Carnal or Lost

[Iconoclast]

It is not my business to be right or wrong. That is what I don't get about you guys. You set yourselves up as gods judging others.

My business as a pastor/counselor is to take the Word of God and apply it to that person's life no matter where he is at this point. The Word of God will reveal where he is--saved, carnal, backslidden, unsaved, etc. That is not my business. It is God's. I am a vessel to be used for God, a conduit for His Word, a counselor with enough wisdom to point him in the right direction. God does the work, not me.

Why do you people want to play God, when that is the obvious duty of the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God?
Truly Amazing!!

If you mean what you say you would double check your view when others tell you it is pure error...we are no ones judge, but there are more than 30 one another passages in the nt that tell us to watch out one for another...

 

[DHK]

I do not deny the word of God; I deny your flawed interpretation.

Mine comes straight from the Word of God; not Icon's links.

You do realize I said "by those" referring to people like you referring to your Carnal Christan" doctrine right?

And you reply in kind using the same definitions.

Hold on... before we go further. What is your definition of a Carnal Christian?

It doesn't come from Icon's links.

I think we are talking past each other since we have not agreed on definitions.

According to Icon's link (which I finally looked at), most of you believe that there are two kinds of individuals: spiritual and natural or unsaved. It is a false premise to start with. It doesn't take into consideration many other scriptures.
Furthermore, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt have you ever considered that those groups (especially spiritual) may have subgroups.
And they do.
There are Christians who are spiritual.
There are Christians who are carnal. (1Cor.3)
There are Christians who are legalistic (Acts 15)
There are Christians who are worldly (James 4:4)

It is far too simplistic to say that all Christians are spiritual and all the rest of the world is unsaved.
Much of the world is spiritual, and consider themselves spiritual. The word is tossed around quite regularly.
Many of those in the New Age movement are very "spiritual" people. I won't argue with them. They are. They look at the god within them--themselves. It is not Christ sitting on the throne, but another god.
Quite often it is the god of humanism.
The religion of Spiritism has spiritual people in it. They worship spirits. To us they are demons. It is a spiritual religion.

To say that everything should be categorized into spiritual and natural (unsaved) is far too simplistic, and is not what Paul was teaching.

The word carnal simply means "of the flesh," and is descriptive of the person it is speaking of depending on its context. It may refer to Christians; it may not. To simplify it down to referring to the unsaved all the time is again, far too simplistic.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
--Obviously in this context, the person "in the flesh" is speaking of an unsaved person. He does not have the Spirit of God.

1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
--These believers are "in Christ," called "brethren" and are yet carnal at the same time. There definitely are "carnal Christians" no matter how many of Icon's links you may read. They are all wrong. I will take the Bible any day over his links. This is basic Bible teaching that cannot be denied.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
--As is indicated by verse 5, where James includes himself "us" he is speaking to believers.
He calls them adulterers and adulteresses! It is spiritual adultery that they have committed. This is not the mark of a "spiritual Christian," but rather of one who is carnal. He is called here "the enemy of God," and yet he is still a believer! How can this be. It is because this believer is so carnal he is a friend of the world (Satan's domain) which is the enemy of God.

I believe many Christians today need to heed to this advice.
They are carnal worldly Christians. We live in such a society. But folks want to deny it. Perhaps it offends them. Perhaps they don't want to accept the truth because the truth hurts too much.

 

[DHK]

If you mean what you say you would double check your view when others tell you it is pure error...we are no ones judge, but there are more than 30 one another passages in the nt that tell us to watch out one for another...

My post went right over your head didn't it?
It starts with the premise: "If I am counselling someone..."

 

[Winman]

I haven't read Scofield on this subject; didn't even know he had anything to say on it. I am glad you did. Did you learn anything from him?

BTW, that was a false allegation.
In one of your posts you called me out for heresy.
In another one you said I was doing spite to the Spirit of God.

Those are serious allegations. Don't be surprised if you start receiving some infractions for such statements. It definitely is against the rules for questioning another's salvation, calling them unsaved, accusing them of heresy, when all is, is a difference of opinion on one passage of Scripture.
Be more careful in your choice of words Icon.

Yes, I looked at.
My conclusion:
Start with a false premise and you end with a false conclusion.
That was easy.

You are just beginning to notice he questions any one who disagrees with him or Calvinism that they are saved? He has been doing that in nearly every post he posts for years.

Yet he has been allowed to get away with it over, and over, and over again.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm sorry that what the Bible says about salvation offends you.

