This is topic ARE THERE CARNAL CHRISTIANS? in forum Exposing False Teaching at Christian Message Boards.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://thechristianbbs.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=53;t=000523
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
ARE THERE CARNAL CHRISTIANS?
Exclusive Principles
The expression "carnal Christian" is not a New Testament term. In fact it is a complete contradiction in terms. A "Christian" is a "Christ-One" - joined in vital relationship to Christ as Lord and Head, and by virtue of this union, indwelt of the Spirit of God, Who was given to Christ in immeasurable Supply (John 3:34). To be a Christian is to be the possessor of a heavenly, supernatural life.
All that is connoted by the adjective "carnal" is the very reverse, and savors of that which is "earthly, sensual, devilish." The New Testament is at great pains to set forth the tests of true believerhood and discipleship, and if these many scriptures were taken seriously, the glib, superficial and wishful talk of this one or that one being a Christian or "born again" when there are glaring indications to the contrary, would have to cease. If those who talk so loudly of "believing the Bible from cover to cover" would really meditate upon the tests of what constitutes a Christian, and the quality of fruit that will inevitably be produced by one who is a partaker of the Divine nature, a lot of the loose talk and careless teaching that is abroad today, would be recognized as highly subversive and deeply pernicious.
The Christian walk and the flesh-walk are mutually exclusive spheres, conflicting principles, hostile concepts. "Walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh" (Gal. 5:16) saith the Apostle. These two types of walk are in perpetually opposite directions, and the principles governing them are irreconcilable.
Spurious "Grace" Teaching
Our contention is that the modern school of self-styled "grace teachers" have in reality "turned the grace of God into lasciviousness" (Jude 4). It is all a part of the age-end apostasy. It genders the antinomianism, which is going to cause a large part of professing Christendom as well as the world, to take the mark of the Beast when he appears.
It is difficult to account for the attitude of these ministers who claim themselves to be teaching that the Divine justification is "by grace through faith" aside and distinct from any work or merit of man. The fathers of the reformation did a very thorough work of rediscovering and setting forth this magnificent doctrine, yet without disparaging the principle of law, or reducing grace to a kind of divine sentimentality, or faith to an empty babble of "taking Jesus as personal Savior." In their zeal to displace the dead works of human righteousness as a cause of salvation, have they not, consciously or unconsciously, discounted the God-wrought righteousness, which is its inevitable effect and its immutable objective.
"For we (Christians) are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before prepared that we should walk in them." It is this class of teachers that have been the proponents of the "carnal Christian" doctrine. They have misused one passage of scripture to divert the whole course of New Testament teaching.
The use of the term "carnal Christian" unavoidably implies a habitual state of carnality, and it is from any such constant state that regeneration is represented as being the alternative, the antithesis. For carnality to be a habitual characteristic is a sure indication of the dominion of sin. But we are plainly told by the Apostle:
"For sin shall not have dominion over you. Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves as servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey: whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? . . . Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness" (Rom. 6:14, 16, 18).
It is a serious thing for any Christian teacher to water down the implications of regeneration. For in so doing he conveys a false hope: he comforts the self-deluded individual who thinks he is saved and is not: he condones sin and lowers the standards of discipleship: he does despite to the Spirit of Grace and even to the divine character, because he asserts (in effect) that one can be "a partaker of the Divine nature" and continue in a course of fleshliness: he implies that one can "eat his cake and have it too," or that he can successfully serve both God and Mammon. He sets forth the spiritual walk as preferable but the carnal as passable. Say they; that there are three classes of men, the natural man, the carnal man and the spiritual man. The natural man is, of course, the unsaved child of the world. The carnal man is a saved man who, however, still walks in the flesh. The spiritual man is the higher quality of saved man, who walks in the Spirit and in the course of obedience. (A book by Lewis Sperry Chafer called "He that is Spiritual" and the notes in the Scofield Bible on pages 1213-14 have been two great contributors to this widespread error. - ED.)
