Featured Non-lordshippers

DHK,

It is possible to act carnally (fleshly) without being in the flesh. No Christian can be in the flesh. Being in the flesh is synonymous with being unregenerate. I am not referring to exhibited behaviors, I am referring to spiritual state. The Apostle John writes:

"This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth." ~ 1 John 1:5, 6

The phrase "walk in darkness" does not mean carnality. The phrase is a euphemism for being unregenerate. Christians are in the light and can never walk in darkness. This does not mean that Christians cannot perform deeds that are more fit for those in darkness rather than light. In other words Christians can act carnal (fleshly), but they can never be carnal. Paul makes this categorical distinction in Romans 8:1-11:

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus[d] from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." (emphasis mine)

Paul, is able to address the church in Corinth as "saints" because that is who he was writing to. But does that mean that every person in the visible church at Corinth was actually a saint? No. There are always tares with the wheat. Look at what Paul tells the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 13:1-5:

"This is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them— since you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God. Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!" (emphasis mine)

Paul was audacious enough to tell those who consistently sinned in the Corinthian church to examine themselves to see whether they were in the faith! By their constant unrepentant sinning they were exhibiting the deeds of the flesh, not the fruit of the Spirit. Even Jesus said that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit (Mat. 7:18).

Does this mean that Christians cannot sin? No. Dr. MacArthur does not believe that Christians are immune from sin. Even the ardent Calvinist framers of the 1689 LBC (who would have been the Lordship Salvation proponents of their day) believed that Christians could fall into divers, serious sins:

17.3 "And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end." (emphasis mine)

It is their subsequent repentance (turning back) from sin that gives credence to their profession. This is not what John MacArthur, Paul Washer, or any other proponent of Lordship Salvation preaches, this is what scripture teaches.

 

the general elect has nothing to brag about, absolutely, of their ETERNAL salvation which Christ time-sealed on the cross with His blood and was agreed upon by the Great One-in-Three in eternity past and is totally passive to the sinner, absolutely free of any conditions other than the grace and mercy of God. (Titus 3:5).
The gospelly believing and timely obedient elect has nothing to brag about, either, because as you pointed out, even their repentance and faith leading to life and knowledge of the truth (note scriptures you quoted) were granted by God to them.

 

In all the discussions I've heard, it's about accepting Christ as Savior vs accepting Christ as Lord. It's more a discussion among noncalvinists, than among Calvinists. I can't imagine a Calvinist who thinks he has power to obey, or that there is moment when Christ is not Lord. If your doctrine is Reformed, the phrasing in my first sentence will give you pause.

 

That views begs the question though...

Is there ANY room for carnal christianity for a season?

How long and how obeient must a person be to have assurance of salvation?

 

No. A Christian cannot be in the flesh ("carnal" is taken from the Greek word for "flesh"). A Christian can sin and thereby act as though they are in the flesh, but positionally a Christian cannot be in the flesh. Look at the proof text that opponents of Lordship Salvation often use:

1 Corinthians 3:1-4 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh. For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only a human way? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not being merely human?

Paul is addressing the Corinthians stunted spiritual growth and their sinful behavior. It is their behavior that is worldly or fleshly. We know this to be the case because of another Pauline passage that says those in the flesh cannot please God (Rom. 8:8). There is a difference between being in the flesh and acting as though you are in the flesh. Of course, those who consistently act as though they are in the flesh have a right to have their profession challenged. That is why Paul said to the Corinthians, in 2 Corinthians 13:5, to examine themselves to see if they were in the faith.

A proper understanding of progressive sanctification puts to rest the antinomian view of sanctification, which is the opposite of Lordship Salvation.

This is an impossible question to answer. Assurance is more subjective than justification. Instead of trying to quantify assurance, it is best just to say that we should strive to walk obediently with our God at all times, and keep short accounts with him when we sin.

 

I disagree.
The word "sarkos" means "in the flesh" or "carnal." They have the same meaning. One cannot make such a bifurcation in the meaning of the word simply through the English language. If one is carnal then they are "in the flesh." That is what the word means. If they are acting carnally, then they are carnal.
To act is to do.
How many times does a person have to commit the act of murder before he is labeled a murderer?
How many times does a person have to sin before he is a sinner?
How many times does a person have to act carnally before he is carnal?
--The answer is once to all. For the believer, every sin, however great or small in man's eyes must be repented of, including his carnality. Thus the carnal Christian. We all do things in the flesh. Look at the posts. There are many posts here that posters have written "in the flesh," and not "in the Spirit." I hope you would agree.
The difference is context. It is context that defines the word.
Words do not have a "one word=one definition" rule. That is a mistake too many make. Context gives proper definitions.

That scripture is irrelevant to LS. It is a contrast between walking in darkness and walking in light as a way of life. That is not what described the Corinthians. At all times Paul considered the "saints," "brethren," and held out hope for their soon repentance. They had not grown as fast as he had wanted them to. That doesn't put them into the unregenerate category as you just did. Why throw them into that category and contradict what the Holy Spirit states about these "saints."