What the Bible says about salvation does not offend him. Your personal interpretation may, however.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

You are just beginning to notice he questions any one who disagrees with him
or Calvinism that they are saved? He has been doing that in nearly every post he posts for years.

really...then it should not be any problem for you to produce a post that does this....show me:thumbs::thumbs:

hey winman....in this very thread...it was you who posted this;

And someday you are going to discover that you have been led by the blind.

Good luck

Blind leading the blind......is that speaking of believers or unsaved winman?

 

[Winman]

Winman

really...then it should not be any problem for you to produce a post that does this....show me:thumbs::thumbs:

hey winman....in this very thread...it was you who posted this;

Blind leading the blind......is that speaking of believers or unsaved winman?

Dude, you CONSTANTLY imply those who do not believe Calvinism are lost.

Your explanation is wrong and damages souls...so for that reason it is openly opposed and rejected. It is not a matter of "pride" as you seek now to attack me....it is your pride to not humble yourself and listen to men who can help you on this as they actually know what it says. I have explained this to you 5 times now...but like winman...you resist the word.

DHK is damaging souls? Oh, what does that mean? That DHK is teaching damnable heresy? That would make him lost wouldn't it?

DHK resists the word? Again you imply he is not a true believer.

This is just one example of you implying others are lost, something you have done hundreds and hundreds of times. It's all you've got, you do not know how to debate, so your only tactic is to imply your opponents are lost and resist "the truth", which is your word for Calvinism.

And yes, I responded to you in kind. The mods let you get away with murder, why not me?

DHK is correct in this thread, he showed you scripture where Paul said Christians were carnal four times. I am not huge fan of DHK, but he is rightly interpreting the scriptures in this case. Your argument is that scripture does not mean what it plainly says.

1 Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
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?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Paul's question "are ye not carnal?" demands a YES answer.

When Paul says, "For ye are yet carnal" is a direct statement that these Corinthians were carnal.

I don't need some so called "scholar" to explain this scripture to me, I could understand this as a child.

But apparently you need someone to explain scripture to you.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

I haven't read Scofield on this subject; didn't even know he had anything to say on it.

In any discussion on this topic it is generally known that it was Scofields notes and the teaching of Charles Ryrie that advanced these teachings.

I am glad you did. Did you learn anything from him?

I did learn many things from CI Scofield. He seemed to be a godly person from what I have read of him. like with any teacher a person must sort through and compare scripture with scripture. He was wrong on this and his dispensational ideas....but he tried.

In one of your posts you called me out for heresy.

this teaching is called the carnal Christian heresy DHK.....I did not invent the term...google the term and you will find many articles exposing it....

Could you show the post where I called you specifically a heretic? I do not recall such a post. I do recall that many times you seek to put words in my mouth or Bosleys ..im order to try and discredit us.
You said I wanted to do away with Hebrews 12 which I have quoted several times in the past two weeks....my comments were clearly based on Hebrews 12......KYRED saw it quite clearly...you did not however...you doubted it.

In another one you said I was doing spite to the Spirit of God.

Again...I do not recall any such post...Could you show it to me.....many times I post after working all day...it is possible...but I doubt it...

Those are serious allegations. Don't be surprised if you start receiving some infractions for such statements.

Well now...could you show me any such statements...or are you just seeking to censor me DHK? I guarantee I can show where your "comments" are false and false witness....I will make a list if you want.

I am not interested in what you think I might have said....show me what I said in my own words.

It definitely is against the rules for questioning another's salvation, calling them unsaved,

Again...show me this in my own words.

accusing them of heresy,

If someone suggests Jesus could have sinned...yes... I call that heretical-

If someone suggests that God can change...I call that heretical

If someone suggest God can lie...I call that heretical

 

[Winman]

If someone suggests Jesus could have sinned...yes... I call that heretical-

Many Reformed theologians believe Jesus could have sinned, I showed direct quotes from Calvinists on this in the past.

The best theologians, past and present, have been divided on the question of whether Jesus could have sinned. I believe that since Jesus was fully human, it was possible for him to sin.

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/could-jesus-have-sinned/

Note that Sproul says the "best theologians, past and present, have been divided on the question of whether Jesus could have sinned"

Why don't you listen to your Reformed scholars Icon? You seem to pick and choose when you should listen to them. How inconsistent.

And if Jesus could have sinned, he could have lied.

I could show you more Reformed scholars that believed Jesus could have sinned, and have shown this in the past.