The Eighth Chapter of Romans
Much of this is directly contrary to the teaching of the 8th Chapter of Romans. In the first verse of that chapter those in Christ Jesus" are declared to be the ones who "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." This great chapter is dealing with the believer's walk, and repeatedly that which is "after the flesh" is shown to be distinct from that which is of the Spirit or "after the Spirit." The Greek preposition kata is defined in Thayer: "according to anything as a standard, agreeably to." Then, "For they that are after the flesh (do according to the flesh as a standard) do mind the things of the flesh, but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit." Thayer gives an alternate translation of "they that are after the flesh," "they that bear, reflect, the nature of the flesh." "For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the spirit is life and peace."
Let us note that they that bear the nature of the flesh, mind the flesh, while they that bear the nature of the Spirit mind the things of the Spirit. The verb "mind" then changes to its cognate noun, and we are told that "the mind of the flesh is death, and the mind of the Spirit is, life." Nothing could be plainer. Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Those that bear the nature of the flesh are in a state of death, while those that bear the nature of the Spirit are in a state of life. Being "after the flesh", is equated with the "mind of the flesh," and the "mind of the flesh" is equated with DEATH. How then can there be such a thing as a "carnal Christian" or a "Christian" who operates according to the flesh-principle as a habitual thing, as the use of the adjective inevitably implies? A Christian is a Christ-one, a person in whom the Divine "Zoe" (life) has been wrought by reason of union with the Only One since the fall of Adam who possessed this precious Life. The carnal principle is related inseparably to Death, while the Christian is inseparably related to Life.
Verse nine of Romans eight emphasizes the same truth: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." We are told here so clearly that in whomsoever the Spirit of God dwells, that one is "in the Spirit" as regards the principle of his walk, and has ceased to be "in the flesh" as regards the principle of his walk. This is its obvious meaning in the light of the context. Here "in the flesh" speaks of a Spiritual condition while in II Cor. 10:3 the expression "in the flesh" refers to a physical condition. In the latter passage the same apostle is showing that though we still go around in a physical body our spiritual warfare is not "according to the flesh." The latter expression always is used in a spiritual sense, while the former ("in the flesh") is used in both a physical and a spiritual sense.
In Romans 8:9 we are told that to belong to Christ, or to be a Christian, one must possess the Indwelling Spirit, and that one possessing the Indwelling Spirit, is not "in the flesh" but "in the Spirit," speaking of the principle or law of one's living. Where then does a "carnal Christian" come in? It is a ghastly contradiction of terms, and a direct contradiction of scripture.
The Fifth Chapter of Galatians
In Galatians 5:16-25 we have another discourse in which the flesh-walk and Spirit-walk are sharply contrasted. The two principles are shown to be at war with each other.
Let it be noted, before we proceed further, that in this discussion we are not arguing the eradication of the sin or flesh-nature. As long as we inhabit a body of flesh there will never be complete elimination of the flesh-nature, but the upsurges of its unholy desires and urges are progressively reduced and quelled in the process of sanctification. We are contending, moreover, that in regeneration the principle of government is changed and the Spirit is the dominating force and not flesh-and-sin.
So in Galatians five, the flesh nature lusts against the Spirit and would fain vitiate and neutralize His work, and the Spirit is against the flesh. The verb "lusts" is not repeated with ''the Spirit.'' ''The Spirit does not "lust." But He is against the flesh and prevents it from being a dominating force.
The "works of the flesh" are set forth as manifest, and are plainly listed. It is declared that "those doing (or committing) such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God." Here as in I John 3:9 where it is said: "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin . . ." the present tense indicates habitual action. The most lenient interpretation of these and other passages, is that though sin and its urges are not eliminated in the child of God, indwelt of the Holy Spirit, it is not a deliberate, habitual, premeditated, dominating principle. This inescapable truth the doctrine of ''carnal Christians'' flatly denies.
The last clause of Gal. 5:17 is deeply significant. We have been told "The Spirit is against the flesh" and then comes the explanatory parenthesis, "For these are opposed to one another" and then the clause "In order that ye may not do the things, which ye will." So, read without the parenthetical clause it would be "The Spirit is against the flesh, lest ye do the things, which ye will."
After the apostle has set forth the works of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit there comes verse 24 which deals another death-blow to the "carnal Christian" heresy. "And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and lusts." He does not say "The Spiritual Christian has crucified the flesh, etc." But "they that are of Jesus Christ," the genitive of possession, of relationship. Those who possess Jesus Christ and He them, "have crucified the flash", etc. It is an aorist, a completed act, that the flesh with its lusts and passions has been crucified as a dominating principle in the life of those belonging to Jesus Christ. This is one of the many verses that the propounders of the doctrine of "carnal Christians" have overlooked.
