his antidote against boasting to only Christians. The words of Paul may aptly be addressed to any creature who is boasting. If Paul wanted to limit the context of his censure of boasting to only that boasting about spiritual gifts which only Christians possess, then he would have limited his language, saying - "what do you have as Christians." Is Paul excluding boasting that Christians do regarding their natural gifts and abilities? Peter would have to say yes, that Paul is saying nothing about such boasting in I Cor. 4: 7. It is universalistic language. "What you have" does not exclude anything they have, either as mere men or as Christians. He reminds the Corinthians about his theology which affirms that no human being can boast about anything for God is the one who distinguishes men by the gifts he gives to them. Paul taught the same as others in this regard.
John the Baptist said - "A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven." (John 3: 27) I even cited this verse to Peter to demonstrate that Paul was affirming the same principle in I Cor. 4: 7. Peter did not see the relationship between the Baptist's and Paul's statements. However, in his diatribe, he does acknowledge the truth that all the good things a man possesses are his by God's sovereign gift and cites another verse to prove it (James 1: 17). He is willing to admit that John 3: 27 and James 1: 17 affirm that people are different because of God's gifts to them, but simply refuses to allow that Paul is saying the same thing in I Cor. 4: 7. Paul said, in Acts 17: 25 - "he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things."
Peter then wrote:
"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."
In response I say, in similar language to that used by Peter, that "I do not think a better example exists which illustrates how strict Arminians refuse to see the broad implications of Paul's questions." Why is Peter even denying the proposition, that in salvation, God is the one who ultimately "makes the difference"? Only a strict Arminian would find fault with someone who avers that God makes the difference in salvation. Clearly, by his diatribe, Peter does not want to affirm that God is the one who makes the difference in why one is saved and another is not. He wants to avow that God gets all the credit for him being different, for him being a believer, but then argues against that doctrine which gives him all the credit. "The legs of the lame are not equal."
I Cor. 4: 7 is also similar to these words of God.
"But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." (Exo. 11: 7)
This "difference" that God made between the Israelites and the Egyptians does not concern salvation? Could the Israelites boast for being Israelites and not being Egyptians?
Peter then wrote:
"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."
But, as has been seen thus far, Peter has not shown how I Cor. 4: 7 is limited to a particular kind of boasting which only Christians, with supernatural gifts, may be guilty of. Peter charges me with some harsh things, in these words, but they are unfounded and I appeal to the Lord and his people to judge between us.
Peter wrote:
"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."
Then what is the issue? He is agreeing with all I said but simply believes I used the wrong text? Is that what is irritating him so much? I think his loud rejection of the implications of I Cor. 4: 7 is very revealing. If Paul believes that all gifts come from God, and that men cannot therefore boast in anything, then why would he not remind the Corinthians of this general principle and then apply it to their particular case? Peter would have to deny that Paul is applying a general principle to the case at hand.
Peter wrote:
"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."
It was of concern, however, to the apostle Paul, who addressed sovereign election in I Cor. chapter one. Peter, being the Arminian that he is, would of course deny that God's sovereign election is "the distinguishing mark which separates believer and reprobate." He believes that sinners distinguish themselves by their election of God. Here we have the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinists owe their faith to God's election and Arminians owe their election by God to their faith.
Peter wrote:
"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)."
Peter's failure here is in not seeing that Paul is condemning any and all kinds of boasting, and not just a limited kind of boasting. As I have already shown, the Corinthians, being Greeks, were in the habit of boasting, even before they became Christians. They did not boast simply about their spiritual gifts, but also about their natural abilities.
Peter wrote;
"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!"
What is clear about the context is that Paul is contending against any and all boasting that Christians, or any man, may do. If Peter wanted to use a word from scripture against the boasting of non-Christians, what word and argumentation would he use? Would he not ask the unsaved man - "what do you have that you did not receive as a gift from God? So, why do you boast?" As I have shown, Paul included salvation in regards to boasting, as I have shown, from chapter one.
How is the "Calvinistic notion" "explicitly contradicted by the Apostle"? Peter never showed us this! Is Paul denying that saving differences are also due to the gifting of God?
Peter wrote:
"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)"
I do not believe the translation of Paul's words can be interpreted as sarcasm. I believe rather that he is asking them questions that he knows they have acknowledged the answers to. God made them different, God made them special, God defined them. But, defined them, in what respect? Not in the sense of salvation? Not as Christians? If faith is what defines them, then God must have been the one who gave them faith. If God did not give them faith, then he did not define them, but they defined themselves!
Peter wrote:
"Commentators are divided over precisely what Paul may have meant.
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)."
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).
Peter wrote:
"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."
Peter's statement about Augustine taking the same view of the passage as myself is very interesting in light of the fact that Peter at first insinuated that I was giving forth a novel interpretation of the passage, one that he says is rarely used in the debate between Calvinists and Arminians.
Peter wrote:
"However, for Barrett and Blomberg, the text only bears “broadly theological inferences,” hardly a hook upon which to hang one's theological cloak."
I also agree, as I said in my exchange with Peter, that I Cor. 4: 7 states a "broad" theological principle and that Paul applies it to a particular case. What I don't agree with, however, is the idea that we cannot "hang one's theological cloak" upon broad theological principles. Does Peter not hang things upon broad theological principles?
Peter wrote:
"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."
The "broad principle" in the passage is what? That no one can boast in anything because God is the one who makes men different by the distribution of gifts. How can we divorce this broad principle from salvation? Why would Peter want to divorce this principle from salvation? The paradigm is applicable to conversion and the fact that Peter denies its applicability to salvation is very revealing about the nature and thinking of Arminianism. Why is Peter rejecting the idea of God making the difference being applicable to salvation?
Peter wrote:
"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."
This is false. The Greeks, as Paul knew, were a boastful people. Also, Paul was not only concerned about the Christian audience at Corinth, but of the pagan audience also. I have already shown how Paul cautioned them about boasting about things unrelated to the supernatural gifts of the Spirit.
Peter wrote:
"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."