So, maybe you should study the views of your own Reformed "scholars" before you call others heretics, men much better than you believed Jesus could have sinned.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

Dude, you CONSTANTLY imply those who do not believe Calvinism are lost.

I am not interested in your view of what you "think" I implied. Show me what I actually posted ..in my words.

DHK is damaging souls?

this is a prime example....The teaching of the falsehood of the existence of a "carnal Christian" does damage many souls. It gives false professors a false hope.

Oh, what does that mean? That DHK is teaching damnable heresy? That would make him lost wouldn't it?

Again...this is you speculating and drawing a conclusion.Did I say anyone in particular ...was lost Winman? can you show that?

DHK resists the word?

DHK said I rejected God's word.My response that the audio sermons actually teach the gk words used in the passage.....and if anyone wanted truth on this they should listen.....you did not listen did you??? go to the link...click on it pastor Downing opens it up,starting with the word natural in 2:14 and then shows the different words used. if you want to learn..listen to it...pastor martin has two messages on it.....I could post many more.

Again you imply he is not a true believer.

This is your speculation...I did not say that did I.I do not care about your speculation winman, as you

resist everyone who offers you solid bible teaching.

This is just one example of you implying others are lost,

You have an agenda....I do not care what you think I imply.If you cannot show it directly you have nothing to say do you:wavey:

something you have done hundreds and hundreds of times. It's all you've got, you do not know how to debate, so your only tactic is to imply your opponents are lost and resist "the truth", which is your word for Calvinism.

You can speculate and wonder about what you think I imply....but you have got nothing.

And yes, I responded to you in kind. The mods let you get away with murder, why not me?

My posts are within Bb rules Winman...you fail to show otherwise.I understand your frustration as you are corrected on every thread.

DHK is correct in this thread, he showed you scripture where Paul said Christians were carnal four times. I am not huge fan of DHK, but he is rightly interpreting the scriptures in this case. Your argument is that scripture does not mean what it plainly says.

Unless you are willing to listen to the sermons offered ..you have nothing to offer here, but your usual :laugh: "fine posts':laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

I am not interested in Sprouls philosophical and compromised thought.
If he cannot back it up scripturally he is in error. I do not care if he is reformed, deformed, of conformed, there is no basis for such an idea.

 

[DHK]

DHK
In any discussion on this topic it is generally known that it was Scofields notes and the teaching of Charles Ryrie that advanced these teachings.

The topic is: Carnal or Lost
It is not about Scofield or Ryrie, neither of which I have read on this topic.
Stop with the slurs and false information. If you can't debate from the Bible you don't belong here.

I did learn many things from CI Scofield. He seemed to be a godly person from what I have read of him. like with any teacher a person must sort through and compare scripture with scripture. He was wrong on this and his dispensational ideas....but he tried.

I am not interested. I really don't know what he believed and don't care.

this teaching is called the carnal Christian heresy DHK.....I did not invent the term...google the term and you will find many articles exposing it....

You haven't refuted one point that I have given you. Here you have come back and called my belief "heretical" once again. That is worth another infraction, and Winman wonders why you get away with it!
Carnal Christians are described in the Bible, and you don't want to admit it.
If it is called heresy, it wasn't called heresy by orthodox Christians throughout history, but rather those of recent times who hold to unorthodox doctrines themselves. I hope you can see that or at leas consider it.
Remember if you don't keep the Sabbath Day you are a heretic according to the SDA. So consider your sources well.

Could you show the post where I called you specifically a heretic?

You just did Icon!!
How much difference is there in calling my beliefs heretical and me a heretic? Care to expound?

I do not recall such a post. I do recall that many times you seek to put words in my mouth or Bosleys ..im order to try and discredit us.
You said I wanted to do away with Hebrews 12 which I have quoted several times in the past two weeks....my comments were clearly based on Hebrews 12......KYRED saw it quite clearly...you did not however...you doubted it.

Your theology contradicts Heb.12 in such a way you might as well cut it out of your Bible. I will explain it for you.

Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

God loves all his children: carnal and spiritual. The spiritual children do not need chastening for they are right with the Lord. The carnal believers do need chastening.
Those who came to the Lord's supper who were drunk, gluttonous and divisive were carnal Christians and the Lord chastised them--they were sick, weak, and some of them died.
Your theology leads one to believe as you stated "there are no undisciplined Christians," that God does not have to discipline or chastise any person, because there is no such thing as a Carnal Christian. No carnal Christian; no need of chastisement; no need of Heb.12.