We have repeatedly emphasized the drastic implications of regeneration and discipleship as set forth all the way through the New Testament. One who will honestly search out the matter will find that there is vastly greater bulk of material upon the walk and performance of a Christian than there is even upon the great doctrine of justification by faith. Any "handling aright the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15 R.V.) should keep such standards right in the forefront of teaching emphasis. The N.T. knows nothing of a grace that does not "reign through righteousness." If the writings of the Apostle Paul are full of these rigid tests, which he set forth under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it is reasonable to suppose that one passage cannot be used to refute or invalidate the whole course of his emphasis and that of other N.T. writers. God cannot deny Himself.
First Corinthians Chapter Three
But the propounders of the doctrine of "carnal Christians" have done just this with I Cor. 3:1-3. If this passage is to be interpreted as they interpret it then large sections of the New Testament would have to be thrown out. But they have seized upon threads of scripture here or there to buttress their case, though it demands the blinding of men's eyes to a multitude of scriptures that do not support this thinking.
Christians have always found that where there is an apparent discrepancy or contradiction in one or two portions from the prevailing course of Scripture, a careful examination will disclose the fact that no contradiction really exists, and that reconciliation is easy. Certainly it is easier to reconcile the one to the many, than the many to the one.
"And I brethren could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ." Three times the comparative adverb "hos" - "as", is used in this verse. He is not setting forth the theology of the walk of the believer or the principle that governs that walk, as in Romans 8 and Galatians 5. We have previously declared the fact that though the principle of government is changed from the natural-carnal to the spiritual at regeneration, there is not a complete elimination of carnal tendencies and outbreaking carnal acts. The process of sanctification reduces both such tendencies and such acts, until in the mature state of growth both can be so checked as to be scarcely discernible to the eye of man. The apostle is deploring here the arrested process of sanctification rather than dealing with the governing principle of the believer's walk. The New Testament does not teach "carnal Christians," but is full of the tragedy of Christians reverting to carnality. There is a great difference. A person walking along an ice-covered side-walk may slip and slide and frequently fall, but the principle that governs, is a forward movement in an upright position, not a backward slide in a prone position.
The Corinthian Christians from various causes had not gone forward in sanctification as they should and their growth in spiritual understanding was so stunted that he had to speak unto them "as unto carnal," with almost the same degree of simplicity as he would declare God's truth to the unsaved. The Greek word translated "carnal" used in verse one is significantly different from the one used twice in verse 3 also translated "carnal." The first is sarkinos and the second and third are sarkikos. There is little difference, but Thayer tells us that the first is the more emphatic. We believe the first refers to the unsaved. Their position and the principle governing may still be "spiritual" but he must speak to them as though to the carnal (sarkinos). "I fed you with milk, not with meat: for ye were not yet able: nay, not even now are ye able." Obviously it is a matter of growth, which has been unduly arrested. Babies have life, but weak digestion. Then he goes on to say: "For ye are yet carnal (sarkikos) for whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are you not carnal (sarkikos) and walk according to man?" This carnal (sarkikos) is not speaking of a principle, or of a state that is irremediable, but of an outcropping of a special manifestation of the flesh - jealousy and strife resulting in sectarian cliquishness. In using the interrogative form, he calls on them to judge the evil themselves. It could be paraphrased positively: "You are acting in a carnal manner, in that you are allowing this spirit of jealousy and strife to spring up, which is shown by one saying, 'I am Paul's man' and another 'I am of Apollos' etc. All such acts are nothing but carnality, and like the men of the world."
Do not Base Any Teaching on a Single Verse
Benjamin Whichcote made the remark that if one only has a single scripture on which to base an important teaching, he will probably find on close examination that he has none. This is trebly so when the one portion cited cuts directly athwart the unmistakable teaching of other portions of scripture. We have shown that Romans eight and Galatians five are setting forth the general doctrine concerning the distinction between the Spirit and flesh principles, while the first Epistle of John gives the tests of regeneration, which unmistakably exclude habitual sinning. The term "carnal Christian" implies one who continues in sin as a habitual, constant and settled practice, and is therefore a false and misleading term. We repeat that owing to the old nature that yet abides, there are more or less frequent outcroppings of carnal acts, but the government is changed, the conscience is tender and these occasional reversions to carnality cause a true Christian deep sorrow and penitence of heart. They are sporadic and not constant.