This where you fail by using a "one-word = one-definition" MO. It is wrong. Words and phrases have different meanings. The context gives the meaning. It is obvious here that Paul is contrasting the Law and its consequences, to living in the Spirit and its consequences. He is not speaking of living a carnal life as he was in 1Cor.3 or addressing the problem of carnality as he was in the entire epistle. They are two different scenarios and they cannot be confused one with another.
--Again, you, like all of us, have done things out of the flesh, haven't you?
So Paul is not talking about living a carnal life.

Irrelevant. He addresses those with these problems as "brethren." He addresses those who are carnal as brethren. He is addressing those with carnal problems as carnal Christians. He is addressing the believers at Corinth not the unsaved.

Who, then, is he addressing? He is addressing the believers to do something about them that are causing division. He is still addressing believers. That same warning is given in most churches that I have been to before administering the Lord's Table. So?

You are assuming facts not in existence.
You are making Paul contradict himself as one reads his opening calling them saints in Christ, to all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. You have a great contradiction on your hands in your description of these believers.
Paul also said that God has chastised some of them that were not acting as they should (1Cor.11:30). That doesn't mean they were unsaved; but rather carnal.

MacArthur would believe that individual such as a person committing incest in 1Cor.5 would not have Christ as Lord (unsaved), that the whole mess going on in 1Cor.14 was not of God, but was of the flesh (the work of Satan), and therefore the work of unregenerate people.
He is wrong. LS is wrong. The denial of Carnal Christians so clearly taught in 1Cor.3 is wrong.

That is not what they teach.
They teach that such repentance must take place before or at the time of salvation. That is a works based salvation, something the Bible does not teach. Salvation is by grace through faith, not of works. Washer and MacArthur have made it "of works."
Be a disciple before you can be saved. That is a wrong theology.

 

DHK

wrong again
There are to words used in the greek...sarkikos....made of flesh, consisting of flesh,under the dominion of the flesh
.....................................................sarkinos... the man is sarkikos who allows to the flesh a place which does not belong to it of right; in 1 Cor. 3:1 sarkinos is an accusation far less grave than sarkikos would have been. .

You do not know what you are talking about but make as if you do and refuse to listen to those who know the issue,

strawman in progress...

You are wrong...carnal Christian is an oxymoron.

 

I just wanted to quote these posts because everyone ought to read them again. Good stuff here. :thumbs:
Reformed, Archangel, good job. :applause:

 

You are one of the last persons I would trust to handle the Greek.
I think you are making things up here.

Here are some facts to consider:
1. "sarx" is used 151 times.
147 times it is translated as "flesh."
2 times it is translated as "carnal."
1 time it is translated as "carnally-minded."
1 time it is translated as "fleshly."

2. "sarkikos" is used 11 times.
9 times it is translated as "carnal."
2 times it is translated as "fleshly."

3. "sarkinos" is only used once in the NT, and is translated as "fleshly."
That one time is in 2Cor.3:3

2 Corinthians 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
--But sarkinos, in this sense, has nothing to do what we are talking about. Yet this is the only place that it is used. We are not speaking of the chemicals of the body are we? That is the allusion that Paul is referring to.

It has therefore become obvious to me that you don't know what you are talking about.

No strawman. It is a refusal on your part to look at Scripture objectively. The entire book, and each and every chapter is directed to believers. Everywhere (chapter three included), they are addressed as "my brethren," "saints in Christ," etc. They are not unregenerate. The LS advocates do spite to the Spirit of God by contradicting His very words. That is a shame.

Here is a post from one Christian to another Christian on this board.
Tell me if it was written in the flesh (carnally) or in the Spirit--out of the fruit of the Spirit, such as love or meekness.

What is your opinion.
You know there are many carnal posts on this board. Why? They are written by carnal Christians. It is not an oxymoron. It stems from the fact that every believer has two natures. A proper understanding of Romans chapter seven would lead you to that conclusion also.

 

DHK;.

[/QUOTE] Calvin is in exact agreement with what Reformed posted to you earlier when he said there are two classes of persons...you just have a stranglehold on error.

 

The problem here is that folks do not understand the word "carnal" is an ADJECTIVE. It is describing how these persons were acting, not their constitution or nature.

Calvinists treat the word carnal here as though it was a noun. It is not, it is an adjective.

You can be a Christian and be carnal, just as you could be a Christian and be sad, or cheerful, or silly, or angry. It is simply an adjective describing how a person is acting at the moment.

