Featured Carnal or Lost

Either someone holds to sinless perfection, or else there are still babes and matures in Christ today!

 

Precisely!
Yet at the same time, in chapter one this is how he addresses them:

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
--the church of God, sanctified, saints. These were definitely believers (spiritual).
But they were carnal believers. They were carnal saints that Paul was reproving.

The "no such thing as carnal Christian" doctrine is relatively new.
It is a denial of the teaching found in 1Cor.3:1-4. It is amazing to me how people can take a passage, deny the truth in it, and then build a doctrine around that denial.

 

It takes little effort to show how those that deny the truth of this passage and have come up with their own doctrine have essentially come up with a new doctrine. Compare with what the sages of old (even Calvinists) have believed:

All three of these commentators believe that Paul is speaking of "carnal Christians." Those who deny such have come up with a new doctrine.

 

DHK

.

In your mind...you think you have showed this...you have not.
making such a claim and actually showing it are two different things.
In fact rather than respond to the heb12 verses ..you jumped out of Hebrews 12 and tried to avoid the text...here it is again-

Hebrews 12 is very clear DHK...verse 8 says all Christians are partakers..
ALL
you accused me of not understanding the passage...right here;

I understand it just fine.....all Christians are corrected by God....address this DHK without running outside of this chapter.....no where does it say there are two categories of Christians here... You never answered this at all because you see what it says.

Not at all...it is quite fruitful if understood correctly. From your statement it is clear you do not understand theology like mine as you say.

I have done this several times already....I tell you what....I will do it again right now...maybe you can save it to your favorites so I do not have to keep repeating it over and over.....ready DHK????

Paul has been dealing with two kinds of men natural[fleshly, carnal unsaved}
and then Spiritual which he defines;
10 but to us did God reveal [them] through His Spirit, for the Spirit all things doth search, even the depths of God,

11 for who of men hath known the things of the man, except the spirit of the man that [is] in him? so also the things of God no one hath known, except the Spirit of God.
12 And we the spirit of the world did not receive, but the Spirit that [is] of God, that we may know the things conferred by God on us,

13 which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Holy Spirit, with spiritual things spiritual things comparing,

14 and the natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are foolishness, and he is not able to know [them], because spiritually they are discerned;

15 and he who is spiritual, doth discern indeed all things, and he himself is by no one discerned;

16 for who did know the mind of the Lord that he shall instruct Him? and we -- we have the mind of Christ.

The natural unsaved men cannot receive the things of God....They do not have THE Spirit

natural ,carnal , fleshly,mere men......cannot welcome truth.....

There is no chapter division so he continues......
3

He is identifying them as brethren.....and yet he is rebuking them in that in their fighting over which teacher they prefer...in this one sin....they are acting as......mere men....acting as if they did not have the Spirit...acting fleshly...

he does not say they are unsaved, mere men....he says they are acting as if they were unsaved...it is a rebuke, not a description of who they are....

he is not talking of the incest in chapter 5...he is talking about this one sin.

pay attention DHK..he says.....as to...as to fleshly....this again is a rebuke...they are acting not as saints which he said they are called to be in chapter 1....they are acting as fleshly unsaved men act

the same here.......AS TO

If someone says his skin has been so sunburned it is ...as tough as leather....it does not mean His skin IS Leather......it is AS Leather
paul says they are acting...as men...in the manner as mere men. not as spiritual persons should behave.



2 with milk I fed you, and not with meat, for ye were not yet able, but not even yet are ye now able,

They are in this one sin acting and walking "in the manner" of men...unsaved , carnal, fleshly men......note...they are walking in this Manner.....He does not say this a chronic condition or description of Christians...it is a rebuke for this one sin as he explains in the next verse...

there it is DHK...save it to your favorites...do you remember it now??? How many times do I have to walk you through it?

And you ignore what is offered to you...answer Hebrews 12 if you would...and do not insert carnal in there where God has not put it there.

They were acting as carnal..he does not say there is a carnal Christian.....they were acting as ...fleshly...not spiritual.

Again..it is you with the personal attack based on your misunderstanding of this passage

It proves I did not invent the term like I told you. that is what it proves.

I do understand that as you introduced it when you jumped in with your Hebrews 12 post.

.

Do not inflict what you "infer" on me.
Do not inflict what you "assume "on me
let me speak for myself DHK...thank you very much. Do not tell me what you think I mean or what you assume.....that does not help anything does it...

I can assume or infer tons of things from your posts. When you take off your moderator hat and jump into a thread and provoke responses your are fair game. No one says you cannot post what you think. Your posts are not immune from scrutiny however. we all have some error DHK...even you:thumbs:

 

None of these men say what you say....not one of them....I cannot read it for you. You do not understand these quotes...they are good quotes....in this one sin they were acting as mere men.