The teaching then of the three classes, natural man, carnal man, and spiritual man is pernicious and is deluding many who are continuing in sin into thinking they are saved. If the spiritual walk is set forth as preferable but the carnal walk possible for a Christian, the evil heart of unbelief will say to itself: "I can sin and yet be saved. If I can be carnal and yet enter heaven, I am content, I will do without rewards." This is all false and the teachers who give such an impression are guilty of false teaching. It is the worst kind of antinomianism and is part of the base alloy of fundamentalist instruction that is abroad today.
The scripture knows of two places - heaven and hell; two beings - God and Satan; two ways -the narrow that leadeth to life, and the broad that leadeth to destruction; two principles of walk - the Spirit principle and the flesh principle. There is no halfway point in any of these. First Corinthians 3:1-3 is not expounding a general doctrine but reproving a specific outcropping of carnality in a certain place. May the Lord keep us true and faithful, and from whittling down divine principles to suit a miserable human performance, or of watering down God's standards to include the inordinate affections of man.
"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation, old things are passed away: behold all things are become new."
JAMES R. GRAHAM
Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on
:
Can a true Christian be carnal? In answering this question, let’s first define the term “carnal.” The word “carnal” is translated from the Greek word sarkikos, which literally means “fleshly.” This descriptive word is seen in the context of Christians in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3. In this passage, the apostle Paul is addressing the readers as “brethren,” a term he uses almost exclusively to refer to other Christians; he then goes on to describe them as “carnal.” Therefore, we can conclude that Christians can be carnal. The Bible is absolutely clear that no one is sinless (1 John 1:8). Every time we sin, we are acting carnally.
The key thing to understand is that while a Christian can be, for a time, carnal, a true Christian will not remain carnal for a lifetime. Some have abused the idea of a “carnal Christian” by saying that it is possible for people to come to faith in Christ and then proceed to live the rest of their lives in a completely carnal manner, with no evidence of being born again or a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). Such a concept is completely unbiblical. James 2 makes it abundantly clear that genuine faith will always result in good works. Ephesians 2:8-10 declares that while we are saved by grace alone through faith alone, that salvation will result in works. Can a Christian, in a time of failure and/or rebellion, appear to be carnal? Yes. Will a true Christian remain carnal? No.
Eternal security is a fact of Scripture. Salvation cannot be lost, because salvation is a gift of God that He will not take away (see John 10:28; Romans 8:37-39; 1 John 5:13). Even in 1 Corinthians 3:15, the carnal Christian is assured of salvation: “If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” The question is not whether a person who claims to be a Christian but lives carnally has lost his salvation, but whether that person was truly saved in the first place (1 John 2:19).
Christians who become carnal in their behavior can expect God to lovingly discipline them (Hebrews 12:5-11) so they can be restored to close fellowship with Him and be trained to obey Him. God’s desire in saving us is that we would progressively grow closer to the image of Christ (Romans 12:1-2), becoming increasingly spiritual and decreasingly carnal, a process known as sanctification. Until we are delivered from our sinful flesh, there will be outbreaks of carnality. For a genuine believer in Christ, though, these outbreaks of carnality will be the exception, not the rule.
http://www.gotquestions.org/carnal-Christian.html
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
ETERNAL SECURITY vs.
THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST
For centuries, one of the most debated topics among Christians is that of "Eternal Security". Eternal Security is the concept that states that once a person has become born again in the spirit, they are assured of their salvation no matter what terrible sins they subsequently commit. Many also refer to this as "once saved, always saved". Many adherents also say that those with unrepented sins will go unpunished since they believe that all rewards in heaven are equal. Please refer to my essay on Varying Rewards in Heaven and Hell which shows the Bible teaches that all receive differing rewards based on our obedience to God's will.