 

Calvin is in exact agreement with what Reformed posted to you earlier when he said there are two classes of persons...you just have a stranglehold on error.[/QUOTE]
No, Icon, he isn't. He believes opposite of you and the other Reformed brethren here. I tried to demonstrate that by bolding relevant sections of his quote.
Consider it again:

It is true, the harshness of his reproach by calling them brethren, but at the same time he brings it forward expressly as a matter of reproach against them, that their minds were suffocated with the darkness of the flesh to such a degree that it formed a hindrance to his preaching among them. What sort of sound judgment then must they have, when they are not fit and prepared as yet even for hearing! He does not mean, however, that they were altogether carnal, so as to have not one spark of the Spirit of God — but that they had still greatly too much of carnal sense, so that the flesh prevailed over the Spirit, and did as it were drown out his light. Hence, although they were not altogether destitute of grace, yet, as they had more of the flesh than of the Spirit, they are on that account termed carnal This sufficiently appears from what he immediately adds — that they were babes in Christ; for they would not have been babes had they not been begotten, and that begetting is from the Spirit of God.

1. Calvin considers them to be brethren. They are saved individuals. There are some that deny that.

2. Though they are brethren, their minds "are suffocated with the darkness of the flesh."
--No LS advocate would ever agree to that. They are "of the flesh" Icon--suffocated with the darkness of the flesh (an even stronger term than just saying "of the flesh").

3. He calls them carnal, but "they were altogether carnal, so as to have not one spark of the Spirit of God."
This is not what LS advocates believe. It refutes their believe. Calvin states here that they are indeed Carnal Christians. They are carnal and have the Spirit of God. Understand what he says!!

4. Calvin gives a good definition of the Carnal Christian, which is also described in Romans seven. Here it is:
"they had still greatly too much of carnal sense, so that the flesh prevailed over the Spirit."
--We have two natures that war against each other as Paul described. When the flesh prevails over the new nature or that of the Spirit, we exhibit carnality. This is what Calvin says. The LS advocates with their new and novel doctrine disagree.

5. He emphasizes this same truth again:
"they were not altogether destitute of grace, yet, as they had more of the flesh than of the Spirit, they are on that account termed carnal"
Icon, he calls them "carnal," and yet they are brethren. They are not destitute of grace. They simply have more of the flesh than of the Spirit.
--That happens to all of us. We call it sin. Often we call it worldliness. And sometimes we call it carnality, hence a carnal Christian, even as Calvin has labeled it here. At least he is honest with the Scriptures at this point.
The LS advocates are not.

6. The conclusion to the previous statement.
they are on that account termed carnal
--No comment needed.

It would be good if you agreed with Calvin this one time in your life.

 

No, Icon, he isn't. He believes opposite of you and the other Reformed brethren here. I tried to demonstrate that by bolding relevant sections of his quote.
Consider it again:

It is true, the harshness of his reproach by calling them brethren, but at the same time he brings it forward expressly as a matter of reproach against them, that their minds were suffocated with the darkness of the flesh to such a degree that it formed a hindrance to his preaching among them. What sort of sound judgment then must they have, when they are not fit and prepared as yet even for hearing! He does not mean, however, that they were altogether carnal, so as to have not one spark of the Spirit of God — but that they had still greatly too much of carnal sense, so that the flesh prevailed over the Spirit, and did as it were drown out his light. Hence, although they were not altogether destitute of grace, yet, as they had more of the flesh than of the Spirit, they are on that account termed carnal This sufficiently appears from what he immediately adds — that they were babes in Christ; for they would not have been babes had they not been begotten, and that begetting is from the Spirit of God.

1. Calvin considers them to be brethren. They are saved individuals. There are some that deny that.

2. Though they are brethren, their minds "are suffocated with the darkness of the flesh."
--No LS advocate would ever agree to that. They are "of the flesh" Icon--suffocated with the darkness of the flesh (an even stronger term than just saying "of the flesh").

3. He calls them carnal, but "they were altogether carnal, so as to have not one spark of the Spirit of God."
This is not what LS advocates believe. It refutes their believe. Calvin states here that they are indeed Carnal Christians. They are carnal and have the Spirit of God. Understand what he says!!

4. Calvin gives a good definition of the Carnal Christian, which is also described in Romans seven. Here it is:
"they had still greatly too much of carnal sense, so that the flesh prevailed over the Spirit."
--We have two natures that war against each other as Paul described. When the flesh prevails over the new nature or that of the Spirit, we exhibit carnality. This is what Calvin says. The LS advocates with their new and novel doctrine disagree.

5. He emphasizes this same truth again:
"they were not altogether destitute of grace, yet, as they had more of the flesh than of the Spirit, they are on that account termed carnal"
Icon, he calls them "carnal," and yet they are brethren. They are not destitute of grace. They simply have more of the flesh than of the Spirit.
--That happens to all of us. We call it sin. Often we call it worldliness. And sometimes we call it carnality, hence a carnal Christian, even as Calvin has labeled it here. At least he is honest with the Scriptures at this point.
The LS advocates are not.

6. The conclusion to the previous statement.
they are on that account termed carnal
--No comment needed.

It would be good if you agreed with Calvin this one time in your life.[/QUOTE]

What you ignore in the quote is Calvin is speaking of this one area of sin of sectarianism...not of who they are by nature.....this is why you remain confused and on the wrong side of the truth here...Did you listen to the three sermons yet??? they will help you on this vital issue.

 

I didn't miss anything, and you didn't refute anything; you can't. Case closed.