Featured Is carnal christianity biblically correct?

Considering men like The Apostle Paul and Calvin as well as Matthew Henry taught that doctrine of it is eradicated that would mean years of doctrine teaching of many centuries of the church would be eradicated. What else do you want to eradicate that is the truth and has been taught for centuries, or maybe you want to add works to salvation

 

What scenario was given by Paul washer and who is Paul washer, never heard of him

 

so you believe Calvin was wrong here:

Calvin in his commentary on the 1 Corinthians 3 states this:
"Hence, with the view of beating down so much the better their insolence, he declares, that they belong to the company of those who, stupefied by carnal sense, are not prepared to receive the spiritual wisdom of God. He softens down, it is true, the harshness of his reproach by calling them brethren, but at the same time he brings it forward expressly as a matter of reproach against them, that their minds were suffocated with the darkness of the flesh to such a degree that it formed a hindrance to his preaching among them. What sort of sound judgment then must they have, when they are not fit and prepared as yet even for hearing! He does not mean, however, that they were altogether carnal, so as to have not one spark of the Spirit of God — but that they had still greatly too much of carnal sense, so that the flesh prevailed over the Spirit, and did as it were drown out his light. Hence, although they were not altogether destitute of grace, yet, as they had more of the flesh than of the Spirit, they are on that account termed carnal This sufficiently appears from what he immediately adds — that they were babes in Christ; for they would not have been babes had they not been begotten, and that begetting is from the Spirit of God.

Babes in Christ This term is sometimes taken in a good sense, as it is by Peter, who exhorts us to be like new-born babes, (1 Peter 2:2,) and in that saying of Christ,

Unless ye become as these little children,
ye shall not enter into the kingdom of God, (Luke 18:17.)

Here, however, it is taken in a bad sense, as referring to the understanding. For we must be children in malice, but not in understanding, as he says afterwards in 1 Corinthians 14:20, — a distinction which removes all occasion of doubt as to the meaning. To this also there is a corresponding passage in Ephesians 4:14."

 

And do you believe Matthew Henry wrong, Matthew Henry states in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 3:
"Paul blames the Corinthians for their weakness and nonproficiency. Those who are sanctified are so only in part: there is still room for growth and increase both in grace and knowledge, 2 Peter 3:18. Those who through divine grace are renewed to a spiritual life may yet in many things be defective. The apostle tells them he could not speak to them as unto spiritual men, but as unto carnal men, as to babes in Christ, 1 Corinthians 3:1. They were so far from forming their maxims and measures upon the ground of divine revelation, and entering into the spirit of the gospel, that is was but too evident they were much under the command of carnal and corrupt affections. They were still mere babes in Christ. They had received some of the first principles of Christianity, but had not grown up to maturity of understanding in them, or of faith and holiness; and yet it is plain, from several passages in this epistle, that the Corinthians were very proud of their wisdom and knowledge....He blames them for their carnality, and mentions their contention and discord about their ministers as evidence of it: For you are yet carnal; for whereas there are among you envyings, and strifes, and divisions, are you not carnal, and walk as men? 1 Corinthians 3:3. They had mutual emulations, and quarrels, and factions among them, upon the account of their ministers, while one said, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos, 1 Corinthians 3:4. These were proofs of their being carnal, that fleshly interests and affections too much swayed them. Note, Contentions and quarrels about religion are sad evidences of remaining carnality. True religion makes men peaceable and not contentious. Factious spirits act upon human principles, not upon principles of true religion; they are guided by their own pride and passions, and not by the rules of Christianity: Do you not walk as men? Note, It is to be lamented that many who should walk as Christians, that is, above the common rate of men, do indeed walk as men, live and act too much like other men."

Both Calvin and Matthew Henry taught of this passage meaning carnal Christians not because of the egregious sin in Chapter 5, but because of the envies and strife divisions, emulations and quarrels and even the factions among them. Much like churches and church member s today.

 

Icon has posted all this scripture in defense of his belief that one is saved by works.
That is sad.