 

Look, as long as a believer remains "spiritual" he has nothing to confess (1John 1:9), nothing to repent of, and nothing to be chastised or disciplined for. God has no need to discipline those who are right with Him.
However, he does need to discipline those who fall in sin; those who are carnal Christians. But you don't accept that fact. You refuse to accept the very fact that you yourself walk in the flesh at times and not "in the Spirit."
If you don't admit that you should look up 1John 1:8,10 and see the consequences of your denial.

ALL is because ALL Christians are not sinless. All Christians fall into carnality at some time in their lives, including you. In fact you have demonstrated that on this board by accusing someone with a difference of opinion as holding to heresy. That is a carnal statement. It is "of the flesh," the definition of "carnal."

All Christians are not 100% spiritual 100% of the time. That is why it applies to ALL Christians. Thus your misunderstanding of the text still continues to this day. Note I don't call you a heretic or hold to heresy. I simply say you don't understand the text.

That makes one of us wrong, and it is not me. Consider what Barnes, Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, and then Matthew Henry all have to say. Every one of them disagree with you. Why? It is your doctrine that is new and novel, not mine.

The word "carnal" means "of the flesh". That is all it means. Christians act "of the flesh," as do the unsaved. The word is applied to both Christians and to the unsaved. Context dictates who it is describing. This is where you are confused. It is evident that Paul is describing Christians in the first four verses because he calls them believers, "in Christ," "brethren," etc. The word does not always apply to the unsaved. In this you are wrong.

There were no chapter divisions in the entire epistle. If I wrote a lengthy letter to you do you think I would put chapters in it? Neither did Paul. They were added much later by the translators.

1 Corinthians 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
--They were the same people as here. The audience had not changed.
They were the "church", the "sanctified in Christ," "the saints", those that had called on the name of Christ."
You cannot deny that these Carnal believers were Christians.

True. As if they were unsaved means they are still saved. Saved but carnal. Hence carnal Christians.

This is in 1Cor.5. In 2Cor.2 we find that this same "brother" had repented of his sin and was let back into the church. In spite of his carnality he was still a Christian.

Acting as doesn't mean they are unsaved. They were carnal Christians.

I speak to you AS TO one that does not understand this passage. Correct?

They were babes in Christ able to drink milk and not able to eat meat.
That is the comparison. If he were calling them unsaved he would have used an illustration such as goats and not sheep. But he didn't. They were of the same family. They were at different stages of growth, but the same person.

And therefore saved and carnal at the same time.

Note: You haven't refuted my position one iota. You never have.

If you have understanding you will note that the Lord only has need of disciplining those who are in sin. That is a definition of carnal isn't it? Those who are in sin are those who are acting "of the flesh" (sarkos). It is a word that describes Christians as well as the unsaved.

Many Christians act carnally. That makes them Carnal Christians, doesn't it? This isn't rocket science.
If one acts deaf, maybe he is; if he acts blind; maybe he is; if he acts like a cripple, maybe he is; if he acts like an adulterer, maybe he is; if he acts carnally, maybe he is (regardless of whether he is saved or unsaved).

You misunderstand the passage; yet you accuse me of heresy. Why?

The term is recent and novel as I have demonstrated. Look at the quotes I have given you. The older commentators never use the terms you use. Why? It is a novel doctrine that you believe in. It is new.

The Lord has no need to discipline those that remain spiritual.

.

 

The problem with 1 Corinthians 2:14 is that it cannot possibly mean what the Calvinists want it to mean.

1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This verse is a stronghold for Total Inability, a fortress. Upon first glance it does seem to plainly say that a natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit.

But there is a problem with this interpretation, we have been told these Corinthians have already received the Spirit.

1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Verse 12 clearly says these Corinthians have already received the "spirit which is of God" that they might know the "things" that are freely given to them of God.

Wow, open and shut case, the Calvinists are correct! But wait...

There is much scripture that shows when and how Christians receive the Spirit.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Verse 37 says, "Now when they heard this". What is "this" that scripture is speaking about? It is the gospel, it is how Jesus was the promised Christ the Jews had long waited for, and how they had rejected him and crucified him, but that he had risen from the dead as the scriptures predicted.

Did these unconverted Jews understand this? YES. They understood Peter perfectly and knew they were in tremendous peril, they had rejected and killed the son of God!

But then Peter gives them hope, and tells them to repent and believe on Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, and if they do they will receive the promise of the Spirit.

This refutes the Calvinist interpretation of 1 Cor 2:14. These Jews could understand the gospel and believe, and if they believed they would AFTERWARD receive the Spirit.

So, whatever "things" Paul was speaking about in 1 Corinthians chapter 2, it was NOT the gospel.

