Do all christians grow spiritually in life?

[BrotherJoseph]

Here is an example of a carnal Christian. The individual in 1Cor.5:1-5 was a carnal Christian, a person referred to as a "brother" by Paul, had lived in a "lifestyle" of immorality now for sometime (and the Corinthians were proud "puffed up" about it). Even the Gentiles would not do such a thing. It was scandalous, not just a one time affair. Disciplinary action was taken. He was excommunicated from the church (delivered unto satan for the destruction of the "flesh"--not spirit).
2Corinthians indicates that the same believer repented of this sin and that they took him back into fellowship. He lived a carnal lifestyle--not all of his life, but for some of his life--now much of it we are not told. Many of the Corinthians lived carnal lifestyles. That is why Paul wrote the epistle--to correct and rebuke their carnal living.

Brother DHK,

I did not contend on this thread that Christians cannot fall into periods of carnality, but rather if we are honest every Christian does during some times of their life. You are the one misrepresenting my positions, why are you doing that? My contentions were that the Bible it teaches the following #1 a true Christian will have good works #2 a true Christian will keep God's commandments (not 100%) and # 3 a true Christian will experience growth and # 4 a true Christian will not live their whole life consistently entangled in gross sinful conduct (or carnal state their entire life). Do you disagree with any of these points?

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK,

I did not contend on this thread that Christians cannot fall into periods of carnality, but rather if we are honest every Christian does during some times of their life. You are the one misrepresenting my positions, why are you doing that? My contentions were that the Bible it teaches the following #1 a true Christian will have good works #2 a true Christian will keep God's commandments (not 100%) and # 3 a true Christian will experience growth and # 4 a true Christian will not live their whole life consistently entangled in gross sinful conduct (or carnal state their entire life). Do you disagree with any of these points?

There are many on this board that deny that "carnality" can exist in the believer. I think I may have read your post hastily.

My contentions were that the Bible it teaches the following #1 a true Christian will have good works

Generally true, except for the thief on the cross. Only his faith sufficed.

#2 a true Christian will keep God's commandments (not 100%)

Generally true. Not everyone grows at the same rate, and we can't judge the heart of one who is carnal or "a babe in Christ," as you rightly said in your OP. Those Corinthians did not grow. They were still right were Paul left them the day he departed. It was as if he had to start all over again. As we learn in the next epistle eventually they did grow in Christ.

# 3 a true Christian will experience growth

--Same as above.

# 4 a true Christian will not live their whole life consistently entangled in gross sinful conduct (or carnal state their entire life).

True, unless he dies before he has a chance to repent (thief on the cross--no opportunity; a man has a heart attack before he repents--what then?, etc.)

I simply deny the position of some on the board (that apparently you do not take), that there is a such thing as a carnal Christian, that is that a Christian can lapse into a period of carnality for a period of time, even what might be considered a lifestyle, but will come to his senses eventually and repent.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

There are many on this board that deny that "carnality" can exist in the believer. I think I may have read your post hastily.

Generally true, except for the thief on the cross. Only his faith sufficed.

Generally true. Not everyone grows at the same rate, and we can't judge the heart of one who is carnal or "a babe in Christ," as you rightly said in your OP. Those Corinthians did not grow. They were still right were Paul left them the day he departed. It was as if he had to start all over again. As we learn in the next epistle eventually they did grow in Christ.

--Same as above.

True, unless he dies before he has a chance to repent (thief on the cross--no opportunity; a man has a heart attack before he repents--what then?, etc.)

I simply deny the position of some on the board (that apparently you do not take), that there is a such thing as a carnal Christian, that is that a Christian can lapse into a period of carnality for a period of time, even what might be considered a lifestyle, but will come to his senses eventually and repent.

Brother DHK,

I can't believe it, but for the most part I think we are in agreement! I just would emphasize that the carnality will not last permanently if one is truly born again (and judging by what you posted it appears you would agree). . Paul himself said after he is born again that he was carnal, "14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." (Romans 7:14-15). He then goes on to describe the great war between the inner man and the outward man (the flesh) that transpires after the new birth. As the flesh does not change after regeneration (as Christ said "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing", all born again children of God will always have this war until we receive our new bodies.