Well now...could you show me any such statements...or are you just seeking to censor me DHK? I guarantee I can show where your "comments" are false and false witness....I will make a list if you want.

Winman listed some of them for you. You called my beliefs heresy right in this post. Do I need more than just this one post, or do you think there is a limit to how many times you can call me a heretic or my beliefs heresy?

I am not interested in what you think I might have said....show me what I said in my own words.

Read your own posts, especially this one.

Again...show me this in my own words.


If someone suggests Jesus could have sinned...yes... I call that heretical-

If someone suggests that God can change...I call that heretical

If someone suggest God can lie...I call that heretical

You call me a heretic by calling my beliefs heresy. You have done it at least three times in this thread Icon. What is up with that?

It is a difference of opinion on how you interpret 1Cor.3:1-4.
The odd thing is: I can expound the passage to you, but all you can do is call me a heretic and offer a link to read. You cannot refute me in your own words. You have never offered a response or rebuttal in your own words.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

The topic is: Carnal or Lost

yes it is and that is what is being discussed

It is not about Scofield or Ryrie, neither of which I have read on this topic.
. I am not interested. I really don't know what he believed and don't care.

Then why did you ask me this question in post 80 DHK?

I haven't read Scofield on this subject; didn't even know he had anything to say on it. I am glad you did. Did you learn anything from him?[/B]

then this;

Stop with the slurs and false information. If you can't debate from the Bible you don't belong here

From this thread alone....you started with this despite that I quoted from Hebrews 12 earlier in the thread-

That is quite the statement. Do you just throw Heb.12 out the window.

I believe Paul, not you. You have the problem with belief in this matter.

Your response is frightful Icon.

You want me to click on your silly links to listen to some person

How can it be any more clear except to those who refuse to see the truth and have outright rejected it!

You have rejected the Word

and your pride won't allow you to accept "my" explanation. That is sad.

You can't give any answer of your own.

Do you believe the words of man or the words of God?

This is an admission that you follow the doctrine of men and not of God, is it?

My post went right over your head didn't it?

You haven't refuted one point that I have given you.

In the past year I have 5-6 times now.

Carnal Christians are described in the Bible, and you don't want to admit it.
If it is called heresy, it wasn't called heresy by orthodox Christians throughout history, but rather those of recent times who hold to unorthodox doctrines themselves.

This teaching did not exist in church history...they knew better...it is a modern invention as three other posters and all the links show.

You just did Icon!!
How much difference is there in calling my beliefs heretical and me a heretic? Care to expound?

Just read it here;

Quote:
this teaching is called the carnal Christian heresy DHK.....I did not invent the term...google the term and you will find many articles exposing it.... You haven't refuted one point that I have given you. Here you have come back and called my belief "heretical" once again

I commented on the teaching and a google search reveals this as the exact case...I did not invent the term...google it-

Your theology contradicts Heb.12 in such a way you might as well cut it out of your Bible. I will explain it for you.

I know what it teaches DHK...that is why I posted it before you entered the thread [see post 7]...so for you to say I should remove it from my bible seems foolish doesn't it?

Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

God loves all his children: carnal and spiritual.

You add this idea of carnal children....God's children are spiritual.

The spiritual children do not need chastening for they are right with the Lord. The carnal believers do need chastening.

No....the text is clear..ALL receive chastening...ALL...not two kinds of Christians, all Christians;
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons

Your theology leads one to believe as you stated "there are no undisciplined Christians," that God does not have to discipline or chastise any person, because there is no such thing as a Carnal Christian. No carnal Christian; no need of chastisement; no need of Heb.12.

this false charge is refuted here and in the other read where I used Hebrews 12...I again stressed the word ALL

Winman listed some of them for you. You called my beliefs heresy right in this post. Do I need more than just this one post, or do you think there is a limit to how many times you can call me a heretic or my beliefs heresy?

I showed you what I said here...this teaching is called the carnal Christian heresy...google it....I did not invent the term.

Read your own posts, especially this one.

You call me a heretic by calling my beliefs heresy. You have done it at least three times in this thread Icon. What is up with that?

show me where I said....DHK you are a heretic....I did not...I spoke of the teaching.

It is a difference of opinion on how you interpret 1Cor.3:1-4.
The odd thing is: I can expound the passage to you, but all you can do is call me a heretic and offer a link to read. You cannot refute me in your own words. You have never offered a response or rebuttal in your own words.