Did not Paul deal with election and salvation, in the context of boasting, in chapter one? One is not bringing election and efficacious calling into the passage, but is seeing them implied in the language, and if a person was not biased against God making the difference, in conversion, he would see it.
Peter wrote:
"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 answer is given by the Apostle."
Unbelievable! Peter is saying that there are no biblical answers to Paul's questions? He does not know that Paul expects specific answers? When Paul asks - "who made you different from another" - he expects them to not to know what to say? Does he not know that they will affirm, as he taught them, that God was the one who made them to differ? When Paul asks - "what do you have that you did not receive?" - he did not expect them to say "nothing"?
Peter wrote:
"Seventh, 1 Corinthians 4:7 says exactly nothing about faith being a specifically endowed gift from God."
Yes, and I could say that John 3: 27 or James 1: 17 says nothing specific about faith. But, who would exclude faith? No one but an Arminian! If all the good one has is the gift of God, how can faith be excluded?
Peter wrote:
"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,
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.
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?"
Paul's language is just as universalistic as John 3: 27 and James 1: 17. Paul's principle applies to Christians and non-Christians. The same rhetoricals may be asked of both classes.
Dec 9, 2010
Taylor on Hardshellism
H. Boyce Taylor (1870-1932) was an able Baptist minister. In a biography written by Roy O. Beaman, "The Life of H. Boyce Taylor, Sr.," see here, Beaman wrote: (emphasis mine)
"Born in Ohio County, Ky., September 29, 1870; died in the Baptist Memorial Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., May 31, 1932. Fourth in a line of Baptist preachers: Boyce Taylor, son; W. C. Taylor, Sr., his father, Alfred Taylor, his grandfather; Joseph Taylor, his great grandfather.
Converted at an early age at Auburn, Ky. Ordained to the ministry by the Baptist Church, Russelvillle. Ky. Scholastic attainments: A.B. and M.A. from Bethel College, Russelville, Ky.; Th Master from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville. Ky.; D.D. from Hall Moody Institute, Martin, Tenn. Pastor in Carroll and Trimble Counties, Ky., during seminary days in Louisville. Pastor Murray Baptist Church almost thirty-five years, January 1897-October 1931, during which pastorate Dr. J. F. Love and Dr. B. H. Carroll said respectively that it was the greatest missionary, church and the nearest to New Testament pattern they had ever seen. No set salary from third year in Murray; a constant preacher and writer on tithing and stewardship; used the "box plan" in his church. Held many revivals in many states; received many flattering calls to leave Murray. A contender against evolution, Arminianism, Masonry, and many heresies; held over fifty public discussions with representative men of numerous denominations. Jailed during World War I because he kept his church house open for worship, preferring to obey God rather than man."
"He authored "Why Be A Baptist", "Bible Briefs Against Hurtful Heresies," "Studies in Romans," "Acts of the Apostles," "Studies in the Parables," and many tracts on salvation, Christian living, and sound doctrine, which he printed and distributed by the multiplied thousands."
"A man of God; a man of faith and prayer; the sinner's friend; a devout lover of missions and a strong contender for "the faith once for all delivered to the saints:" student of Broadus, admirer of Graves and Pendleton, friend of Eaton and Carroll, coworker of J. N. Hall and other stalwarts of the faith."
Dr. Taylor was a staunch opponent of Hardshellism and held several debates with Hardshell leaders.
"Why Be A Baptist?" See here
Concerning Hardshellism, he wrote:
"The second heresy of Hardshellism is like the first, a half-truth. They teach the doctrine of personal, unconditional, eternal election. That is the truth, but not all the truth on that subject. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (II Peter 3:16). But they warp and wrest and twist that truth and make it teach a lie, namely, that if God elected a man unto salvation, he will be saved, whether he ever hears the gospel or not. The God, who elected the men unto salvation, also elected the means for their salvation. To preach the personal election of men, as Hardshells do, and leave out or deny the divinely chosen means, is not only not the truth, but is a wicked perversion of the truth. When Paul states the doctrine of election he states the whole truth. Rom. 8:28-30: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." He clearly teaches that all the elect will be glorified; but between their predestination and their glorification he puts in the two things the Hardshells leave out, namely, their calling and their justification. They are called, Paul said, by the gospel and they are justified by faith or believing the gospel. So that the whole truth as to election is that all the elect will be called by the gospel and be justified by believing the gospel and be glorified by reason of the hope obtained through the gospel. Or take this passage in II Thes. 2:13-14: "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ", Paul again tells the whole truth about election: There is eternal election, from the beginning; personal election, "you"; unconditional election, "God chose." But that is only half the truth. God's election was "unto salvation." This salvation was not unconditional, but was "through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." This unconditional election was unto a conditional salvation to which the elect were called by the gospel. These unconditionally elected ones could only obtain the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ through a conditional salvation to which they were called by the gospel. Since Hardshellism preaches no gospel, no one has been called unto salvation through it. Since being called unto salvation by the gospel is necessary to obtaining salvation and Hardshellism has no gospel for the unsaved, no one was ever saved by Hardshellism. Since God's elect are all called unto salvation by the Gospel and the Hardshell elect are all saved without the gospel, Hardshell elect are not God's elect. Since all God's elect are saved "thru sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" and Hardshells are saved without the belief of the truth. Hardshells are not saved or not God's elect and Hardshellism is not the truth. Since God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and Hardshell unconditional election is unto an unconditional salvation; Hardshell election is not the truth but a perversion of the truth and is not unto a salvation at all but unto damnation. Remember that God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and when Hardshellism teaches an unconditional salvation the election they preach is unto damnation instead of salvation. An election which does not include the preaching of the Gospel as a condition of salvation is not God's election at all; for "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1:21). God's election included both the men and the means. But once more Paul said: "I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (II Tim. 2:10). The elect will obtain eternal glory; but how? By the missionaries enduring all things that they may preach the gospel by which the elect are called unto salvation. Since Hardshell election leaves out missions it is not God's kind, not Paul's kind and not the truth."
Powerful!
"Born in Ohio County, Ky., September 29, 1870; died in the Baptist Memorial Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., May 31, 1932. Fourth in a line of Baptist preachers: Boyce Taylor, son; W. C. Taylor, Sr., his father, Alfred Taylor, his grandfather; Joseph Taylor, his great grandfather.