And this is not the only time we are shown that an unregenerate man can both understand and believe the gospel, and that afterward he receives the Spirit.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question here demands a YES answer. So these Galatians were able to understand and believe the gospel BEFORE they received the Spirit. In fact, Paul directly implies here that it was believing the gospel that was the CAUSE of these Galatians receiving the Spirit.

But there is more...

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Paul's question here directly implies that a person receives the Holy Spirit as a RESULT of first believing the gospel. So again, this shows unregenerate men can both understand and believe the gospel, and if they do so, then afterward they received the Spirit.

But there is more...

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Ephesians 1:13 is clear as a bell, it was AFTER believing that these Ephesians received the Holy Spirit. Again, this shows unregenerate men can understand and believe the gospel, and when they do, afterward they receive the Spirit.

All of this scripture and more proves the Calvinist interpretation of 1 Cor 2:14 error. It is NOT teaching that the unregenerate man cannot understand and believe the gospel.

No, Paul is not speaking of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 2, he is speaking of the "deep things of God".

1 Cor 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

The gospel is not deep, Paul said that Timothy as a child could understand the scriptures, which were able to make him "wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus".

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Even a child can understand the scriptures, and if he will pay heed to them, they are able to make him wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus.

So, 1 Corinthians 2:14 IS NOT teaching Total Inability as Calvinists falsely teach.

 

I believe Iconoclast's misunderstanding is because the Calvinist always thinks in terms of "nature" or constitution.

When the Calvinist hears the term "carnal", he understands that to be an unregenerate person with a fleshly nature. And being unregenerate and fleshly, he is enslaved by his nature and MUST sin.

So, a Calvinist cannot conceive of a "carnal Christian".

What he (and not just Calvinists) do not understand is that the word "carnal" is simply an adjective describing the way these persons were acting. It would be like saying someone is acting "silly". This doesn't mean their entire nature and constitution is foolish and that they are compelled to act foolish 100% of the time, it simply means they are acting foolish at the moment.

When Paul said these Corinthians were "carnal", he is not describing their nature or constitution. He is not saying they MUST act fleshly.

No, Paul is simply saying that at this moment that are acting fleshly. They are not listening to the word of God and obeying it as they should, they are self-absorbed and acting in their own self-interest and pride.

It is the same with the word "sinful". This does not mean we have an evil nature that must sin, it simply means we are acting evil, or that we are guilty of acting evil. You only have to sin one time to be "sinful", just as you only have to lie one time to be "dishonest". Both words are ADJECTIVES.

If folks would learn words like "carnal" and "sinful" are adjectives, it would clear up a lot of error.

 

First professions are worthless without works. Second There is not enough information given to know. According to scripture 1john 3 if a person is practing sin they are not saved. So what is their practice? Sinning or following the Lord in obediance? They are either saved and following the Lord or lost and practicing sin, not saved and practicing sin.

 

clearly you see the issue and are not fooled by those would distract from it

 

This is the CLASSIC Lordship Salvation answer. If you are being obedient you are saved, if you are not you being obedient you are lost.

But these folks can NEVER tell you how obedient you must be to prove you are saved, or how disobedient you must be to be lost. Never.

For instance, smoking. Anyone who smokes is practicing sin constantly, every time they light up. Are they lost?

The scriptures tell us to pray without ceasing.

1 The 5:17 Pray without ceasing.

So, if you are not praying constantly, are you lost?

Are some sins OK? Are some sins not OK?

They will NEVER answer these questions.

They ONLY thing Lordship Salvation folks KNOW is that THEY are saved and YOU are not. :thumbsup:

 

The topic "Carnal or Lost" as a subject can be debated.

The passage 1Cor.3:1-4, as it relates to "Carnal Christians" can be debated.

Topics like Carnal Christians and Lordship Salvation are debatable.

But the OP says:

This is not debatable.
Only God knows the heart. Furthermore the whole story is not being told nor am I interested in it being told. A Godly pastor needs to take the Word to these people and find out why they are in the spiritual condition they are. As he uses the Word, the Holy Spirit will reveal where they are--unsaved or carnal, and what the problem really is.

The solution is not on an internet board. The solution is in Godly counsel.

 

Winman.

:applause:

.

Even at the second glance,,,it does not change:thumbs:

Correct:thumbs:

I inferred that this was the essence of your thought. I assumed that is what you were trying to say....:applause:

 

I stand on scripture, what are you using?

 

Winman

:applause::applause::applause:Thank you Winman....I know you inferred this:thumbs:

time did not allow me to post more than this beginning portion of your post...

 

DHK

A believer is Spiritual because the Spirit of God indwells him.....I will agree with what I can here.