I have several times..it is in the archives and addressed directly to you.Do not say such a falsehood....What I have to go back and hunt for it to show you???

You did not believe it then, why should I do it now? It is there find it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ultimately we can't know, but I believe a genuine profession will result in genuine change. The gospel really does change someone. However, people stumble. And sometimes they stumble for a long time. The response is the same either way, they need to repent and trust Jesus to change them.

Literally, only the Lord Himself knows if he has saved them, so should keep praying that God will open their hearts and minds to the truth, and that if they really were saved, that he convicts them to follow Him again...

If never were saved, good opportunity to live before them and persuade them with the truths they seem to have heard in their youth..

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not interested in Sprouls philosophical and compromised thought.
If he cannot back it up scripturally he is in error. I do not care if he is reformed, deformed, of conformed, there is no basis for such an idea.

Can a true Christ choose to sin after salvation?

All of us have done that here!

Can a true Christian at times act as if they were not saved right then and there?

yep, again, all of us here have!

Will a true Christian be comfortable and keep on living unsaved, will see no need to repent and forsake the sinning?

NO, for their struggle against the sin is sign thay have really been saved!


The ONLY ones who have never struggled with sinning after salvation either never were really saved, or else deluded themselves into holding to sinless perfection!

 

[Zaac]

So what is the statue of limitations on non-lostness? Is it 14 years? 12 years?

There is no statute of limitations. I'm saying if I have obbeen watching you for any amoun of time and all I see is the same you that I saw before you say you got saved, then I'm gonna approach you and either try to disciple you or show you how to be saved.

I rebelled against God during my 20's to early 30's. I'd say it was 13 years. Am I lost?

If you were unable to adit that your wrong was wrong and there was no growth, then YES, you were lost. If there was growth taking place, I'd say otherwise.

Webdog admitted to 20 years. I'm sure there are millions of Christians that had a lapse in their walk with Jesus lasting years. Are you going to pass judgment on all of these people?

Yes I am. If there hasn't been any growth in your "walk " with Christ in 20 years, it's because you don't know Him. dead stuff doesn't grow. And it's high time that folks in the church stopped riding the fence and started calling folks to repentance instead of trying to lead them to believe that they have just been carnal for 15 and 20 years.

What is it with Calvinists and their need to question someone's salvation?

Dude I could give a rats patushski about yall and the whole Calvinist/ Arminian arguments. I don't participate in such discussions because I don't define folks in terms of other sinful men. You're either lost or saved. And if you're living like you're going to hell, I'm gonna assue that you are and do everything that God will allow to show you how not to.

Not only that, but when the phrase carnal is actually used in the Bible they deny it, and insist on judging people.

Again, say what you want. But if you're doing the same things "post salvation" that you were doing pre-salvation and there doesn't look to be anything change or any repentance( because I WILL ask), then I'm gonna assume you're living like hell because that's where you're on the way to.

 

[Winman]

I am not interested in Sprouls philosophical and compromised thought.
If he cannot back it up scripturally he is in error. I do not care if he is reformed, deformed, of conformed, there is no basis for such an idea.

He is not the only Reformed theologian that believed Jesus could sin, Charles Hodge a notable Calvinist theologian believed this;

This sinfullessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare [inability to sin]. If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning…. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot sympathize with his people.5

Why would the Spirit drive Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted if he could not sin? That is nonsensical. It would be a total waste of time and absolutely meaningless. It only has meaning if Jesus could have sinned but overcame this temptation.

Other Reformed theologians that believed Jesus could have sinned are E. H. Bancroft and Millard Erickson.

 

[DHK]

DHK
yes it is and that is what is being discussed

Right: Carnal or Lost.
And if you can't discuss both sides of this topic without calling one view heresy or the other view heretics then kindly bow out of the discussion and don't post another word.

Then why did you ask me this question in post 80 DHK?

You brought up Scofield, I did not. I only responded to what you had already posted.

From this thread alone....you started with this despite that I quoted from Hebrews 12 earlier in the thread-

I have already shown you from the Bible that God disciplines "carnal" Christians. He has no need of giving discipline to those who are spiritual. Thus it would be a fruitless passage for the Holy Spirit to pen for someone that holds a theology like yours.

In the past year I have 5-6 times

First, I don't believe you ever have thoroughly refuted my position. If you think you have then please provide the link.
However that is not how debate takes place. I have presented my position to many, many times, often adding in new details. The best you give me is "This is heresy," and "Read these links."
If you don't want to debate Icon, you don't have to. OTOH, if you are not going to "debate" then don't post in this forum, please!

