Are ye not carnal

[Judith]

In writing to the church in Corinth Paul says this in Chapter 3:1
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

3For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

4For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Before I pose my question, this is not to insight strife, but rather to enlighten. If claiming to be of Paul or of Apollos or anyone else for our doctrinal beliefs is being carnal, and it is because we should be only for the Truth without using some person's name to elevate ourselves, isn't claiming to be a Calvinist just a carnal?

Isn't God's word enough or does it need some man's name as a forward to justify its truth? Shouldn't we drop the title and just hold to doctrinal truth. Isn't that what the Spirit is teaching in 1Cor. 3?

 

[kyredneck]

If claiming to be of Paul or of Apollos or anyone else for our doctrinal beliefs is being carnal

I don't get that from the text, that the divisions were from doctrinal beliefs.

isn't claiming to be a Calvinist just a carnal?

If claiming to be a Calvinist for doctrinal differentiation is carnal, so is claiming to be a Baptist. I would say 'anti-Cals' love to peg 'sovereign gracers' as 'Calvinists' for this very reason - to group them in with those described in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, to dishonestly portray them as followers of a man instead of followers of Christ, when the fact is the majority of 'Calvinists' know little or nothing of John Calvin. They're Monergists, and their accusers are Synergists:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Before I pose my question, this is not to insight strife, but rather to enlighten. If claiming to be of Paul or of Apollos or anyone else for our doctrinal beliefs is being carnal, and it is because we should be only for the Truth without using some person's name to elevate ourselves, isn't claiming to be a Calvinist just a carnal?

Isn't God's word enough or does it need some man's name as a forward to justify its truth? Shouldn't we drop the title and just hold to doctrinal truth. Isn't that what the Spirit is teaching in 1Cor. 3?

To be a Calvinist is not to be a follower of Calvin. If it were then I would have to be a Presbyterian, and paedobaptist and an approver of the burning of Servatus, none of which I am.
Calvinism is a historic term, meaning to approve of the five points produced by the Synod of Dort, more than 50 years after the death of Calvin. Most people know what the term means and I see no reason to abandon it.. I believe that the five points are all readily discernable from Scripture.

 

[37818]

There are fundamental disagreements as to the identity of the milk of the word.
The writer to the Hebrews in Hebrews 5:12-13, ". . . the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. . . ."

 

[JonC]

To be a Calvinist is not to be a follower of Calvin. If it were then I would have to be a Presbyterian, and paedobaptist and an approver of the burning of Servatus, none of which I am.
Calvinism is a historic term, meaning to approve of the five points produced by the Synod of Dort, more than 50 years after the death of Calvin. Most people know what the term means and I see no reason to abandon it.. I believe that the five points are all readily discernable from Scripture.

Well, to be fair the five points were articulated by Calvinists as a rebuttal of the Five Articles (of another then Calvinistic group).

Without the Calvinist schism the five points would not exist. And they only really work in a Calvinistic system (the 5 points also go together, they are interdependent).

Better called "Calvinist" than "Gomarisist" or "Bezatite" . But Calvin preferred "Reformed".