 

You are a liar.
I do not believe we are saved by works. I have never, nor would ever say such a thing.
Unlike you, I do not believe we are saved without works;
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works
You asked me in the other thread why I am negative towards you, and then suggest I do not believe the gospel but have a works based salvation , basically questioning my salvation by your lie.
Why do you do this? there have been many in the last few years who wondered about your conduct.
So you looked at the scripture I posted and you could not get it right once again.
At this point it does not surprise me. I understand that you are unable to see what we see.
Again...failing to answer the bell it is you who seek to attack me, questioning the saving gospel that I believe because you cannot reconcile the verses.

 

I quoted you word for word. It is precisely what you said. If you would like to go back to your original post and clarify what you said or meant to say, that is up to you.

 

You did not quote me word for word. I clearly STATED THOSE WHO DO NOT GO INTO HEAVEN are judged by their works, or lack of works done in the body as scripture declares.
The unsaved would have to be sinless ly perfect to "earn or merit heaven"....it is impossible in that ALL SINNED in Adam, and all sin by experience.
I have posted this for years.
For you to suggest otherwise is sinful.
You are without excuse.
Christians believe in a salvation that works...the good works of the elect are ordained of God.
We work out our salvation, we do not work for it.phil2

 

Yes....All sinned at one point in time. .
The fall

 

Paul spent what was beliveved to be 18 months in Corinth when first establishing the church on the second missionary journey believed to be from A.D. 49-52, the book of 1 Corinthians was written in what is belived to be A.D. 53-54 so the believers there had been saved approximately 4 years. With 18 months under the apostle plus anther 20-30 months after that. Paul had to write them and called them babes. I guess a babe in Christ could be 4 years old. I think there are many babes in Christ who have been saved over 10 years and failed to grow and mature. But that would make many of them carnal.

now as for the man in 1 Corinthians 5:

Here we see Calvin on this:

"For as the salvation equally with the condemnation of the spirit is eternal, he takes the condemnation of the flesh as meaning temporal condemnation. “We will condemn him in this world for a time, that the Lord may preserve him in his kingdom.” This furnishes an answer to the objection, by which some endeavor to set aside this exposition, for as the sentence of excommunication is directed rather against the soul than against the outward man, they inquire how it can be called the destruction of the flesh My answer, then, is, (as I have already in part stated,) that the destruction of the flesh is opposed to the salvation of the spirit, simply because the former is temporal and the latter is eternal. In this sense the Apostle in Hebrews 5:7, uses the expression the days of Christ ’s flesh, to mean the course of his mortal life. Now the Church in chastising offenders with severity, spares them not in this world, in order that God may spare them. (282) Should any one wish to have anything farther in reference to the rite of excommunication, its causes, necessity, purposes, and limitation, let him consult my Institutes."

Here again we see Calvin stating the man was saved and his soul preserved for eternity, but that the fleshly living he was guilty of was to be dealt with by the church. He sees him as saved but practicing sin.

Henry states:

"Others think the apostle is not to be understood of mere excommunication, but of a miraculous power or authority they had of delivering a scandalous sinner into the power of Satan, to have bodily diseases inflicted, and to be tormented by him with bodily pains, which is the meaning of the destruction of the flesh. In this sense the destruction of the flesh has been a happy occasion of the salvation of the spirit. It is probable that this was a mixed case. It was an extraordinary instance: and the church was to proceed against him by just censure; the apostle, when they did so, put forth an act of extraordinary power, and gave him up to Satan, nor for his destruction, but for his deliverance, at least for the destruction of the flesh, that the soul might be saved. Note, The great end of church-censures is the good of those who fall under them, their spiritual and eternal good. It is that their spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus, 1 Corinthians 5:5. Yet it is not merely a regard to their benefit that is to be had in proceeding against them."