This teaching did not exist in church history...they knew better...it is a modern invention as three other posters and all the links show.

That Paul called Christians at Corinth "carnal" has always existed, ever since he wrote that epistle. What is new in church history is for people like yourself to deny this obvious truth.

I commented on the teaching and a google search reveals this as the exact case...I did not invent the term...google it-

So what does that prove?
It proves that google can find something.
I can do a google search transubstantiation also, which is a much older doctrine, and a doctrine believed by many more than the one you are espousing, but that doesn't make it right. Google searches don't prove anything.
What you need to realize is that we are discussing a topic that arises out of 1Cor.3:1-4. If you call one of those two positions heresy and thus infer that those who believe in that position are heretics, then you should not be posting here.
"Carnal or Lost" is the topic being discussed or debated. It is not an avenue to condemn or call others heretics. This is what you are doing/inferring by your posts. It is unacceptable..

I know what it teaches DHK...that is why I posted it before you entered the thread [see post 7]...so for you to say I should remove it from my bible seems foolish doesn't it?

Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

You add this idea of carnal children....God's children are spiritual.

Yes or no? Is calling your brother in the Lord a heretic a spiritual thing to do? Is that what spiritual Christians do? Is that a mark of spirituality?
Would Jesus do that? (He is our example).

No....the text is clear..ALL receive chastening...ALL...not two kinds of Christians, all Christians;
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons

You still don't understand the passage do you?
Look again:
1 Corinthians 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
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?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Four times Paul addresses these believers as carnal; four times!
Who are they? He calls them "brethren," and "babes IN CHRIST."
They are "in Christ," believers, and at the same time "carnal."
Now put it all together. They are not the illegitimate ones being spoken of in Hebrews 12, but the ones receiving chastening, for they are the true sons. God deals with them as sons, and in love. The rest of Corinthians bears this out.

this false charge is refuted here and in the other read where I used Hebrews 12...I again stressed the word ALL

The charge that you don't understand or want to understand 1Cor.3:1-4 along with Hebrews 12 is self-evident.

I showed you what I said here...this teaching is called the carnal Christian heresy...google it....I did not invent the term.

Do you believe everything you google on the internet? Really?

show me where I said....DHK you are a heretic....I did not...I spoke of the teaching.

Three to four times now--every time you call my teaching heresy I will assume you are calling me a heretic.

I have several times..it is in the archives and addressed directly to you.Do not say such a falsehood....What I have to go back and hunt for it to show you???

You did not believe it then, why should I do it now? It is there find it.

1. You have never thoroughly refuted me; never.
2. If you think you have provide a link. That is your responsibility.
3. I don't have an eidetic memory, and I don't memorize the archives. You have to do better than this. I have already explained to you the nature of debate.

 

[convicted1]

In 1 Cor. 3, Apostle Paul was addressing the church at Corinth. A church who had went off the deep end. This whole book is about he condemning them for things which they did, such as:

"Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?"(1 Cor. 4:18-21)


"It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you."(1 Cor. 5:1,2)

"Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."(1 Cor. 5:6-8)


"Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren."(1 Cor. 6:1-8)

"Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not."(1 Cor. 11:17-22)


Apostle Paul was addressing a church is disarray. There was fornication going on. People were taking their fellow brethern to court and not letting the church handle their matters. There were members there abusing the Lord's table, not discerning the Lord's body. And some became sick and some even died. Apostle Paul said "purge from themselves the old leaven". These were the ones that Apostle Paul referred to as being carnal, imo. They weren't believers, but tares sown in amongst the wheat, sheep in wolves clothing scattering the flock, &c.

 

[Yeshua1]

He is not the only Reformed theologian that believed Jesus could sin, Charles Hodge a notable Calvinist theologian believed this;



Why would the Spirit drive Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted if he could not sin? That is nonsensical. It would be a total waste of time and absolutely meaningless. It only has meaning if Jesus could have sinned but overcame this temptation.

Other Reformed theologians that believed Jesus could have sinned are E. H. Bancroft and Millard Erickson.

Jesus was/is God Incarnate, and he had BOTH a divine nature, and a sinless humanity, so there was NOTHING within Him that would be able to submit to the lure to sin!

Be tempted as we all are? yes, NEVER able to follow thru and commit the sin though!

Its what the Bible states, regardless what Calvin/Luthor/Hodge etc stated about Jesus!