Are There Such as "carnal" Christians?

When you say believer cannot live sinful lives and cannot fall into sin ways you are virtually in my view saying they will eventually live a sinless life. If they can't revert back to a sinful then the opposite of that would be true they must by mortifying sin become sinless.

Where as we will never reach sinless perfection on earth and scripture holds that we all believers can revert back to sinful ways.

 

God gave the pastor charge of that flock and if he feels it is his flock how much better will his protection of that flock be. God placed husbands and fathers in charge of the family but that family is not theirs by your view but Gods. While I see your point and his to say he is incorrect on the flock being his is not quite accurate. The sheep belong to God the local church as well as the flock is the pastors to feed and protect as if they are his own, they have charge of them.

 

No, if he feels it is His flock he will. The Biblical standard is to be observed, not your opinion or ideology on the matter.

Having charge over them does not make them his. We are only managers/stewards, not owners. Of anything.

Your take is unbiblical in all aspects.

You're leaning upon your own understanding here.

 

I said:

"You obviously haven't read Acts 20:14-31 very carefully."

If you don't understand the truths taught in that passage, then I meant what I said, no "slight" intended.

For what it is worth, you are entitled to your opinion. I am not going to debate it for it is derailing the thread.

 

That's funny, the "very carefully" part all of a sudden "appears," both in what you said, and in where I quoted you.

Not the first time I saw this.

 

Don't make false allegations. I quoted from your quote, and then checked my own post. No "words" or "phrases" suddenly appeared.

Now return to the OP.

 

I sense some veiled personal attacks. Stay away from them.

 

Do you have a problem with anything I said in that post?

 

This tells me you lack understanding completely. These are proven men...not antinomians. You "protect" those where you preach from truth.:tear:

 

I am just following your lead. You posted scripture, I posted scripture and you said it was a possible veiled personal attack so using your discovery tactics you also must be doing a veiled personal attack.

 

See this is where you are confused. The bible says this, not me;

He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Whosoever is born of God doth not (practice) commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot (practice) sin, because he is born of God.

So I believe what scripture says and you do not. No Christian can revert back to sin as you claim. It is impossible.

 

Following my lead in what??
Go back and read what you posted in your own post, #56

Keep in mind this:
Slander: "A false and malicious statement or report about someone."
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/slander

You made a false and malicious comparison concerning my church.
I told you rather politely, that "I sense a veiled personal attack here. Stay away from it."

Now where have I gone wrong? And why are you continuing to do the same?

 

You do not have a church. I tis the Lord's. Also what I said was not veiled.

 

revmac

You are basically saying ....yes... but you might lose a few rewards

is this your answer to this question???

[

For sin shall not have dominion over you...............

When paul says let not sin reign.....it is not a multiple choice option..it is instruction that sins power over a christian....is broken.

 

What "commandments" are these?
The Pauline Epistles for the Gentiles don't list any "commandments".

 

Only in your opinion.
Look, I use some of John MacArthur's material, just as I use some of Jamieson, Faucett and Brown's material, as well as Albert Barnes. What do all of these have in common? They are all Calvinists, thought they lived at different times. JFB and Barnes are not in agreement with MacArthur on Lordship salvation, nor on his doctrine of carnal Christians. I would rather defer to them then MacArthur on these two subjects. However MacArthur probably has some better ideas about the interpretation of Revelation than the latter two.

A wise person reads to reject. The Bible is his only guide--the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. As much as you hold some of these men in high esteem, my Bible is held in higher esteem then those men. Their theologies are going to crash at some point. The Bible never does. Some of MacArthur's views on Lordship salvation are bound to lead to antinomianism. I will leave it at that.

 

Before I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Now you have come right out and made slanderous statements. This is against BB rules. Why are you doing this?
Here is what you posted:

1. In this post you just said "If you have paterned a church..."
That is an admission that I do have a church, and that I have patterned it after another church (which is false).
2. In this present post you have lied or contradicted yourself, for you now have said, "You do not have a church." First you said I do have a church, and now you say I don't. Which statement is true and which one is a lie?
3. I'll accept what you say now: "it was not veiled." It was a straight out slanderous false accusation that you should have never made in the first place, and are continuing to do so. What agenda do you have? What reason do you have?

 

DHK,
Thank you for your response. You have expressed your understanding...what more can be asked of you. It is obvious we are not close to being on the same page here. I have come to a conclusion based or your remarks...but I am not here to maintain a relentless attack on you or anyone else.
Sorry I could not be of more help at this time.

like i said earlier on the thread......My BIBLE.....as if these other mens bible was somehow different:BangHead:

not even close...this is where you lack understanding and need more study

 

It's not meant to be a pejorative. It is after all, "my Bible," not that it isn't any different than yours. It shouldn't offend you. "my Bible," "the Bible," means the same thing to me. I am not KJVO. I am a missionary and use the same expression in different languages.

No, I have studied this doctrine out very carefully. I didn't intend to get into it here. Should start another thread on it. But let me give you an example of how far astray he is.

Suppose you lived in England in the time that the KJV was written, when James was King. That was the period of time when the Kings wielded the power and were not just figureheads. If you were a good citizen you would obey the king. He was the King, the "lord" of the nation, and all would give him his due honor, respect, and obedience. He, after all, is YOUR king; your lord.
Now if you, of your own volition, wanted to be a rebellious citizen, that would be your decision. You could violate the law. You could be a rebel. There have been many rebels throughout history, and many of them have been put to death. Your decision.
But whether obedient or disobedient, one thing you cannot change is the fact that James is still your king, your lord. Even if you are completely carnal and disobedient you are still a citizen of that nation and you are his subject and he is your king. You cannot get away from that fact. He is your king no matter what you do.

When I receive Christ as my Savior he is my king, my Lord. Whether I am carnal or obedient he still is my Lord. If I am disobedient he will lay his hand of chastisement upon me, but I am still his child, his subject. He is still my Lord. That will never change. Even if I am carnal; he is still my Lord. I am a citizen of his country (Phil.3:20), and always will be. I may not be a model citizen but I will always be a citizen. I may not be a model child, but I will always be His child. I may not be the most loyal subject, buy I will always be a subject of the king. He is my Lord no matter what.

Therein lies the doctrinal error of MacArthur.

 

You added the words "very carefully".

They weren't there prior.

And you know it. But that's OK with me, I know why.

This isn't the first time you've gone in and edited out things you've said. You know that as well.