I think the point of disagreement comes when people from both sides take a position too far. For example Zane Hodges teaching a "carnal Christian" is one who can remain in that permanently, but that doesn't seem to be what you, nor I believe. On the other side you have some posters on this board who believe one who becomes born again they are instantaneously a disciple. Paul makes it clear their are those babes who could not take strong meat. Christ told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep. Lambs are those who have been recently Spiritually born, and must be fed with the milk of the Word. (In nature, a new born baby must be fed on milk; and as time goes by they grow and can be fed on solid food(meat).) Sheep are those who have been Spiritually born a while back and have grown in knowledge of Christ, which enables them to feed on the meat of the Word. And so we see why Christ told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep. This growing to be able to feed upon the meat of the Word, after being "weaned" from the milk of the Word, is also referred to as growing in Grace (learning more on the precepts of Christ Jesus). In this growing in Grace we see that the apostle Paul told Timothy to "STUDY".
John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

Joh 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Joh 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

1 Corinthians 3:2 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.

Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

As far as the theif on the cross is concerned, he did repent. To repent simply means to change your mind. Upon regeneration all believers change their mind in regard to their view of sin. The thief just didn't have time to, "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" (Matthew 3:8), had he lived he most certainly would have.

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK,

4. Hodges teaches that true Christians (those who are really saved) can be described as "children of the devil." Hodges says, "The question might be raised whether a truly regenerate person could ever be called a 'child of the devil.' In the light of 2 John 9, the answer must be Yes" (The Epistles of John, p. 145). Note: Read 2 John 9 for yourself and see if you think this passage proves that true Christians can be called children of the devil!

I do not agree with Hodge's theology. I also do not agree when his theology is so misrepresented like this.
That is not what he teaches, at least not from 2 John 9. Pick up the commentary and read it for yourself.

8. "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God" (2 John 9). Hodges teaches that this is a description of a saved person! [Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 908] Hodges seems to teach that if anyone professes Christ, then they must possess Christ. But here is a case where a person doesn't even possess God ("hath not God") and yet Hodges still insists that the person is saved!

That is what is quoted on the website.

Now what does Hodge actually say:
Read the entire passage from verse 9-11
Come down to verse 11:

But “continuing” in the truth about Jesus Christ calls for a firm response against those who have become purveyors of false doctrine. Hence John added, If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. In the Greco-Roman world of John’s day, a traveling philosopher or religious teacher was a familiar phenomenon. Christian preachers also traveled and relied on local believers for support and hospitality (3Jn_1:5-8). But the readers of 2 John were urged to be discriminating. If someone “comes” to them (the implication is “in the role of a traveling teacher”) without also bringing sound doctrine (didachēn), he should be refused help. The Greek verb for “bring” is pherō (“to carry”), which continues the travel motif. If the truth is not part of his “baggage,” he should receive no hospitality from those who are loyal to that truth. (By contrast, hospitality is to be shown to true believers [3Jn_1:5, 3Jn_1:8].) But a deceiver is not even to be given a greeting of welcome, since to do so would be to share in his wicked (ponērois, “evil”; cf. “the evil one” [to ponēron], 1Jn_2:13-14) work. “Welcome him” (2Jn_1:10-11) is literally, “Say ‘Greetings’ to him.” In Greek “greetings” here is chairein, related to chairō, “to rejoice, be glad.” Chairein was used as a cordial address of welcome or farewell, something like “I am glad to see you” or “I wish you well” (cf. Act_15:23; Act_23:26; Jas_1:1).

The false teacher came "in the role of a traveling teacher." That is what he believed. He doesn't define him as a believer. And it is wrong to say that he does. I don't find that in the overall teaching of these verses. It is slanderous libel on the part of the one making the accusation who didn't bother to read his entire explanation.

 

[DHK]

Brother DHK,

I can't believe it, but for the most part I think we are in agreement! I just would emphasize that the carnality will not last permanently if one is truly born again (and judging by what you posted it appears you would agree). . Paul himself said after he is born again that he was carnal, "14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." (Romans 7:14-15). He then goes on to describe the great war between the inner man and the outward man (the flesh) that transpires after the new birth. As the flesh does not change after regeneration (as Christ said "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing", all born again children of God will always have this war until we receive our new bodies.

