Nepaug Bible Church - http://www.nepaugchurch.org - Pastor's Sermon Notes - http://www.nepaugchurch.org/Sermons/zz20070218.htm

THRU THE BIBLE EXPOSITION
1 Corinthians: Discipling Believers With Very Sinful Backgrounds
II. Overcoming Human Personality Followings
F. Interpreting Scripture "Normally" As God's Path For Us To His Truth
(1 Corinthians 4:7 et al.)

Introduction: (To show the need . . . )

After giving last Sunday's message out of 1 Corinthians 4:6, a Church member approached me to suggest that I qualify its main point. Yes, he agreed with my claim that God expects every "layman" to be able to interpret Scripture for himself, but he suggested I state that just because any believer can interpret Scripture did NOT mean we were to tolerate many different interpretations by many different people!

Of course, he is right! There is one and ONLY ONE correct interpretation to any given Bible passage, a truth that is the thrust in today's message! In fact, I am persuaded that fourth century A. D. Bishop Augustine's mishandling of the very next verse in our trek through 1 Corinthians (that of 1 Corinthians 4:7) eventually led to the debate between Calvinists and Arminians that is yielding troubling fallout for today's Church: (1) Dave Hunt's February, 2007 issue of his newsletter, The Berean Call, p. 6 has him claiming: "Everywhere I go, Christians tell me that Calvinism is causing confusion and division in increasing numbers of churches." (2) A letter to Hunt posted in the same newsletter from a believer whose Baptist pastor came under the influence of Calvinistic Presbyterians states: "I . . . am grieved with the ongoing controversy over Calvinism and the free will of man." (3) Consequently, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary writes that he thinks the whole evangelical movement is now deadlocked in a rift between the Calvinist "Doctrine Party'" and the Arminian "Experience Party.'" (John H. Armstrong, gen. ed., The Coming Evangelical Crisis, p. 32-33).

So, in handling 1 Corinthians 4:7 today, I will seek to do what I wish some Christian leader had done for me 40 years ago -- I could have avoided much personal unrest had that been the case! So, to spare you that unrest, this message will cover how and why Augustine mishandled 1 Corinthians 4:7, and show how his misinterpretation led to the (Augustinian) Calvinist versus (Pelagian) Arminian debate that has so deeply impacted the Church. We will reveal not only the RIGHT WAY to interpret 1 Corinthians 4:7, but also show what that verse ACTUALLY teaches in its CONTEXT, and thus discern WHY and HOW to INTERPRET ANY Scripture passage with ACCURACY!

(We turn to the sermon "Need" section . . . )

