Non-lordshippers

[Reformed]

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.

 

[pinoybaptist]

And here is the scripture passage to support that view:
Acts 11:18

And 2 Timothy 2:25


So this leaves us absolutely nothing to brag about with regard to our salvation. Even the repentance and faith necessary for salvation were given to us by God Himself.

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.

 

[Aaron]

Not knowing whether I've jumped into a long-standing feud, I have to say that the above statement--as stated here--is incorrect.

Lordship salvation does deal with "obedience," and it deals with it rightly from a biblical standpoint. However, the statement posted here isn't right because no one is saved "by obedience."

A better statement of the obedience that Lordship proponents talk about is this: Lordship is about obedience because one has [already] been saved. And, if the obedience isn't there, if we see nothing but rebellion against God and the Bible, then there is sufficient evidence to suggest that salvation never occurred in the first place.

The Archangel

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not knowing whether I've jumped into a long-standing feud, I have to say that the above statement--as stated here--is incorrect.

Lordship salvation does deal with "obedience," and it deals with it rightly from a biblical standpoint. However, the statement posted here isn't right because no one is saved "by obedience."

A better statement of the obedience that Lordship proponents talk about is this: Lordship is about obedience because one has [already] been saved. And, if the obedience isn't there, if we see nothing but rebellion against God and the Bible, then there is sufficient evidence to suggest that salvation never occurred in the first place.

The Archangel

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?

 

[Reformed]

That views begs the question though...

Is there ANY room for carnal christianity for a season?

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.

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

 

[DHK]

Posted by Reform

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.

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.

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.

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."

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)

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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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).

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

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.

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,

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.

strawman in progress...

He is wrong. LS is wrong. The denial of Carnal Christians so clearly taught in 1Cor.3 is wrong.

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

 

[RLBosley]

Not knowing whether I've jumped into a long-standing feud, I have to say that the above statement--as stated here--is incorrect.

Lordship salvation does deal with "obedience," and it deals with it rightly from a biblical standpoint. However, the statement posted here isn't right because no one is saved "by obedience."

A better statement of the obedience that Lordship proponents talk about is this: Lordship is about obedience because one has [already] been saved. And, if the obedience isn't there, if we see nothing but rebellion against God and the Bible, then there is sufficient evidence to suggest that salvation never occurred in the first place.

The Archangel

I believe you are conflating a practical argument with a theological argument. Dr. MacArthur is speaking of the outward evidence of a changed life in this quote. Earlier he quotes Jesus' exchange with his disciples in Luke 9. Jesus plainly states that those who wish to follow him ("come after me") must deny themselves, take up his cross daily, and follow him. Obviously these three things would be of no profit pre-regeneration. MacArthur understands the difference between the practical and internal manifestation of this work of grace (see the quote from MacArthur in my previous post).

Let me provide a different scenario that may help make my point. As a Calvinist I believe that no one comes to faith in Christ except the Father predestines them unto eternal life and then finally calls them in time. That is my theological understanding as a Reformed Christian. Now would I be contradicting myself if I said, "No one can come to Christ unless they first believe. They must respond to the gospel"? Absolutely not! Both things are equally true. It's how I understand the dynamic between both things (predestination/election and human choice) that keeps both from being contradictory. God has chosen the means by which he calls sinners to repentance, and that is the preaching of the gospel. Even though the Father divinely elects and draws sinners to himself, the individual must exercise faith. A better way of wording it would be to say that the sinner will exercise faith as a result of the effectual call. In the same way the proponent of Lordship Salvation can rightly emphasize the outward manifestation of repentance without separating it from the internal work of the Spirit.

I do not want this statement by you to go unaddressed. The 20th century saw the increase of easy-believism and antinomianism at the expense of progressive sanctification. The former are a virulent cancer in the church today. Lordship Salvation was nothing less than a recapture of the doctrine that being born from above results in a radical organic change in the life of the new Christian (2 Cor. 5:17). That change begins with a recognition of the new believer's former sinful condition and his repudiation of it. That is what we term repentance. Opponents of Lordship Salvation use a supposed gap in the ordo salutis as a point of refutation. The fact is that repentance is part and parcel with the new birth. There is not a scalpel sharp enough to divide the different components of the new birth. But just as salvation is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8, 9), so is repentance. The natural man could never repent while still in his unregenerate state (1 Cor. 2:14). But once the Spirit regenerates the immaterial part of man, repentance follows. The godly sorrow that leads to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10) is God-given, so repentance is not something for the individual to boast in.

I pray that the biblical doctrine of progressive sanctification will once again become the majority teaching in Christian churches.

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.

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

 

[DHK]

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 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.

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,

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

strawman in progress...

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.

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

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.

Roberto,

Whoopie ... you have 2 moronic posts to respond to! ... Enjoy!

But as for me, this blindness makes me sick to my stomach.

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

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

Well...you can tell that to Vincent, or Vines Nt word studies...or if you want to finally listen to someone who teaches greek , listen to the sermons I offered you over a year ago and learn about it...here you go..

http://www.sg-audiotreasures.org/

Go to Downing ,William on the list of names-

scroll down to the 26th sermon-the carnal Christian heresy
The first 34 minutes lays out what is the teaching and issue historically, then in minute 35...it is laid out in the greek....grammatically... not from bible software,,,but from the text....