I think the point of disagreement comes when people from both sides take a position too far. For example Zane Hodges teaching a "carnal Christian" is one who can remain in that permanently, but that doesn't seem to be what you, nor I believe. On the other side you have some posters on this board who believe one who becomes born again they are instantaneously a disciple. Paul makes it clear their are those babes who could not take strong meat. Christ told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep. Lambs are those who have been recently Spiritually born, and must be fed with the milk of the Word. (In nature, a new born baby must be fed on milk; and as time goes by they grow and can be fed on solid food(meat).) Sheep are those who have been Spiritually born a while back and have grown in knowledge of Christ, which enables them to feed on the meat of the Word. And so we see why Christ told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep. This growing to be able to feed upon the meat of the Word, after being "weaned" from the milk of the Word, is also referred to as growing in Grace (learning more on the precepts of Christ Jesus). In this growing in Grace we see that the apostle Paul told Timothy to "STUDY".
John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

Joh 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Joh 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

1 Corinthians 3:2 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.

Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

As far as the theif on the cross is concerned, he did repent. To repent simply means to change your mind. Upon regeneration all believers change their mind in regard to their view of sin. The thief just didn't have time to, "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance" (Matthew 3:8), had he lived he most certainly would have.

Yes, it seems like there is a general consensus here. Like I said I don't know all the teachings of Hodges. I do have the Bible Knowledge Commentary. But that is all of Hodges that I do have.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I do not agree with Hodge's theology. I also do not agree when his theology is so misrepresented like this.
That is not what he teaches, at least not from 2 John 9. Pick up the commentary and read it for yourself.


That is what is quoted on the website.

Now what does Hodge actually say:
Read the entire passage from verse 9-11
Come down to verse 11:

The false teacher came "in the role of a traveling teacher." That is what he believed. He doesn't define him as a believer. And it is wrong to say that he does. I don't find that in the overall teaching of these verses. It is slanderous libel on the part of the one making the accusation who didn't bother to read his entire explanation.

Brother DHK,

Im glad you do not agree with Hodges regarding his interpretation of "carnal Christians" brother! I'll have to admit, I assumed you would have been in his camp, especially when you jumped into this thread in the manner you did, but we know what assuming does to a person!

I am embarrassed to admit, but I read a book by Hodges many years ago in my high school days and use to have similar beliefs as his on carnal Christians, but thankfully I was delivered from that false teaching! I do know he advocated one could be carnal their entire life, but admit it has been years since I read that book, trashed it many years ago, and did a "google" search of his name and teachings on carnal Christians today that lead me to that URL I provided you that used citations on his teachings. It is very possible some of his quotes were taken out of context as it is the internet, but I do know from personal experience from the book I read years ago that the man held to false doctrine regarding his belief on the impact (or lack thereof) that regeneration can have upon a child of God.

 

[lexinonomous]

I want to say that if you're devoting your life to christ and constantly making room for God in your life, that you will definitely grow spiritually. People that stray away from god are constantly trying to find peace in their lives. When you are a Christian and truly believe that God is in your heart, it's easy to manage a spiritual lifestyle

 

[JamesL]

Hi Brother James,

James says, "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone". The subject of the verse is the noun faith, man is not mentioned in the verse, but faith is, thus faith in this verse is very clearly that which is said to be "dead".

The Greek word for dead in this verse is "nekros" which means quite simply "a corpse". See http://biblehub.com/greek/3498.htm

Now, let's use a comparison, if someone such as Abraham Lincoln is said to be dead, can it be said he currently exists? No. Dead here means nonexistent, no life. What is life? Is it not the Holy Spirit in someone?

First, nekron does not mean corpse, it simply means "dead". It is derived from "nekus" (or nekys, depending on how you desire to pronounce the upsilon).

Here is BibleHub's definition from Strong's:
*****3498 nekrós (an adjective, derived from nekys, "a corpse, a dead body") – dead; literally, "what lacks life"; dead; (figuratively) not able to respond to impulses, or perform functions ("unable, ineffective, dead, powerless," L & N, 1, 74.28); unresponsive to life-giving influences (opportunities); inoperative to the things of God.

