Featured Do Christians Have an Inner Struggle with Sin or the Flesh?

I agree with Tyndale's response: "a failure to communicate."
You have not attempted to address even one point in the post.
Your entire post is an attack filled with ad hominems, which according to the rules should not be allowed to stand.

Here is a good example:
You define "carnal," as an unbeliever, but you have no qualms in using the adjective in addressing me:
...boasting carnally and saying...
Thus inferring I am an unsaved person boasting on this board.
Thanks Icon. That was a very nice compliment telling me in your own words that I am a boastful unsaved person. Anything else you would like to unload with your AK-47?

 

I have offered you help for your problem understanding this.
You refuse the help.you refused it then and you refuse it now.
The sermons would clear up your misunderstanding.
You stubbornly resist then you keep coming back expecting a different result, or we are going to follow you in your error it is misguided on your part.
Then your usual making up what you think we are posting when we did not say it,.....get a grip on yourself. You are a liar when you shamefully post saying it was my own words......my own words that YOU supplied....lol ...what a clown.
No one takes you serious with this because you have tried this on all of us....even TC.....knows you do this......so give it up already.
You do not fool me.....never have.....never will. I know who and what you are.

 

Again, more ad hominems with no attempt to answer the post.
This doesn't deserve an answer.

 

Are you Icon's cheerleader? Or are you just honing your ability to denigrate others?
Your post also doesn't deserve an answer, rather it shows an inability to debate and answer the post that was given.

 

You will not find where I have done those things recently unless you do a search.
But it seems you are set in your ways.

 

We are on the seventh page of this thread. Instead of going back to the beginning and reading through everything I answered another's post. The reply I got was full of nasty insults and not worth replying back to. However, if you would like to respond to that answer, I would more than welcome it.

 

Two points:

First:
The NASB gives a much clearer and better rendering (imo) of the 1 Corinthians passage:

1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able [to receive it]. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?
​

The attribute, of what is commonly called the "carnal Christian," concerns one that lacks maturity, one that has remained an infant of infantile character.

What I disagree is those that would appoint such as "apostates." For the apostate is one possibly (from my experience) who would fit Hebrews 6:6. One has to have acquired some knowledge and some understanding to have turned away or rejected that principle or religion or practice.

But, the immature believer needs to grow up, or God's just judgment of fiery purging will attend to their life. Often (imo) touching the ones they love the most in such a way as to drive them to their knees in Godly repentance.

There was a book that used "soulish" in the title. I don't have it anymore, but recall that wee little book having great impact on my understanding of needing to grow up in the Spirit.

Because there are believers who are immature, and who do not mature, Paul warns and pleads with them, rebuking their attitude of squandering opportunity for growth, fellowship, and usefulness to God.

Generally, I think that the teaching that there are no "Carnal Christians" is a bit misleading, especially when folks do allow that there is need for maturity and growth in the believer to move them from the fleshly into a practiced denial of the fleshly. One cannot teach such a progression, and project that "carnal" fleshly believers who need to mature are actually not believers at all.

As Paul states: (Galatians 5)

"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

​

It is important to note: Paul is not saying that if a believer fails in one or more of the "deeds of the flesh" that it is an indication that person is not saved, or that person has lost their salvation.

Rather, Paul is putting the same emphasis that John uses. That a person who is a believer will not PRACTICE sinful behavior. They will not continue without rebuke from God. One cannot continue to mock God and expect to not reap a destruction of the flesh. It was so in the Corinthian church, evidenced in Ananias and Sapphira, was warned about by Paul and discussed by John, and throughout the ages many historical anecdotes can be read and told of the rebuke God brings to the believer.

I would caution anyone reading this thread to not be caught up in such things as "sinless perfection" or that one is not at war with the fleshly, and need not die daily (often more than once) as Paul says, crucify the flesh(ly).

Second:

Icon, I think that your use of the word "passion" and the general public use of "passion" may be causing a bit of a problem in communication.

I take it that your statement saying that God is passionless is placing the term as one not having "strong and barely controlled emotion. In this you are correct. And that is the appropriate long used definition.

Unfortunately, the general public no longer seems to have that definition in mind when they use the word.

"Passion," in the general public eye is more of emotive feelings such as grief, sorrow, love, joy, ... those things which are much less than what the word "passion" should actually mean.

Therefore, when some are making claims about your statement, they may be accurate within the defining of the term as they are accustomed. You also accurate most accurate in the use of the term. There is a level of miscommunication that I am reading in the posts.

You are correct that God is not controlled by strong barely controlled emotions.

Others are correct that God does know and is touched by the feelings of our infirmities.