Need: "Pastor, if as you say the mishandling of 1 Corinthians 4:7 led to great problems, how did it occur, what is the right interpretation, and what can we learn from it all on interpreting Scripture WELL?!"
  1. By trying to HARMONIZE PAGAN Platonic philosophy with CHRISTIAN doctrine, Augustine mishandled 1 Corinthians 4:7 to arrive at the ERRANT view that GOD AUTHORS MAN'S FAITH :
    1. B. B. Warfield's work, Calvin and Augustine, alleged by J. M. Kik, Ass. Ed. of Christianity Today to excel in evaluating the theologies of Calvin and Augustine (Ibid., p. v), holds Augustine tried "to construct a Christian philosophy out of Platonic materials," Ibid., p. 375.
    2. Well, Platonism is pantheistic, asserting a great "Good" comprises the upper realm of all that is reality, cf. Gordon Carruth, ed. in chief, The Volume Library , 1994, vol. 22, p. 2025, s. v. "Ancient Philosophy."
    3. Augustine's effort to harmonize Platonism with Christianity led him to equate Plato's "Good" to be the Christian God (Ibid.), and since this "Good" encompasses all reality, Augustine formed a pantheistic bias where man is but an extension of God, Williston Walker, A Hist. of the Christian Church, rev. by C. C. Richardson, 1959, p. 98, 163f.
    4. Hence, Augustine "emphasized the omnipotence of God and set limits to the freedom of the will," E. M. Burns, West. Civ., 6th ed., p. 272.
    5. His view of 1 Corinthians 4:7 through his Platonic bias led Augustine to conclude that "The faith by which we are Christians is the gift of God" (Ibid., Walker, p. 165 in citing Augustine's "Predestination, 3"; Ibid., Warfield, p. 373). We cite B. B. Warfield's work (Ibid.) on p. 378 that in turn cites Augustine in his own words on this subject:
      1. "It was chiefly 1 Cor. iv. 7 . . . But here we will listen to his own [Augustine's] words: It was especially by this passage that I myself also was convinced, when I erred [like he felt others did in] . . . thinking that the faith by which we believe in God is not the gift of God, but that it is in us of ourselves . . .'" (brackets ours)
      2. Thus, where Paul in 1 Cor. 4:7 wrote: " . . . what hast thou that thou didst not receive?", Augustine concluded Paul claimed God authored the believer's faith in Christ by controlling his will at the moment of salvation, and that in alignment with Augustine's Platonic pantheistic bias that viewed man as an extension of God!
  2. When Calvin saw in Augustine one who stressed God's grace in salvation versus Catholicism's human-merit error, Calvin adopted Augustine's view that God authors faith! (E. A. Blum, "Augustine: The Bishop and Theologian," Bib. Sac., Vol. 138, No. 549, p. 58)
  3. Some reacted to give man free will by using heretic Pelagius' use of PAGAN STOICISM where Pelagius asserted man CONTRIBUTES to his SALVATION (opposite Ephesians 2:8-9) like Stoicism held that man can make himself do what he ought, Ibid., Walker, p. 168.
  4. Arminius later mirrored this old Stoic-impacted Pelagian error to counter Calvin's acceptance of Augustine's view on the authorship of faith, forming the long-standing Calvinist and Arminian debate!
  5. Thus, we CORRECT the mishandling of Scripture and its results:
    1. First, opposite Augustine's interpretation, 1 Corinthians 4:7 can NOT mean God gave believers a gift of faith to be saved: there would be no LOGICAL reason for Paul's carnal Christian readers (1 Cor. 1:2; 3:3) to boast in 1 Cor. 4:7b against each other of a gift they all had!
    2. No, the CONTEXT viewed "NORMALLY" (using the literal, grammatical, historical way to read Scripture) shows the gifts of which the Corinthians boasted were diverse gifts for service that God had given to them as believers, 1 Cor. 1:4-7; 3:5b; 12:11, 21-28!
    3. So, where Augustine erred in being swayed by pagan Platonism to see 1 Corinthians 4:7 teach God authored faith at salvation, (1) logic and (2) the context with (3) the "normal" view of Scripture shows Paul countered the pride in his readers who amassed personal followings via their spiritual gifts for service. Paul wanted them to credit God for giving such gifts to diffuse their human personality followings!
    4. Thus, pagan-impacted error affects both sides of the Calvinist versus Arminian debate: salvation is God's work apart from any human merit (opposite pagan-Stoic-laced Arminianism), and man authors his own faith (opposite pagan-Platonic-laced [Augustinian] Calvinism).
Application: (1) May we trust in Christ to be saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, John 3:16; 1 Cor. 2:12. (2) Then, may we (a) rely in the Spirit (b) to avoid the influence of man's philosophy and (b) logically, contextually, "normally" view Scripture for its truth!

Lesson: (1) Augustine and Pelagius with their followers (a) let PAGAN views AFFECT their interpretation (b) versus heeding the LOGICAL, CONTEXTUAL and "NORMAL" guidelines of the Bible. (2) So, (a) in the Holy Spirit's power, may we (b) submit MAN'S ideas to (c) the LOGICAL, CONTEXTUAL, "NORMAL" way of viewing Scripture!

Conclusion: (To illustrate the sermon lesson . . . )

Many Christians would respond to this message, claiming we can not justly critique the belief on the authorship of faith held by such "theological giants" like Augustine, Luther and Calvin! I know this to be so since I have fielded these responses from colleagues for decades!

In reply, we cite these giants themselves in support of our view:

(1) Augustine taught: "Do not follow my writings as Holy Scripture. When you find in Holy Scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt; but in my writings, you should hold nothing for certain." (J. M. Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, 1979, p. 18 in citing Augustine's "Preface to the Treatise on the Trinity."

Accordingly, we have heeded Augustine's charge to differ with his own writings when we they counter what the Bible itself reveals.

(2) Luther asserted at his landmark stand at the Diet of Worms: "Unless I am convicted of error by the testimony of Scripture or . . . by manifest reasoning I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me." (H. Bettenson, ed., Docs. of the Christ. Ch., p. 282-283)

Accordingly, we have followed Luther in not adopting beliefs that do not make logical sense regardless who or how many hold them!

(3) In responding to the charge of novelty brought by his Romanist foes against his views of what Scripture taught, Calvin wrote: "First, in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God, whose sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty . . . That it long lay buried and unknown is the guilty consequence of man's impiety; but now when, by the kindness of God, it is restored to us, it ought to resume its antiquity just as the returning citizen resumes his rights." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christ. Rel., trans. H. Beveridge, 1972, p. Vol. I, p. 8 (Prefatory Address to the King of France).

Accordingly, we have applied Calvin's words to uphold the truth even if it seems new or suspect to others who have followed Augustine or Pelagius, for our stance reflects the Bible's original truth!

May we rely on the indwelling Holy Spirit to resist man's errant philosophies in even approaching the Bible, and to apply logic, the Bible's context and the "normal" way of viewing the Bible to discern the one, true interpretation of any Bible passage!