3498 /nekrós ("corpse-like") is used as a noun in certain contexts ("the dead"), especially when accompanied by the Greek definite article. The phrase, ek nekron ("from the dead"), lacks the Greek article to give the sense "from what is of death."*****

Here is the definition from BibleStudyTools:

1. properly
   1. one that has breathed his last, lifeless
   2. deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell
   3. destitute of life, without life, inanimate
2. metaph.
   1. spiritually dead
      1. destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins
      2. inactive as respects doing right
   2. destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative

You're making a giant leap from dead to nonexistent. Judging by that leap, it seems that you are not aware that James used another word to describe a faith which is without works. It's true that James used nekra in verses 17 & 26, but in verse 20 he used a different word altogether

But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

useless -Gr. arge (argos) - which means idle, useless, inoperative.

That's why James wrote in verse 14 - what USE is it...?

It goes right along with "dead"
We even use "dead" in the same way in English.

Is a dead battery nonexistent, or is it useless?
Wood is resonantly dead, meaning it does not resonate. Useless as a resonator
A dead end street is not a nonexistent street, it's simply useless as a thoroughfare
A dead electrical circuit is not nonexistent, it's useless.

....but James asks "Can faith save him"? (James 2:14)...

Save him from what? That's what you're missing, and it's right in the text. Remember, this is the same verse in which James asks "what USE it is...?"

Back up to verse 12, and James exhorted them "so speak and act as those who will be judged by the law of liberty"

and in 3:1 he reminds them again of this future judgment....
"Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment."

Brothers. judgment. Just as in verse 14, brothers.

He is telling them that believers have a judgment to look forward to, just like Paul wrote in 1Corinthians 3:10-15

If a man's work is burned up, he will stand in front of Christ with naked faith. His faith will be useless for approval and reward. He will suffer loss. Just like Paul wrote

thus either the Bible contradicts itself when it says those with faith are saved, then implying faith cannot save someone, or you can accept my conclusion that there are two types of faith under consideration, one that is a "gift of God" (see Ephesians 2:8) and will prove itself genuine by producing works and the other that is generated from man that does not produce works....

Wrong. You're trying to put both in the same context of "saved from hell, going to heaven"

James said of Abraham in 2:22 :You see that faith was working with HIS works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected

James said nothing about Abraham's faith being validated or proved, or inevitable. Just as Paul wrote in Colossians 3:23-25

23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men,
24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.
25 For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Brother James,

In your reply to me you did not reply to my three points in the quote below. Please address, then we can move forward with this debate. Thanks.

Hi Brother James,



1)Now, as to if a true believer will have good works, Paul says clearly, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10). If you look up the Greek of the word "ordained" in that verse it means predestinated, thus if God predestinated that we should walk in good works, is there any doubt one will if they have saving faith?

2)Simon Magus 'believed' and was baptized but his heart was 'not right in the sight of God' per the Bible (see Acts 8:12-22). In other words, it was 'belief' without a changed heart and because this was Simon's condition Peter says he would perish unless he came to true repentance: he was 'in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity' (vs. 23). And the evidence that Simon Magus was indeed unsaved can be seen in his prayer. He, like all unregenerate people, was only concerned with the consequence of sin and made no request to be pardoned and cleansed from the impurity of sin. 'Pray ye,' he says to Peter, 'to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me'. Like the so-called 'carnal Christian' he wanted Jesus as a kind of hell-insurance policy but he was not interested in deliverance from sin!

3)If one could be saved and not have works, than that means you believe the flesh is stronger than the Spirit of God itself in a believer! God forbid we reach such a conclusion.


Brother Joe

 

[Van]

I am responding only to the question, do all Christians grow spiritually? I did not read the OP or any of the following posts.

No, all Christians do not grow spiritually, such as death bed conversions (the thief on the cross springs to mind). However, what about true, born anew Christians, that live sufficiently so they had an opportunity to grow? Here we must pause and consider whether growth is observable by others. Certainly some did not seem to grow out of babyhood, i.e. remained fleshy, and never seemed to mature. But an assessment is confounded by not knowing if they were really born anew or tares.

Based on our own experience, we would believe the Holy Spirit would convict us such that we became more Christ-like as we studied, evaluated and assessed our followship. Clearly some of our efforts might not reflect actual maturity, like the guy who builds on the foundation of Christ with wood and straw. But the very act of building, misguided as it might be, reflects spiritual growth in my book.