Converted at an early age at Auburn, Ky. Ordained to the ministry by the Baptist Church, Russelvillle. Ky. Scholastic attainments: A.B. and M.A. from Bethel College, Russelville, Ky.; Th Master from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville. Ky.; D.D. from Hall Moody Institute, Martin, Tenn. Pastor in Carroll and Trimble Counties, Ky., during seminary days in Louisville. Pastor Murray Baptist Church almost thirty-five years, January 1897-October 1931, during which pastorate Dr. J. F. Love and Dr. B. H. Carroll said respectively that it was the greatest missionary, church and the nearest to New Testament pattern they had ever seen. No set salary from third year in Murray; a constant preacher and writer on tithing and stewardship; used the "box plan" in his church. Held many revivals in many states; received many flattering calls to leave Murray. A contender against evolution, Arminianism, Masonry, and many heresies; held over fifty public discussions with representative men of numerous denominations. Jailed during World War I because he kept his church house open for worship, preferring to obey God rather than man."
"He authored "Why Be A Baptist", "Bible Briefs Against Hurtful Heresies," "Studies in Romans," "Acts of the Apostles," "Studies in the Parables," and many tracts on salvation, Christian living, and sound doctrine, which he printed and distributed by the multiplied thousands."
"A man of God; a man of faith and prayer; the sinner's friend; a devout lover of missions and a strong contender for "the faith once for all delivered to the saints:" student of Broadus, admirer of Graves and Pendleton, friend of Eaton and Carroll, coworker of J. N. Hall and other stalwarts of the faith."
Dr. Taylor was a staunch opponent of Hardshellism and held several debates with Hardshell leaders.
"Why Be A Baptist?" See here
Concerning Hardshellism, he wrote:
"The second heresy of Hardshellism is like the first, a half-truth. They teach the doctrine of personal, unconditional, eternal election. That is the truth, but not all the truth on that subject. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (II Peter 3:16). But they warp and wrest and twist that truth and make it teach a lie, namely, that if God elected a man unto salvation, he will be saved, whether he ever hears the gospel or not. The God, who elected the men unto salvation, also elected the means for their salvation. To preach the personal election of men, as Hardshells do, and leave out or deny the divinely chosen means, is not only not the truth, but is a wicked perversion of the truth. When Paul states the doctrine of election he states the whole truth. Rom. 8:28-30: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." He clearly teaches that all the elect will be glorified; but between their predestination and their glorification he puts in the two things the Hardshells leave out, namely, their calling and their justification. They are called, Paul said, by the gospel and they are justified by faith or believing the gospel. So that the whole truth as to election is that all the elect will be called by the gospel and be justified by believing the gospel and be glorified by reason of the hope obtained through the gospel. Or take this passage in II Thes. 2:13-14: "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ", Paul again tells the whole truth about election: There is eternal election, from the beginning; personal election, "you"; unconditional election, "God chose." But that is only half the truth. God's election was "unto salvation." This salvation was not unconditional, but was "through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." This unconditional election was unto a conditional salvation to which the elect were called by the gospel. These unconditionally elected ones could only obtain the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ through a conditional salvation to which they were called by the gospel. Since Hardshellism preaches no gospel, no one has been called unto salvation through it. Since being called unto salvation by the gospel is necessary to obtaining salvation and Hardshellism has no gospel for the unsaved, no one was ever saved by Hardshellism. Since God's elect are all called unto salvation by the Gospel and the Hardshell elect are all saved without the gospel, Hardshell elect are not God's elect. Since all God's elect are saved "thru sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" and Hardshells are saved without the belief of the truth. Hardshells are not saved or not God's elect and Hardshellism is not the truth. Since God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and Hardshell unconditional election is unto an unconditional salvation; Hardshell election is not the truth but a perversion of the truth and is not unto a salvation at all but unto damnation. Remember that God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and when Hardshellism teaches an unconditional salvation the election they preach is unto damnation instead of salvation. An election which does not include the preaching of the Gospel as a condition of salvation is not God's election at all; for "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1:21). God's election included both the men and the means. But once more Paul said: "I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (II Tim. 2:10). The elect will obtain eternal glory; but how? By the missionaries enduring all things that they may preach the gospel by which the elect are called unto salvation. Since Hardshell election leaves out missions it is not God's kind, not Paul's kind and not the truth."
Powerful!
Dec 8, 2010
Simmons on Hardshellism
T. P. Simmons
"Arminians charge that unconditional election means unconditional salvation, and that we teach that men were actually saved in eternity. Both charges are groundless, for election is not salvation. We were unconditionally elected in eternity to a conditional salvation in time. And when we speak of salvation as being conditional we do not mean that the salvation of the elect is in any way fortuitous or uncertain, but only that certain conditions (repentance and faith) must be fulfilled before they come to possess salvation.
A condition is "something that necessarily precedes a result, but does not produce it." In eternity the salvation of the elect was purposed, and the elect are spoken of in the purpose of God as called, justified, and glorified (Rom. 8: 29, 30), but this is simply the language of Him, who in His purpose, "calleth the things that are not, as though they were" (Rom. 4:17). Many passages clearly teach that actual salvation takes place in time. For this we strongly contend. We have no patience whatsoever with the theory that the salvation which takes place in time is only temporal salvation, or salvation as it respects this life."
And again:
"At the same time God chose His people He ordained all the means necessary to accomplish their full and final salvation. See Rom. 8:29, 30. These means were inseparably joined to election in the decree of God. We have no sympathy with Hardshellism, hypercalvinism. To say that the elect will be saved whether they ever hear the gospel or not is to misunderstand completely the connection between election and the means God has ordained for the accomplishment of the end of election.
Salvation—spiritual, temporal, and eternal—is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 5:1; Gal. 8:26). All the heathen that die without hearing the gospel will be lost (Rom. 1:19, 20; 2:12). Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17).