In fact ...you can call or write this pastor who will walk you through it on the phone, he will give you the words, the tenses of the words, right from the greek text....and then you can offer your ideas...lol...if not..you really have nothing to say do you???
Sovereign Grace Baptist Church of Silicon Valley
Map Icon271 West Edmundson Ave.
Morgan Hill, CA. 95037
(408) 778-5930........you can even Skype if you doubt he is reading from the greek text...although he will probably do it from memory,lol
Then from the same site...
Go to Albert N. Martin

it will say individual messages, or series

click on series....then scroll down to two messages in the 22 spot

carnal Christian doctrine

I can only offer it....you can even listen privately and not tell us if you do or not...{I will keep it a secret}....I know this however...any who do listen, will see what you are posting is defective.

You have believed whatever sources you do, your individual study, Ryrie, and others....I am certain they are wrong and challenge you to listen....if you feel they are wrong....show where and offer your idea....You cannot do it.
This idea you have expressed...that you are not going to listen to anyone else is only an excuse. This is a vital topic in our day.....I would challenge you to re-examine what you are holding.

Archangel and Reformed have spoken very clearly on this...do not discount what they offered.

 

[DHK]

Well...you can tell that to Vincent, or Vines Nt word studies...or if you want to finally listen to someone who teaches greek , listen to the sermons I offered you over a year ago and learn about it...here you go..

Look in all the commentaries pre mid 20th century. You won't find a single one that denies the Scriptures as you do--the existence of carnal Christians, as described in 1Cor.3:1-5. This is a novel doctrine that goes hand in hand with this other new doctrine recently invented that you also won't find mentioned in those same older commentaries--Lordship Salvation.

They are new and novel doctrines, never heard before in orthodox Christianity.
We are to contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints, not new and novel doctrines from the likes of MacArthur and Washer.

 

[Iconoclast]

Look in all the commentaries pre mid 20th century. You won't find a single one that denies the Scriptures as you do--the existence of carnal Christians, as described in 1Cor.3:1-5. This is a novel doctrine that goes hand in hand with this other new doctrine recently invented that you also won't find mentioned in those same older commentaries--Lordship Salvation.

They are new and novel doctrines, never heard before in orthodox Christianity.
We are to contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints, not new and novel doctrines from the likes of MacArthur and Washer.

This has been explained to you several times....recently by Archangel, and Reformed.... no one would consider such a faulty doctrine as you propose because they had a right grasp on the fall, salvation , and sanctification.

Listen to the sermons I offered DHK...it is all there...even the history of the doctrine.....or just keep repeating error....I am trying DHK but maybe unless you pick up the phone and call like I requested...you will remain in error.

 

[Reformed]

Look in all the commentaries pre mid 20th century. You won't find a single one that denies the Scriptures as you do--the existence of carnal Christians, as described in 1Cor.3:1-5. This is a novel doctrine that goes hand in hand with this other new doctrine recently invented that you also won't find mentioned in those same older commentaries--Lordship Salvation.

They are new and novel doctrines, never heard before in orthodox Christianity.
We are to contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints, not new and novel doctrines from the likes of MacArthur and Washer.

Read Owen, Gill, Baxter, Rutherford, and even Dagg if you want historical proof that the substance of Lordship Salvation existed well before the 20th century. The term Lordship Salvation grew out of the debate between Christ's lordship and free grace. Don't get hung up on the 20th century invention of the term. The theological underpinning of the doctrine has been articulated since the beginning of the Reformation.

What you have failed to do is offer a convincing exegetical refutation of the doctrine. Your appealing to Washer and MacArthur only proves that you know the name of two contemporary theologians.

 

[DHK]

Read Owen, Gill, Baxter, Rutherford, and even Dagg if you want historical proof that the substance of Lordship Salvation existed well before the 20th century. The term Lordship Salvation grew out of the debate between Christ's lordship and free grace. Don't get hung up on the 20th century invention of the term. The theological underpinning of the doctrine has been articulated since the beginning of the Reformation.

What you have failed to do is offer a convincing exegetical refutation of the doctrine. Your appealing to Washer and MacArthur only proves that you know the name of two contemporary theologians.

You simply restated in different terminology the old debate between Cals and non-Cals. That is not what this novelty of LS is all about. In fact when I first entered into this debate to offer some simple explanations I was sharply rebuked be some when I associated LS with Calvinism. There are many here that believe otherwise. Some of them claim that they are not Calvinist and believe in LS. Thus the confusion in the subject.

It is a novel doctrine, and it is not mentioned in older commentaries despite your protestations. There is no older commentary that denies the existence of carnal Christians. If you think there are then produce them.

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.

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.

John Calvin.

Even Calvin disagrees with LS, and its resulting errors.

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK;.

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.
John Calvin.
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.
Even Calvin disagrees with LS, and its resulting errors.

[/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.

 

[Winman]

DHK;.

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.

 

[DHK]

DHK;.

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.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

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.

 

[DHK]

Icon posted:
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.

 

[Luke2427]

Well, let's see. If obedience isn't required,

So then obedience can never show up in a converts life, if he lives for the next sixty years?

He can rebel for 60 years after he "prays to receive Christ" and that lines up with what the Bible teaches about true conversion?