 

[Iconoclast]

Brother DHK,

Im glad you do not agree with Hodges regarding his interpretation of "carnal Christians" brother! I'll have to admit, I assumed you would have been in his camp, especially when you jumped into this thread in the manner you did, but we know what assuming does to a person!

I am embarrassed to admit, but I read a book by Hodges many years ago in my high school days and use to have similar beliefs as his on carnal Christians, but thankfully I was delivered from that false teaching! I do know he advocated one could be carnal their entire life, but admit it has been years since I read that book, trashed it many years ago, and did a "google" search of his name and teachings on carnal Christians today that lead me to that URL I provided you that used citations on his teachings. It is very possible some of his quotes were taken out of context as it is the internet, but I do know from personal experience from the book I read years ago that the man held to false doctrine regarding his belief on the impact (or lack thereof) that regeneration can have upon a child of God.

DHK believes in the carnal Christian teaching. ...look up his posts....you will see it.

 

[JamesL]

DHK believes in the carnal Christian teaching. ...look up his posts....you will see it.

he doesn't hide from it. In fact, he defended that biblical perspective in this thread

 

[Iconoclast]

he doesn't hide from it. In fact, he defended that biblical perspective in this thread

Hello James
I know he will defend that position, and yet these last two posts seemed to indicate he agreed with broj....
I do not think he does....hope I am wrong but just wanted to suggest to Joe what the deal is.

 

[Internet Theologian]

DHK believes in the carnal Christian teaching. ...look up his posts....you will see it.

Agreed! He has also stated (dkh) that he doesn't agree with Hodges' theology.

I do not agree with Hodge's theology.

That's not exactly true as he buys his believer/disciple false dichotomy and has argued for this in another thread.

He has also tried to bury Hodges false teachings on 1 John 3:10 under Hodges teachings on 2 John 9. But these are two differing issues, the former concerning a lifestyle of sin marking one as lost, the latter is concerning those who don't abide in the teachings of Christ. The fact is the two passages are using biblical language showing both as lost.

Nevertheless Hodges teachings are false on both accounts. One cannot erase ones doctrine on one passage by diverting someone to another, especially when they are two differing subjects. I've read Hodges on both accounts. I've also quoted Hodges own teachings, showing what he believes, all met with ridicule and ad hominem.

By the way, below is a link showing some of Hodges erroneous views. He adopted some of this teaching from Lewis Sperry Chafer whose teachings have highly influenced DTS. He was also in error.

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/30/30-4/30-4-pp457-467-JETS.pdf

Concerning the link, be aware it sometimes needs 'refreshed' a few times until it completely loads.

 

[JamesL]

Brother James,

In your reply to me you did not reply to my three points in the quote below. Please address, then we can move forward with this debate. Thanks.

Good grief, man. I'm not trying to write a book or dissertation. There's a whole lot to discuss concerning James 2, especially since it's one of the most heavily abused passages in the NT

 

[JamesL]

....Lewis Sperry Chafer whose teachings have highly influenced DTS.

Lol
Considering Chafer founded the school, I would hope so.

You crack me up

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Good grief, man. I'm not trying to write a book or dissertation. There's a whole lot to discuss concerning James 2, especially since it's one of the most heavily abused passages in the NT

Brother James,

Now, I responded to all your points in my reply to you in post 23, but you can skip 3 of mine and the only rebuttal you have is to reply it requires too much writing? I guess I will take it by that response you do not have a rebuttal so you are now making excuses. I understand if you don't have the time, but how about tackling at least one point a day?

The fact is you are the one asserting there are born again children of God who will not have works, there are plenty of other scriptures outside of James 2 that refute your position. This thread was created to discuss spiritual growth, but you want to narrow it down to a few verses in James 2. As much as you may want to, you cannot isolate a few verses from the rest of the Bible to go about establishing or proving a doctrine. You can prove anything from the Bible by isolating a few verses and that is a good way to lead to the path of false doctrine.

You asked how come I contend there is such a thing as a spurious faith from a genuine faith and I answered you from the Bible with the example of Simon Magus from Acts 8:1-22 (perhaps you believe he too was regenerated). You inferred it is possible a true born again Christian may not have works and I answered you from the Bible with Ephesians 2:10 that says God "ordained" which means predestinated that his children should walk in works. Now you do not want to rebuttal my answers to your questions? I posted my points in post 21, you did not address three of them, so I reposted them again in post 31 to give you a 2nd opportunity to answer them, but once again you are electing not to answer them.