Wherever God has an elect soul, in the fullness of His own time, He will in some way send the gospel to call that one from darkness to light. See 2 Thess. 2:14. Thus Philip was sent to the elect eunuch, and thus it was given to Paul to endure that the elect might obtain eternal salvation (11 Tim. 2:10). Thus we have the divine tie between election and missions.
Some charge that unconditional election makes all means useless. They say if the case is so with man that he cannot by nature receive spiritual things and must be quickened by the Spirit before he can turn from sin, being sure to turn when he is quickened, then why preach to him? We preach to him, first of all, because God has commanded it. We accept God’s Word whether we can reason out why He speaks thus and so or not. We do not make our reason the standard of obedience or truth, as is the case with Arminians. But, on the other hand, we find God’s Word to teach that God calls His elect by the Word, since the Word is the instrument of the Spirit in regeneration (John 3:5; Eph. 5:25, 26; Titus 3:5; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23). There is no more incongruity in preaching the gospel to the spiritually dead than there was in Christ’s standing before the tomb of Lazarus, dead four days, and saying, "Lazarus, come forth." As long as he remained dead Lazarus could not hear, much less obey, the command. But the life-giving power of God accompanied the Word of God, and Lazarus both heard and came forth. It is ours to preach the gospel to every creature, for so has Christ commanded. It is God’s part to bring the dead to life. See also the parable of the dry bones in the valley, where we have a picture of conversion through preaching (Ezek. 37). The dry bones represent the state of sinners by nature. The bones were lifeless; yet preaching to them was not in vain.
And Arminians ask, "Why pray for the lost, since all God’s elect will be saved and none others can be saved?" We pray for the lost for the same reason that Paul prayed for men, even though he taught unconditional election. We pray for the lost for the same reason that Christ prayed for the security of believers, even though that security was already certain. See John 17:11. Christ also prayed for a restoration of His former glory with the Father. See John 17:5. Was that in any sense uncertain? Prayer, as well as preaching, is a means of God in carrying out His will. His purposes are sovereignly fixed and eternally immutable, but He did not fix them independent of means."
IX. ELECTION IS NOT HARDSHELLISM
"It is customary for Arminians to reproach the Bible doctrine of election by referring to it as "Hardshellism." May God forgive them, for they know not what they do. That election is not Hardshellism is proved by the following facts:
1. ELECTION IS INDISSOLUBLY JOINED TO THE GOSPEL AS GOD’S MEANS OF CALLING HIS ELECT TO SALVATION.
This is proved by the Scriptures given above that show that regeneration is through the Word. And it is also proved by 2 Thess. 2:13, 14. The elect have been chosen to "salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." To this, Paul says, they are "called by our gospel." Typical Hardshells deny the indispensable necessity of the knowledge of the gospel in regeneration. For that reason they show little concern in the carrying out of the great commission.
2. THE HARDSHELLS AND MISSIONARIES DID NOT SPLIT OVER ELECTION.
(1) They split over "mission, education, support of pastors, and other religious enterprises" (Jarrell, p. 431).
(2) In the split both parties held to unconditional election.
It will not be challenged that the Hardshells held to this doctrine. That the Missionaries did too is proved by the testimony of Spencer, who says that the Missionaries, "which embraced the main body of the denomination, held the doctrinal sentiments of Andrew Fuller," who believed in unconditional election, even though he taught an atonement of universal sufficiency. See History of Kentucky Baptists, Vol. 1, p. 645.
3. THERE IS YET NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MISSIONARIES AND HARDSHELLS ON THE MATTER OF UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.
This is proved by—
(1) The fact that both accept the statement on election in the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.
Hardshells still accept this. And among the Missionaries this confession "is stiff widely used, and in the South it is probably the most influential of all confessions" (McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 298).
(2) The fact that unconditional election is taught in the other great American Baptist confession—the New Hampshire.
See proof of this under later discussion of unconditional election as a Baptist doctrine.
(3) The fact that all our standard theological text books and all doctrinal books written by representative and recognized Baptists teach this doctrine.
For proof of this see discussion referred to immediately above.
4. BAPTIST BELIEVERS IN UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION, COUPLED WITH THE GOSPEL AS AN INDISPENSABLE MEANS IN REGENERATION, HAVE EVER BEEN MOST AGGRESSIVE IN THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL.
Modem missionary vision and effort originated, not among the General (Arminian) Baptists, nor yet among any other Arminian denomination, but among the Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists of England. See the record in most any Baptist history. Robert Hall, Sr., Andrew Fuller, and William Carey were the leading lights.
American world-wide missionary effort originated in the Philadelphia Association, which adopted the hated Philadelphia Confession of Faith. See "The Story of Baptists," Cook, p. 327. "The Philadelphia Association speedily became the leading body of American Baptists—a position that it has not wholly lost to this day (1897). Pretty much everything good in our history, from 1700 to 1850, may be traced to its initiative or active cooperation" (Vedder, Short History of Baptists, p. 204)."
(Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, Chapter 20)
"Arminians charge that unconditional election means unconditional salvation, and that we teach that men were actually saved in eternity. Both charges are groundless, for election is not salvation. We were unconditionally elected in eternity to a conditional salvation in time. And when we speak of salvation as being conditional we do not mean that the salvation of the elect is in any way fortuitous or uncertain, but only that certain conditions (repentance and faith) must be fulfilled before they come to possess salvation.
A condition is "something that necessarily precedes a result, but does not produce it." In eternity the salvation of the elect was purposed, and the elect are spoken of in the purpose of God as called, justified, and glorified (Rom. 8: 29, 30), but this is simply the language of Him, who in His purpose, "calleth the things that are not, as though they were" (Rom. 4:17). Many passages clearly teach that actual salvation takes place in time. For this we strongly contend. We have no patience whatsoever with the theory that the salvation which takes place in time is only temporal salvation, or salvation as it respects this life."
And again:
"At the same time God chose His people He ordained all the means necessary to accomplish their full and final salvation. See Rom. 8:29, 30. These means were inseparably joined to election in the decree of God. We have no sympathy with Hardshellism, hypercalvinism. To say that the elect will be saved whether they ever hear the gospel or not is to misunderstand completely the connection between election and the means God has ordained for the accomplishment of the end of election.