 

agedman,

ok

Agedman....The bad theology of what is known as the "carnal Christian heresy "is not supported by this passage. This passage is dealing with one thing,and one thing only...
They were arguing saying I am of Paul, I am of Apollos,etc....
The passage is not introduced to suggest that there are a whole class of christians who just live like the unsaved for days ,weeks and years.
That teaching is a complete and utter denial of the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

No....that is not where the heart of this discussion goes..
You see here on BB those who defend the false altar call, and making of decisions, or accepting Jesus. These man made tricks fail as the flesh wears out. The carnal Christian doctrine is a falsehood to cover for all the baptized goats that they then have to make excuses for.

Sure...there are some believers who are immature, but they are Spiritual, not carnal. Weak, but spiritual. kata pneuma...If anyone is kata sarka, they are not saved.

That is not what 1 cor 3 is about.

proper teaching and discipleship cures this problem.

There has been a recent controversy of sorts over this issue.

God is not a man. Jesus incarnation was needful for the accomplishment of redemption, and His intercession on our behalf. You try to find the middle ground, but there is no such middle ground, as God is perfection in all His Holy Attributes.

 

DHK

There was no response because I have explained to you, the sermons you refused to consider answered all of your objections and then some. Until you listen to them I have nothing to say to you about it.

They are not attacks at all. They are accurate and honest descriptions of your posts. Remember when I just collected about 20 of your posts and listed them all together and you deleted that post, and gave me infractions??? Remember that??? Well so do we, that is why most people avoid responding to you.

When in reality >>..I did no such thing. Where did I define carnal at all?

all such proud boasting is in the flesh, carnal....why would I have trouble saying that. Paul did not have any trouble saying that the corinthians were "acting as if unsaved"....!

I let your posts speak for themselves...there is no need for me to add any commentary on it.

If you think that in your own head, unprovoked, maybe your conscience is working on you...self examination is healthy.

 

I agree that the main issue that Paul is discussing is the puffing up some immature do, do. But, that is the point. Paul was dealing with that issue, but in a way that he had to treat them as immature believers. Fleshly, carnal, or whatever the translators determined. What theme Paul is addressing does not have a bearing upon what he states of the condition of the audience. They are two separate issues. Sort of like a preacher teaching on John 3, with 5 year old children rather than mature aged men. The language used and the illustration given have to fit the audience. Paul, teaching about the inappropriateness of puffing up, is calling the audience fleshly (carnal).

The "carnal Christian doctrine." I don't know that I encountered that doctrine.

But I totally understand what you are getting at with the statement. I, as others have indicated, do agree with the sentiment. However, I do consider that perhaps the linking of carnal Christian to a falsehood of which those who defend poor practices and beliefs may be presenting a conflict of little worth.

Generally speaking, it would be far better to do as Paul does, by listing the deeds of the flesh and plainly stating that if you are one who claims to be a believer and practices without rebuke that which is of the flesh, you are delusional. There is a determination of eternal consequences between one who practices unrebuked sin, and one who confesses and embraces the cleansing (1 John) of Christ for sin.

I agree, however, from the opening of Genesis, God was able to understand the emotional side of humankind. He in creating endowed the creation with the attributes He has. One is that of emotion. He is not surrendered to "barely controlled emotion" but is certainly not unfeeling.

That is why His attributes include the emotional side such as love, wrath, joy, mercy, gentleness, ...

In each of those attributes He is most certainly perfect.
His work is perfect.
His peace is perfect.
He has perfect knowledge.
His faithfulness is perfect.
Perfect love casts out fear.
As Matthew (5) records, God is perfect.

But, I do not hold that God is emotionless. But that (keeping with your definition) God is passionless.

I also am no longer prepared to hold that God needed to experience through Christ to be able to gain some understanding of that which He created, be it hunger, tiredness, strain... Again, the fact that humankind have these (though fallen) is reflective of the creators understanding of those attributes.

That God does not run to the extreme (as do humankind) into "passion" is also part of His attributes.

This thinking is not "middle ground." Rather, it is consistent with the presentation of God through His Scriptures.

For example:
David says of God, "try the heart and delight in uprightness." Delight is an emotional response to a catalyst.

I don't mean to proof text, but you know the Scriptures as do I.

 

Baptist Board is a debate board, a place for exchange and discussion of one another's ideas. Let me quote some of the rules you agreed to:

This is a private Baptist board. BaptistBoard.com is run by a group of Administrators and Moderators who have volunteered to help out with the site.

2. Use discretion when posting. Not all topics are beneficial or edifying to the board.

3. Show grace to the other posters. When someone disagrees with you, discuss it; but be slow to offend, and eager to get into the Word and find the answers. Remember, when discussing passionate issues, it is easy to go too far and offend. Further, if we are "earnestly contending for the faith" it would be unrealistic not to expect at times to be misunderstood or even ridiculed. But please note that your words can sometimes be harsh if used in the wrong way. The anger of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

Note, that we should be eager to get into the Word and find the answers, not eager to go to designated websites. That is not what debate is. Debate in this forum is not on your terms. That is childish. "Do as I say or I won't talk to you." Is that a threat? or just a childish statement saying that as long as I don't hear or read your precious material you are never going to talk to me again (holding a grudge).
This childish behavior is not debate and has no place on this board.