One more John Gill:
(November 23, 1697-October 14, 1771) an English Baptist, a biblical scholar, and a staunch Calvinist.
Verse 5
"To deliver such an one unto Satan,.... This, as before observed, is to be read in connection with 1 Corinthians 5:3 and is what the apostle there determined to do with this incestuous person; namely, to deliver him unto Satan; by which is meant, not the act of excommunication, or the removing of him from the communion of the church, which is an act of the whole church, and not of any single person; whereas this was what the church had nothing to do with; it was not what they were to do, or ought to do, but what the apostle had resolved to do; and which was an act of his own, and peculiar to him as an apostle, see 1 Timothy 1:20. Nor is this a form of excommunication; nor was this phrase ever used in excommunicating persons by the primitive churches; nor ought it ever to be used; it is what no man, or set of men, have power to do now, since the ceasing of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, which the apostles were endowed with; who, as they had a power over Satan to dispossess him from the bodies of men, so to deliver up the bodies of men into his hands, as the apostle did this man's:


for the destruction of the flesh; that is, that his body might be shook, buffeted, afflicted, and tortured in a terrible manner; that by this means he might be brought to a sense of his sin, to repentance for it, and make an humble acknowledgment of it:

that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus; that he might be renewed in the spirit of his mind, be restored by repentance, and his soul be saved in the day of Christ; either at death, when soul and body would be separated, or at the day of the resurrection, when both should be reunited; for the flesh here means, not the corruption of nature, in opposition to the spirit, as a principle of grace, but the body, in distinction from the soul: nor was the soul of this man, only his body, delivered for a time unto Satan; the end of which was, that his soul might be saved, which could never be done by delivering it up to Satan: and very wrongfully is this applied to excommunication; when it is no part of excommunication, nor the end of it, to deliver souls to Satan, but rather to deliver them from him. The phrase seems to be Jewish, and to express that extraordinary power the apostles had in those days, as well in giving up the bodies to Satan, for a temporal chastisement, as in delivering them from him. The Jews say, that Solomon had such a power; of whom they tell the following storyF5:

"one day he saw the angel of death grieving; he said to him, why grievest thou? he replied, these two Cushites have desired of me to sit here, "he delivered them to the devil"; the gloss is, these seek of me to ascend, for their time to die was come; but he could not take away their souls, because it was decreed concerning them, that they should not die but in the gate of Luz, מסרינהו שלמה לשעירים "Solomon delivered them to the devils", for he was king over them, as it is written, 1 Chronicles 29:12 for he reigned over them, that are above, and them that are below.'

The phrase is much the same as here, and the power which they, without any foundation, ascribe to Solomon, the apostles had: this is their rod which they used, sometimes in striking persons dead, sometimes by inflicting diseases on them themselves; and at other times by delivering them up into the hands of Satan to be afflicted and terrified by him, which is the case here. And it may be observed, that the giving up of Job into the hands of Satan, by the Lord, is expressed in the Septuagint version by the same word as here; for where it is said, Job 2:6 "behold, he is in thine hand"; that version renders it, "behold, παραδιδωμισοι αυτον, I deliver him to thee", that is, to Satan; and which was done, that his body might be smote with sore boils by him, as it was; only his life was to be preserved, that he was not suffered to touch."


All these men saw the man in 1 Corinthians as saved that is his soul was preserved, but the flesh should be destroyed if the man repented not of walking in that sin.

this teaching which you stated needed to eradicated goes back to the Apostle Paul, it was seen by Calvin, Henry and John Gill. They saw the teaching of carnal believers as truth based on what Paul wrote here in Corinthians, so why should it be eradicated?

 

Let me give you a few scenario's real life ones:

A man professes salvation, is a strong church member. A charter member of the church and faithful in giving, teaching and working for the good of the church. Then one day the pastor along with the pastors wife are in a car crash, the pastor wife killed and the pastor injured severely. This man's wife goes to help the pastor heal and rejuvinate and she ends up leaving her husband and divorcing him to marry the preacher. she takes their children with her, he is devastated. From that time on he never serves in a church, he will not even enter one for normal services. Thinks all pastors are devious and he begins to curse, and live as a sinner. Was this man saved and carnal or never saved?

Second a young man grows up in a church attends faithfully. Witnesses to his friends and even leads some to the Lord. But in his adult life his attitude changes. He begins to see almost everyone in the church as a hypocrite, leaves his wife and eventually divorces her and remarries. But will not go to normal church services. Was this man saved or lost. He showed all the sins of being saved and even brought others who serve the church faithfully to Christ so is he lost or saved?

 

But can a plant with no root produce good fruit, that is can a non believer a lost person lead someone else to salvation?