Salvation—spiritual, temporal, and eternal—is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 5:1; Gal. 8:26). All the heathen that die without hearing the gospel will be lost (Rom. 1:19, 20; 2:12). Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17).
Wherever God has an elect soul, in the fullness of His own time, He will in some way send the gospel to call that one from darkness to light. See 2 Thess. 2:14. Thus Philip was sent to the elect eunuch, and thus it was given to Paul to endure that the elect might obtain eternal salvation (11 Tim. 2:10). Thus we have the divine tie between election and missions.
Some charge that unconditional election makes all means useless. They say if the case is so with man that he cannot by nature receive spiritual things and must be quickened by the Spirit before he can turn from sin, being sure to turn when he is quickened, then why preach to him? We preach to him, first of all, because God has commanded it. We accept God’s Word whether we can reason out why He speaks thus and so or not. We do not make our reason the standard of obedience or truth, as is the case with Arminians. But, on the other hand, we find God’s Word to teach that God calls His elect by the Word, since the Word is the instrument of the Spirit in regeneration (John 3:5; Eph. 5:25, 26; Titus 3:5; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23). There is no more incongruity in preaching the gospel to the spiritually dead than there was in Christ’s standing before the tomb of Lazarus, dead four days, and saying, "Lazarus, come forth." As long as he remained dead Lazarus could not hear, much less obey, the command. But the life-giving power of God accompanied the Word of God, and Lazarus both heard and came forth. It is ours to preach the gospel to every creature, for so has Christ commanded. It is God’s part to bring the dead to life. See also the parable of the dry bones in the valley, where we have a picture of conversion through preaching (Ezek. 37). The dry bones represent the state of sinners by nature. The bones were lifeless; yet preaching to them was not in vain.
And Arminians ask, "Why pray for the lost, since all God’s elect will be saved and none others can be saved?" We pray for the lost for the same reason that Paul prayed for men, even though he taught unconditional election. We pray for the lost for the same reason that Christ prayed for the security of believers, even though that security was already certain. See John 17:11. Christ also prayed for a restoration of His former glory with the Father. See John 17:5. Was that in any sense uncertain? Prayer, as well as preaching, is a means of God in carrying out His will. His purposes are sovereignly fixed and eternally immutable, but He did not fix them independent of means."
IX. ELECTION IS NOT HARDSHELLISM
"It is customary for Arminians to reproach the Bible doctrine of election by referring to it as "Hardshellism." May God forgive them, for they know not what they do. That election is not Hardshellism is proved by the following facts:
1. ELECTION IS INDISSOLUBLY JOINED TO THE GOSPEL AS GOD’S MEANS OF CALLING HIS ELECT TO SALVATION.
This is proved by the Scriptures given above that show that regeneration is through the Word. And it is also proved by 2 Thess. 2:13, 14. The elect have been chosen to "salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." To this, Paul says, they are "called by our gospel." Typical Hardshells deny the indispensable necessity of the knowledge of the gospel in regeneration. For that reason they show little concern in the carrying out of the great commission.
2. THE HARDSHELLS AND MISSIONARIES DID NOT SPLIT OVER ELECTION.
(1) They split over "mission, education, support of pastors, and other religious enterprises" (Jarrell, p. 431).
(2) In the split both parties held to unconditional election.
It will not be challenged that the Hardshells held to this doctrine. That the Missionaries did too is proved by the testimony of Spencer, who says that the Missionaries, "which embraced the main body of the denomination, held the doctrinal sentiments of Andrew Fuller," who believed in unconditional election, even though he taught an atonement of universal sufficiency. See History of Kentucky Baptists, Vol. 1, p. 645.
3. THERE IS YET NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MISSIONARIES AND HARDSHELLS ON THE MATTER OF UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.
This is proved by—
(1) The fact that both accept the statement on election in the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.
Hardshells still accept this. And among the Missionaries this confession "is stiff widely used, and in the South it is probably the most influential of all confessions" (McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, p. 298).
(2) The fact that unconditional election is taught in the other great American Baptist confession—the New Hampshire.
See proof of this under later discussion of unconditional election as a Baptist doctrine.
(3) The fact that all our standard theological text books and all doctrinal books written by representative and recognized Baptists teach this doctrine.
For proof of this see discussion referred to immediately above.
4. BAPTIST BELIEVERS IN UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION, COUPLED WITH THE GOSPEL AS AN INDISPENSABLE MEANS IN REGENERATION, HAVE EVER BEEN MOST AGGRESSIVE IN THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL.
Modem missionary vision and effort originated, not among the General (Arminian) Baptists, nor yet among any other Arminian denomination, but among the Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists of England. See the record in most any Baptist history. Robert Hall, Sr., Andrew Fuller, and William Carey were the leading lights.
American world-wide missionary effort originated in the Philadelphia Association, which adopted the hated Philadelphia Confession of Faith. See "The Story of Baptists," Cook, p. 327. "The Philadelphia Association speedily became the leading body of American Baptists—a position that it has not wholly lost to this day (1897). Pretty much everything good in our history, from 1700 to 1850, may be traced to its initiative or active cooperation" (Vedder, Short History of Baptists, p. 204)."
(Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, Chapter 20)
Dec 7, 2010
Election Debate on the Internet
The recent debate on the bible doctrine of election can be listened to at this web page
http://ourgoodfight.com/
To see each speech separately, open the "file cabinet" link.
Stephen Garrett
http://ourgoodfight.com/
To see each speech separately, open the "file cabinet" link.
Stephen Garrett
Nov 22, 2010
Debate Review 9
Who loves who first? That was one question I asked of my opponent. He said that he believed God loved first as the scripture says - "we love him because he first loved us." He said he did not teach that we love God in order to be loved by God. Yet, on the third day of the debate, in answer to the question - "did God love you in the same way as Jacob, before you had done any good," my opponent said "no." He affirmed that God loved him because of some good he did. What is that good he did? Well, it was his act of loving God! His believing and obeying the gospel, which are acts of love! In Jacob's case, God loved him before Jacob loved God, God's love being the cause or reason why Jacob came to love God. But, this was not the case with my opponent, by his own admission. He was loved by God because of some loving act that he showed towards God!