Agreed...God is not austere....He delights in His children as they are walking in obedience

Yes...this is the subject of Hebrews 12:thumbs:

It does not say that in Hebrews 12...it says he corrects All which I see you finally acknowledge. There is no such person in scripture however....there are spiritual Christians who can commit acts of sin. [ they can act in a carnal fashion as the unsaved do}...but there are not people living under the dominion of the flesh....so..yes I reject that false and unbiblical idea.

Where have I said this....Dhk...this is what you do all the time. You express what you believe...let me say what I believe...thanks.

This is the classic strawman....what denial?

.

You reluctantly admit it is All.
Most people have fallen into water or went for a swim, but that does not make them a fish......Christians can act in a fleshly, or carnal way....that does not change then from spiritual to carnal.

Identifying false teaching and heresy is very biblical:

18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;

19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.


8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.


10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world

14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:

15 Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words

no one said they were

We can let the reader decide that DHK I will stand by what I post and I will stand by the fine sermons and links offered. I notice no one has refuted any part of them.

If you believed I held to heresy...by all means you should call me on it.

That is the nature of the disagreement.

.

The reader can determine which one is wrong

?

AsI read them...they say the same thing I do.You are not understanding them.

wrong again...this false idea never existed in the professing church

no it is not the same...to the natural man...he is bound by it.That is why Paul rebuked the Christians for this act of sin.

I am not confused as when I answered you.

My answer to you refutes this idea.He is describing their actions...not them.

.
no one denies they were believers who in this sin...acted carnally. That does not turn a spiritual person back to a natural state.

That is different

saved...but acting as men...unsaved men

Note: You haven't refuted my position one iota. You never have.

If you have understanding you will note that the Lord only has need of disciplining those who are in sin. That is a definition of carnal isn't it? Those who are in sin are those who are acting "of the flesh" (sarkos). It is a word that describes Christians as well as the unsaved.

Many Christians act carnally. That makes them Carnal Christians, doesn't it? This isn't rocket science.
If one acts deaf, maybe he is; if he acts blind; maybe he is; if he acts like a cripple, maybe he is; if he acts like an adulterer, maybe he is; if he acts carnally, maybe he is (regardless of whether he is saved or unsaved).

You misunderstand the passage; yet you accuse me of heresy. Why?

The term is recent and novel as I have demonstrated. Look at the quotes I have given you. The older commentators never use the terms you use. Why? It is a novel doctrine that you believe in. It is new.

The Lord has no need to discipline those that remain spiritual.

.[/QUOTE]

All Christians are spiritual,and all need correction.

 

A spiritual Christian needs no correction; a carnal Christian does.
You miss Paul's teaching completely.

1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1 Corinthians 2:15 But he who is spiritual discerns all things, and he himself is judged by no one. (WEB)

The spiritual Christian, unlike the carnal Christian, has great discernment and needs no correction. He doesn't need to be judged by others. That was Paul's problem in Corinth. He was giving his defense. He was being judged by false teachers. He didn't have to be scrutinized by them. He was a spiritual person who knew that he was right with the Lord.

1 Corinthians 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
--"I know whom I have believed and am persuaded..."
The spiritual person is persuaded by the Word; has the mind of Christ.
The false teachers that had been causing division among the Corinthians pretended that they knew the mind of the Lord.

The Corinthians had been following false teachers. Thus they remained divided and immature. That brings us to chapter three, where Paul calls them "carnal."
They were carnal Christians. The word is an adjective. It describes who they were. It is like the word "Gentile" Perhaps they were carnal Gentile Christians. Maybe there were some carnal Jewish Christians. It describes who they were, and what they were. They were carnal because they acted that way.
Carnal "of the flesh." They acted according to the flesh.

 

thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my posts

 

Not quite. The root of the "misunderstanding" is the Reformed mindset that obeying God is a vital requirement for one to enter heaven. It amounts to a works "gospel", whereby people are always trying to know if they're good enough.

But wait...I thought scripture speaks of a gift from God.

Correct. Enter TULIP, where they try to pretend that they're giving God all the credit for their good works.

But when they start inspecting each others fruit, they aren't looking at God. They're looking to the man.

Each Calvinist can conceive of himself being a carnal Christian because he knows himself. He just won't admit it to others, because they will condemn him as lost.

He really doesn't want to admit it to himself, because then his shallow assurance will begin to weaken further.

Sweep all faults under the rug, point the finger at others.

I was there, having been a Calvinist at one time. And I had no assurance, so I never wanted to focus on myself. Only doctrinal philisophy

 

You're not standing on scripture, but rather a faulty interpretive translation.

Scripture says that the one born of God is not able to sin. There is no "habitual sin" element in 1John 3, that is a contrivance of men