God used 3 different words in the greek language...3 not one. each has a different meaning...so Hence...no CARNAL CHRISTIAN....no such thing.
Two points:
First:
The NASB gives a much clearer and better rendering (imo) of the 1 Corinthians passage:
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able [to receive it]. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?
The attribute, of what is commonly called the "carnal Christian," concerns one that lacks maturity, one that has remained an infant of infantile character.
What I disagree is those that would appoint such as "apostates." For the apostate is one possibly (from my experience) who would fit Hebrews 6:6. One has to have acquired some knowledge and some understanding to have turned away or rejected that principle or religion or practice.
But, the immature believer needs to grow up, or God's just judgment of fiery purging will attend to their life. Often (imo) touching the ones they love the most in such a way as to drive them to their knees in Godly repentance.
There was a book that used "soulish" in the title. I don't have it anymore, but recall that wee little book having great impact on my understanding of needing to grow up in the Spirit.
Because there are believers who are immature, and who do not mature, Paul warns and pleads with them, rebuking their attitude of squandering opportunity for growth, fellowship, and usefulness to God.
Generally, I think that the teaching that there are no "Carnal Christians" is a bit misleading, especially when folks do allow that there is need for maturity and growth in the believer to move them from the fleshly into a practiced denial of the fleshly. One cannot teach such a progression, and project that "carnal" fleshly believers who need to mature are actually not believers at all.
As Paul states: (Galatians 5)
"But I say,
walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But
if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who
practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
It is important to note: Paul is not saying that if a believer fails in one or more of the "deeds of the flesh" that it is an indication that person is not saved, or that person has lost their salvation.
Rather, Paul is putting the same emphasis that John uses. That a person who is a believer will not PRACTICE sinful behavior. They will not continue without rebuke from God. One cannot continue to mock God and expect to not reap a destruction of the flesh. It was so in the Corinthian church, evidenced in Ananias and Sapphira, was warned about by Paul and discussed by John, and throughout the ages many historical anecdotes can be read and told of the rebuke God brings to the believer.
I would caution anyone reading this thread to not be caught up in such things as "sinless perfection" or that one is not at war with the fleshly, and need not die daily (often more than once) as Paul says, crucify the flesh(ly).
Second:
Icon, I think that your use of the word "passion" and the general public use of "passion" may be causing a bit of a problem in communication.
I take it that your statement saying that God is passionless is placing the term as one not having "strong and barely controlled emotion. In this you are correct. And that is the appropriate long used definition.
Unfortunately, the general public no longer seems to have that definition in mind when they use the word.
"Passion," in the general public eye is more of emotive feelings such as grief, sorrow, love, joy, ... those things which are much less than what the word "passion" should actually mean.
Therefore, when some are making claims about your statement, they may be accurate within the defining of the term as they are accustomed. You also accurate most accurate in the use of the term. There is a level of miscommunication that I am reading in the posts.
You are correct that God is not controlled by strong barely controlled emotions.
Others are correct that God does know and is touched by the feelings of our infirmities.