Also, on the third night of the debate, my opponent, in response to numerous affirmations regarding God's choice of Isaac to become spiritually born and a child of promise, said that the case of Isaac was not a type of Christian salvation. He said this in spite of Paul's testimony where he said - "now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." (Gal. 4: 28)
Also, on the third night of the debate, my opponent, in response to numerous affirmations regarding God's choice of Isaac to become spiritually born and a child of promise, said that the case of Isaac was not a type of Christian salvation. He said this in spite of Paul's testimony where he said - "now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." (Gal. 4: 28)
Debate Review 8
Elected to Regeneration (new birth)
Regeneration or conversion is not the cause of election.
Election is the cause of regeneration or conversion.
1) "chosen to salvation." (II Thess. 2: 13)
2) "chosen to justification and sanctification." (Eph. 1: 3, 4)
3) "foreknown/predestined to calling and justification." (Rom. 8: 29, 30)
4) "chosen," then "circumcised." (Deut. 10: 15, 16)
5) "chosen to knowledge of God and faith." (Isa. 43: 10)
6) "chosen to know God, see Christ, and hear his voice." (Acts 22: 16)
7) "Elected to obedience." (I Peter 1: 2)
8) "Chosen" and then caused to "approach" God in salvation. (Psalm 65: 4)
This was a chart I used early in the debate and believe it focuses in on the major difference between us. Which comes first, regeneration or election? Or, are people chosen to regeneration or regenerated in order to become chosen? The above scriptures, I affirmed, showed that regeneration (salvation) is what God has chosen sinners "to." Regeneration is the effect of election, not the cause of it.
The first verse is in II Thess. 2: 13.
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2: 13, 14)
Clearly this passage says that men are chosen to salvation, chosen to regeneration. It does not say that they are chosen because of salvation. It does not say that they are saved unto election. This argument never was refuted. It completely overthrows my opponent's corporate view of election which puts salvation before election. My opponent could only bring up other issues regarding the passage as it relates to Calvinism. He argued that "through (in) sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" affirmed that men were elected because they were sanctified and believed the truth. But, obviously, it cannot mean this. If this interpretation were correct, we would have to see the passage as saying - "God chose you to salvation because you have been saved." That is nonsence. People who are already saved do not need to be chosen to salvation. President Obama does not need to be chosen to the presidency because he is already the president.
I argued that the prepositional phrase "in sanctification" and "in belief" modifies or connects to "salvation" and not to "chosen" or "you." The Greek preposition "en" is a motionless word and denotes "existence within" or "location within." The passage may be read like this - "God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation, a salvation located within sanctification and faith." It describes salvation. In the next verse, the apostle says "whereunto he call you," he is pointing to "salvation," and not to election. He called you to salvation, not to election.
The next passage focuses on Eph. 1: 3,4, which passage was often referred to and examined in detail. I showed that people, in that passage, were chosen to holiness, not because of it. They were chosen to adoption, not because of it. They were chosen to justification, and not because of it. My opponent never disproved this.
The next verse, in Romans 8: 29, 30, was also frequently cited by me and declared to show that people are chosen and predestined to be called and justified. My opponent's position says that God chooses and predestines those who are called and justified, thus reversing the divine order. Again, my opponent could not show how this analysis was incorrect. It says "whom he predestined, them he called." It does not say, "whom he called, them he predestined."
The next passage reads as follows:
"Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10: 15, 16)
I showed that this verse clearly puts election before salvation (circumcision). My opponent never refuted this. Instead, he chose to focus on a separate, unrelated, issue. He said that God was telling the people to circumcise themselves and tried to say that this upholds his Arminianism and refutes Calvinism. I felt no need to address this because it was beside the point. The point was this: God told the chosen people to be circumcised, not in order to become elect, but because they were elect, thus election preceded salvation, preceded incorporation into the body of Christ. I certainly do believe that God commands the dead to live (Eph. 5: 14), but this command 1) does not imply ability, and 2) is a means in effecting the change.
The next verse reads as follows:
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isa. 43: 10)
Not only did I have this passage on the chart, but, like the previous verses on the chart, were elaborated upon in several of my speeches. My opponent, in one of his last speeches of the debate, in reference to this chart, said that he felt no need to respond to a chart that just listed verses without elaboration. But, the fact is, this was not the case. The verses were referred to, cited, and explained, several times during the debate. This particular verse was cited, read, and shown to prove my proposition, several times in the debate. My opponent, however, never once responded to this passage. The passage says that people were "chosen THAT," or "in order that," they may "know," "believe," and "understand." Clearly the believing and knowing of anyone is owing to this election. My opponent teaches that one believes and knows God in order to be elected. But, the passage clearly teaches otherwise.
The next verse also was referred to by me in nearly every speech I made and again my opponent never even addressed
it. It reads as follows.
"And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth." (Acts 22: 14)
This verse is similar to the preceding verse from Isaiah. Paul was chosen "to" certain experiences. He was chosen to "know the Lord's will," and to "see that Just One," and to "hear the voice of his mouth." These several things describe what it is to be saved, thus Annanias was saying that Paul was chosen to salvation. The choice of God did not only concern Paul being made an apostle, clearly.
The next verse reads as follows:
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." (I Peter 1: 2)
This verse, I affirmed, was clear. It says that men are "chosen...unto obedience," and not because of obedience. My opponent did make on comment on this passage, saying that "through sanctification" meant "because of sanctification." But, again, this would have Peter saying that God chose those who are sanctified unto sanctification, those who are saved unto salvation. Again, this is nonsensical. Eph. 1 clearly says that people are chosen "to holiness," but my opponent wanted to say that Peter was contradicting Paul by affirming that "holiness is unto election."
The next verse reads as follows:
"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple." (Psalm 65: 4)
This verse also was never addressed by my opponent. And, again, the charge that I did not do anything other than cite it on a chart, without argument, was false. I cited the verse more than once, and argued that the election in the passage preceded conversion, or "approaching" the Lord. People do not come to the Lord in order to become elect, but they come to the Lord because they are elect. I also showed how this passage was an individual election, "the man." How could language be any clearer? How could a person affirm individual election in any clearer language? My opponent never responded to these arguments.