I am not interested in a one sided debate entailing you asking me all the questions, me answering them, then you not addressing the points in my answers or only answering less than half, and then responding with more questions for me to answer. That is not how a debate works.

I will post my 3 unanswered points again one final time and you can elect if you want to answer them. Even one point a day would be fine with me, but if you refuse to supply a reply again I am through debating you. For the third and final time, my points are reposted below giving you one final chance to reply-

1)Now, as to if a true believer will have good works, Paul says clearly, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10). If you look up the Greek of the word "ordained" in that verse it means predestinated, thus if God predestinated that we should walk in good works, is there any doubt one will if they have saving faith?

2)Simon Magus 'believed' and was baptized but his heart was 'not right in the sight of God' per the Bible (see Acts 8:12-22). In other words, it was 'belief' without a changed heart and because this was Simon's condition Peter says he would perish unless he came to true repentance: he was 'in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity' (vs. 23). And the evidence that Simon Magus was indeed unsaved can be seen in his prayer. He, like all unregenerate people, was only concerned with the consequence of sin and made no request to be pardoned and cleansed from the impurity of sin. 'Pray ye,' he says to Peter, 'to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me'. Like the so-called 'carnal Christian' he wanted Jesus as a kind of hell-insurance policy but he was not interested in deliverance from sin!

3) If one could be saved and not have works, then that means you believe the flesh is stronger than the Spirit of God itself in a believer! God forbid we reach such a conclusion.

 

[DHK]

Agreed! He has also stated (dkh) that he doesn't agree with Hodges' theology.

That's not exactly true as he buys his believer/disciple false dichotomy and has argued for this in another thread.

WOW! What a leap of faith you have taken. Because I believe there is a difference between a new believer and a disciple you believe I am a follower of Hodges.
If I accept your logic you are a Roman Catholic because you believe the "Trinity." Correct?
That is the ridiculous logic you are following. My statement stands. I do not agree with Hodges theology, meaning most of it, just like you may not agree with the theology of the RCC. Got it?

He has also tried to bury Hodges false teachings on 1 John 3:10 under Hodges teachings on 2 John 9. But these are two differing issues, the former concerning a lifestyle of sin marking one as lost, the latter is concerning those who don't abide in the teachings of Christ. The fact is the two passages are using biblical language showing both as lost.

To my recollection I said nothing about Hodge and 1John 3:10 for I don't have anything written by him on First John. I simply said that his comments on 2John 9 must be taken in the entire context of 2John 9-11, as every passage by whomever it is written by should be taken in its context. Otherwise it does not have its proper meaning.

Nevertheless Hodges teachings are false on both accounts. One cannot erase ones doctrine on one passage by diverting someone to another, especially when they are two differing subjects. I've read Hodges on both accounts. I've also quoted Hodges own teachings, showing what he believes, all met with ridicule and ad hominem.

You mean one cannot erase his doctrine by looking two verses down and see what he really means. One would rather misalign what he said. I am not defending what he said or even believes. I am defending what he didn't say!

 

[DHK]

DHK believes in the carnal Christian teaching. ...look up his posts....you will see it.

You still haven't decided to believe the Bible't teaching on 1Cor.3:1-5, eh?

 

[Iconoclast]

You still haven't decided to believe the Bible't teaching on 1Cor.3:1-5, eh?

Hello DHK

The thing is I do believe the bibles teaching on 1 Cor 3:1-5. I also understand what it teaches unlike you. The reason for that is simple. I have studied the passage myself, but I am not afraid to listen to God called men who understand the original languages.
I offered the sermons to you and anyone who wanted to listen.
YOU REFUSED. Instead you repeat false teaching that in truth denies the Spirit's work in progressive sanctification. That leaves me no choice but to openly oppose those falsehoods you post. Here are the sermons again....you are welcome to listen and learn;


http://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/downing/wd_carnal.mp3


http://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/carnal/01am_carnal.mp3

http://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/carnal/02am_carnal.mp3


http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/s...-carnal-christian-heresy-by-brian-schwertley/