A few posts ago you just called me unsaved. I pointed that out for you. The entire post was full of ad hominems. Instead of responding to the post you reacted, and did so in a very poor way.

Agedman quoted you recently:

Thus every person who is carnal is an unbeliever. Correct? And you did call me carnal.

Again, you said (and Agedman quoted)

You have made it quite clear that any person who is called a "carnal Christian" is not a Christian at all, but rather a goat, an unbeliever. Your definitions are clear enough.

But what did Paul say:
1 Corinthians 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

(EMTV) for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal, and walking according to human principles?

(ESV) for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way?
--They were carnal. They were not like the carnal; they were carnal, fleshly believers.

Instead of an apology you offer another attack. That is sad.

 

Just a bit of reflection:

Perhaps when two long time posters get attacked, are attacked, or attack each other, readers should step way back and realize there may be history involved. Most of us don't know all that history, nor do we desire to know. It is best that the history be acknowledged and move on.

More than once, I have seen posters who would make an apology, and more often it takes time for a new character construct to take place. Especially, when posters have a long list of postings.

What is helpful is to show agreement where agreement can be found.

Doing so tends to focuses the disagreement to what is specifically disagreeable, and it also lessens the flakes of dust that cloud the issues at hand on a thread.

I am not always good at doing this, but I have seen it effectively used by others.

By now, it is clear that the disagreement on this thread is multifaceted:

There is contention over that use of prayer and alter calls that is a hold over from the evangelistic days, but can be used effectively in these times if one establishes how the use can be Scriptural. That is, as was pointed out on another thread, Dr. John R. Rice did not say, "Pray this prayer after me to be saved." When he dealt with folks for salvation, it was both biblical and solid. The history of abuse is part of the argument presented by Icon. It is a good argument and needs to be properly aired.

There is also the use of the words "carnal" and "passion." Both these word are being used (imo) with some variation of meaning between the posters which brings a great deal of tension and misunderstanding. Would it not be better to tease out how the poster is using the terms rather than assuming that everyone is on the same page or book? I perceive that you are not using the same definition of "passion" that Icon is, nor is he using "carnal" in the same manner that you are.

There is also the matter of words chosen in a post. I have often seen (sadly so) that some editing needed to be done before the "post reply" button is pushed. Personally, I like that little encouragement in the rules that suggest that one "edit" their posts. It is not shameful to do so when one considers that they may have been a bit over zealous - perhaps harsh or judgmental. And, when another poster points it out, it is not shameful, to acknowledge the edit and why. I should be far more practicing this than I do.

I very much enjoy reading Icon and your posts. Often, the Scriptures ring agreement in my heart, yet, as you know, I am not one to be shy when I consider that there is a need to disagree. Icon has a lot of windshield time in which he can listen and reflect upon various preaching / teaching. You are a practical man of evangelism. Your world view is shaped by that commission of the Lord in your heart - that missionary spirit. Where Icon seeks the Lord's guidance to testify of Him as He travels, you have a more specific field of influence and perhaps a community of support.

You both attend to the Scriptures from a different perspective, and neither is particularly wrong or harmful, unless posting to each other. And neither of you fully agree with me - that is for sure and certain.

As one wise poster said, leave the pronoun "you" out of posting, and there is less conflict.

Just a bit of reflection that has gone on far too long.

 

DHK

You do not get to define and dictate the rules

You violate this when we offer good links and you refuse to look at them....so you have nothing to say at all.

The links I post are loaded with scripture. If you were interested in truth you would avail yourself of them....but you have an agenda that goes against these directives.
because the links contradict and correct your error ,exposing them...you dislike them and rail against them....we see exactly what you are about.

So once again you think it is all about you and what you think....people do not agree with you and you do not like it. That is what is going on.

The only childish thing on here is your posting this garbage. If you do not want to participate, put me on ignore and stop whining.

I only enjoy interacting with those who enjoy truth. You evidently are into something else. Stay away from me, as I prefer to deal with honest persons who are looking for the same thing I am...good edifying interaction.

 

Yes, I will try to leave the pronoun "you" out in the future. Originally my post was simply meant to answer some simple points and there was absolutely no malice in it whatsoever.

It can be seen here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...th-sin-or-the-flesh.98120/page-6#post-2207495

But none of the points were addressed. Just a flurry of personal attacks, especially of this nature:
http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...th-sin-or-the-flesh.98120/page-6#post-2207758
and that was unfortunate.