Another chart I used in the debate, and which relates to the previous chart, is this one:
Which Comes First?
1. We love him because he first loved us. (I John 4: 19)
2. We choose him because he first chose us. (John 15: 16, I John 4: 19, Acts 13: 48)
3. We know him because he first knew us. (Rom. 8: 29)
4. We come to him because he first came to us. (John 6: 44, 45)
5. We draw near to God because he first draws near to us. (John 6: 44, 45)
6. We are given to Christ before we give ourselves to Christ. (John 6: 37)
7. We turn to him because he first turns to us. (Jer. 31; 18, Acts 2: 39)
My opponent only responded to the first proof listed on this chart. He asked - "does Mr. Garrett actually believe that I believe that men love God before God loves them?"
The problem here is that the love the apostle John refers to is that special love that God has for his people, and not his general love for all mankind. Who can deny that the scriptures speak of salvation as entering into the love and favor of God? Besides, John says that this love of God causes the objects of his love to return love, and so cannot be a reference to God's general love for his people. Paul said, in Eph. 5: 25, that Christ "loved the church," not the entire world. He loves his bride, a particular love. A man who is outside the church is not loved in a saving way.
The next affirmation was proven from the scriptures listed, and also with all the scriptures that showed one was chosen to salvation. To "love" one includes the idea of "choosing" or "favoring" one. Thus, if we love him because he first loved us, then it is also true that "we chose him because he first chose us."
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain..." (John 15: 16)
Clearly these words of Jesus say that the choice of Christ preceded any choice of the apostles. One choice was the ground, reason, or cause of the other. Whose choice took precedence? Who chose who first? All my opponent could do was to say that this was not talking about salvation, but about being chosen to the apostleship. Clearly he sees how the passage is against his views if the passage relates at all to the ordo salutis of salvation. But, clearly, the passage affirms that the thing the apostles were being chosen "to," or "in order that," was to "bringing forth fruit that remains" to complete salvation. How can we limit fruit bearing to the apostleship? How can we divorce "that you fruit may remain," from final salvation?
Again, I referenced Romans 8: 29, 30. Who knows who first? Does the sinner foreknow God? Knowing God, in scripture, is a description of the salvation experience. And, again, this passage was not simply put on a chart but not really analyzed, for it was often stated by me. My opponent never denied that the passage says that God knows us before any know him, and that this foreknowledge of God was the cause why any come to know him.
The next passage (John 6: 44, 45) was another that I not only cited, but frequently argued from, emphasizing several important points from the passage. The passage says that men come to Christ because God first visits them and this visit is the cause of any man's coming. Men do not come to Christ in order for God to come to them.
The next passage (John 6: 37) speaks of God's giving a person to Christ prior to that person's actual coming to Christ. Involved in coming to Christ is a person's giving their heart and life to Christ. Thus, who gives first? Do men come (give themselves to Christ) in order for the Father to give them to Christ, or vice versa? The passage is clear. Men come, give themselves to Christ, as a result of the Father's giving of them to Christ.
"...turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God." (Jere. 31: 18)
"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." (Acts 2: 39)
In the first passage, a sinner turns (repents) because God turns him. God's work precedes the repenting of the sinner. In the second passage, people repent, are converted, because God calls them.
Regeneration or conversion is not the cause of election.
Election is the cause of regeneration or conversion.
1) "chosen to salvation." (II Thess. 2: 13)
2) "chosen to justification and sanctification." (Eph. 1: 3, 4)
3) "foreknown/predestined to calling and justification." (Rom. 8: 29, 30)
4) "chosen," then "circumcised." (Deut. 10: 15, 16)
5) "chosen to knowledge of God and faith." (Isa. 43: 10)
6) "chosen to know God, see Christ, and hear his voice." (Acts 22: 16)
7) "Elected to obedience." (I Peter 1: 2)
8) "Chosen" and then caused to "approach" God in salvation. (Psalm 65: 4)
This was a chart I used early in the debate and believe it focuses in on the major difference between us. Which comes first, regeneration or election? Or, are people chosen to regeneration or regenerated in order to become chosen? The above scriptures, I affirmed, showed that regeneration (salvation) is what God has chosen sinners "to." Regeneration is the effect of election, not the cause of it.
The first verse is in II Thess. 2: 13.
"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 2: 13, 14)
Clearly this passage says that men are chosen to salvation, chosen to regeneration. It does not say that they are chosen because of salvation. It does not say that they are saved unto election. This argument never was refuted. It completely overthrows my opponent's corporate view of election which puts salvation before election. My opponent could only bring up other issues regarding the passage as it relates to Calvinism. He argued that "through (in) sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" affirmed that men were elected because they were sanctified and believed the truth. But, obviously, it cannot mean this. If this interpretation were correct, we would have to see the passage as saying - "God chose you to salvation because you have been saved." That is nonsence. People who are already saved do not need to be chosen to salvation. President Obama does not need to be chosen to the presidency because he is already the president.
I argued that the prepositional phrase "in sanctification" and "in belief" modifies or connects to "salvation" and not to "chosen" or "you." The Greek preposition "en" is a motionless word and denotes "existence within" or "location within." The passage may be read like this - "God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation, a salvation located within sanctification and faith." It describes salvation. In the next verse, the apostle says "whereunto he call you," he is pointing to "salvation," and not to election. He called you to salvation, not to election.
The next passage focuses on Eph. 1: 3,4, which passage was often referred to and examined in detail. I showed that people, in that passage, were chosen to holiness, not because of it. They were chosen to adoption, not because of it. They were chosen to justification, and not because of it. My opponent never disproved this.
The next verse, in Romans 8: 29, 30, was also frequently cited by me and declared to show that people are chosen and predestined to be called and justified. My opponent's position says that God chooses and predestines those who are called and justified, thus reversing the divine order. Again, my opponent could not show how this analysis was incorrect. It says "whom he predestined, them he called." It does not say, "whom he called, them he predestined."
The next passage reads as follows:
"Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." (Deut. 10: 15, 16)
I showed that this verse clearly puts election before salvation (circumcision). My opponent never refuted this. Instead, he chose to focus on a separate, unrelated, issue. He said that God was telling the people to circumcise themselves and tried to say that this upholds his Arminianism and refutes Calvinism. I felt no need to address this because it was beside the point. The point was this: God told the chosen people to be circumcised, not in order to become elect, but because they were elect, thus election preceded salvation, preceded incorporation into the body of Christ. I certainly do believe that God commands the dead to live (Eph. 5: 14), but this command 1) does not imply ability, and 2) is a means in effecting the change.
The next verse reads as follows:
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." (Isa. 43: 10)
Not only did I have this passage on the chart, but, like the previous verses on the chart, were elaborated upon in several of my speeches. My opponent, in one of his last speeches of the debate, in reference to this chart, said that he felt no need to respond to a chart that just listed verses without elaboration. But, the fact is, this was not the case. The verses were referred to, cited, and explained, several times during the debate. This particular verse was cited, read, and shown to prove my proposition, several times in the debate. My opponent, however, never once responded to this passage. The passage says that people were "chosen THAT," or "in order that," they may "know," "believe," and "understand." Clearly the believing and knowing of anyone is owing to this election. My opponent teaches that one believes and knows God in order to be elected. But, the passage clearly teaches otherwise.
The next verse also was referred to by me in nearly every speech I made and again my opponent never even addressed
it. It reads as follows."And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth." (Acts 22: 14)
This verse is similar to the preceding verse from Isaiah. Paul was chosen "to" certain experiences. He was chosen to "know the Lord's will," and to "see that Just One," and to "hear the voice of his mouth." These several things describe what it is to be saved, thus Annanias was saying that Paul was chosen to salvation. The choice of God did not only concern Paul being made an apostle, clearly.
The next verse reads as follows:
"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." (I Peter 1: 2)
This verse, I affirmed, was clear. It says that men are "chosen...unto obedience," and not because of obedience. My opponent did make on comment on this passage, saying that "through sanctification" meant "because of sanctification." But, again, this would have Peter saying that God chose those who are sanctified unto sanctification, those who are saved unto salvation. Again, this is nonsensical. Eph. 1 clearly says that people are chosen "to holiness," but my opponent wanted to say that Peter was contradicting Paul by affirming that "holiness is unto election."
The next verse reads as follows:
"Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple." (Psalm 65: 4)
This verse also was never addressed by my opponent. And, again, the charge that I did not do anything other than cite it on a chart, without argument, was false. I cited the verse more than once, and argued that the election in the passage preceded conversion, or "approaching" the Lord. People do not come to the Lord in order to become elect, but they come to the Lord because they are elect. I also showed how this passage was an individual election, "the man." How could language be any clearer? How could a person affirm individual election in any clearer language? My opponent never responded to these arguments.
Another chart I used in the debate, and which relates to the previous chart, is this one:
Which Comes First?
1. We love him because he first loved us. (I John 4: 19)
2. We choose him because he first chose us. (John 15: 16, I John 4: 19, Acts 13: 48)
3. We know him because he first knew us. (Rom. 8: 29)
4. We come to him because he first came to us. (John 6: 44, 45)
5. We draw near to God because he first draws near to us. (John 6: 44, 45)
6. We are given to Christ before we give ourselves to Christ. (John 6: 37)
7. We turn to him because he first turns to us. (Jer. 31; 18, Acts 2: 39)
My opponent only responded to the first proof listed on this chart. He asked - "does Mr. Garrett actually believe that I believe that men love God before God loves them?"
The problem here is that the love the apostle John refers to is that special love that God has for his people, and not his general love for all mankind. Who can deny that the scriptures speak of salvation as entering into the love and favor of God? Besides, John says that this love of God causes the objects of his love to return love, and so cannot be a reference to God's general love for his people. Paul said, in Eph. 5: 25, that Christ "loved the church," not the entire world. He loves his bride, a particular love. A man who is outside the church is not loved in a saving way.
The next affirmation was proven from the scriptures listed, and also with all the scriptures that showed one was chosen to salvation. To "love" one includes the idea of "choosing" or "favoring" one. Thus, if we love him because he first loved us, then it is also true that "we chose him because he first chose us."
"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain..." (John 15: 16)
Clearly these words of Jesus say that the choice of Christ preceded any choice of the apostles. One choice was the ground, reason, or cause of the other. Whose choice took precedence? Who chose who first? All my opponent could do was to say that this was not talking about salvation, but about being chosen to the apostleship. Clearly he sees how the passage is against his views if the passage relates at all to the ordo salutis of salvation. But, clearly, the passage affirms that the thing the apostles were being chosen "to," or "in order that," was to "bringing forth fruit that remains" to complete salvation. How can we limit fruit bearing to the apostleship? How can we divorce "that you fruit may remain," from final salvation?
Again, I referenced Romans 8: 29, 30. Who knows who first? Does the sinner foreknow God? Knowing God, in scripture, is a description of the salvation experience. And, again, this passage was not simply put on a chart but not really analyzed, for it was often stated by me. My opponent never denied that the passage says that God knows us before any know him, and that this foreknowledge of God was the cause why any come to know him.
The next passage (John 6: 44, 45) was another that I not only cited, but frequently argued from, emphasizing several important points from the passage. The passage says that men come to Christ because God first visits them and this visit is the cause of any man's coming. Men do not come to Christ in order for God to come to them.
The next passage (John 6: 37) speaks of God's giving a person to Christ prior to that person's actual coming to Christ. Involved in coming to Christ is a person's giving their heart and life to Christ. Thus, who gives first? Do men come (give themselves to Christ) in order for the Father to give them to Christ, or vice versa? The passage is clear. Men come, give themselves to Christ, as a result of the Father's giving of them to Christ.
"...turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God." (Jere. 31: 18)
"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call." (Acts 2: 39)
In the first passage, a sinner turns (repents) because God turns him. God's work precedes the repenting of the sinner. In the second passage, people repent, are converted, because God calls them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)