The whole foundation of this doctrine rests upon the belief that no one sin exists which the blood of Christ can not wash away. Such a sin, according to detractors of this doctrine, is the "Sin Against the Holy Ghost". This is mentioned in all three of the synoptic gospels but the one which is the most discussed by proponents of Eternal Security is Mark 3:22-30. After reading Christ's statements through verse 29, the proponents claim that Mark's words in verse 30 refer back only to verse 29 which contains the warning against the sin against the Holy Ghost. What this does is to allow the proponents to claim that the sin against the Holy Ghost is to say that Jesus Christ is (was) demon possessed, thereby freeing all Christians from ever committing the sin since Christians obviously would or ever could claim that Christ was demon possessed.
There are several flaws in this interpretation. The first is in assuming that verse 30 only refers back to verse 29 instead of referring to all of Christ's words which began in the last half of verse 23 through verse 29. This is easily proven since verse 30 is not a sentence or statement in and of itself. It is a dependent clause. This means that it is dependent upon another clause to be understood. It can not stand by itself and make sense. In this case it is dependent upon the first half of verse 23 before Mark begins to quote Christ. Any Red Letter Edition can confirm where Mark's words end and Christ's begin. If you take verse 30 and place it at the end of Mark's words in verse 23, it would read, "And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables because they were saying, 'He has an unclean spirit'"(NASB). Or how about, "Because they were saying 'He has an unclean spirit', He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables". Both are complete thoughts and makes perfect sense. This idea is also supported by the fact that the Greek word for "because" is not capitalized thereby further substantiating the claim of its dependence upon the previous clause in verse 23. By placing verse 30 prior to the beginning of Christ's words in verse 23, it would also sound the same as people talk today when quoting someone else and would confirm the fact that verse 30 refers to all of Christ's quote and not just verse 29.
Another interesting finding comes from the accounts in Matthew and Luke pertaining not to the sin against the Holy Ghost, but rather to the wording of the warning about sinning against the Son ( Matt.12:32,Lk.12:10). As opposed to the account in Mark which talks about blasphemy, the accounts in Matthew and Luke state that anyone who will "...speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him ..." This tells us the reason Christ gave this parable! They were speaking out against Him! He undoubtedly included the sin against the Holy Ghost to warn us of its serious nature and consequences.
The proponents also fail to realize that 1 Cor.12:3 says that only spirit filled believers can say that Jesus is Lord. Anyone who is not a believer is likely to attribute Christ's miracles to demon possession. If the proponents' position is correct, then almost everyone is guilty of the sin. It is quite clear in Mark that the Scribes had no intention of committing a sin against the Holy Ghost. Their purpose was to refute Christ's authority by which He cast out the devils. In their opinion, Jesus was an ordinary man. Ordinary men can not cast out demons unless, according to the Scribes, he himself is demon possessed. They obviously overlooked the possibility of Him having God's power. They wouldn't dare admit that possibility since that would refute their own beliefs. John the Baptist received the same treatment from the Scribes. Therefore, Christ, in defending His own authority, questioned the Scribes about their rejection of John. Mk.11:27-33.
Another problem exists for the proponents in the other readings of the sin against the Holy Ghost in Matthew and Luke. Matthew's complete account is found in chapter 12:24-37. Please note that no reason, similar to the one in Mk.3:30, is found thereby eliminating the possibility of the proponents to use the Matthew reading to back up their claims. An even worse situation for the proponents is found in the Lukan account in chapter 12:1-10. Here the Savior is speaking to the disciples, not the Scribes. Obviously Christ gave this account on a separate occasion. The problem this verse causes for the proponents is that they claim that it is impossible for believers to commit the sin against the Holy Ghost. Why would Christ warn believers against committing this sin if it were impossible for them to commit it in the first place? Since the sin against the Holy Ghost is the most serious sin which can be committed and since no forgiveness can obtained, wouldn't it justify having its explanation found in more than just one version of the quote?
The obvious question that the proponents must answer is, "How is the Holy Ghost blasphemed by saying that Christ was demon possessed?" The only possible way that I can imagine is that by making that claim, one is denying the Holy Ghost's mission and power to cast out demons. This is the only way that I know of, in the given set of circumstances, to sin against the Holy Ghost Himself and not sin against Christ. As I pointed out earlier, the Scribes were attempting to discredit the Savior and by making their accusation of demon possession, they were sinning against Christ, not the Holy Ghost. The problem with the proponents' argument is that you must assume that the mission of the Holy Ghost, in part at least, is to cast out demons. If this can be disproven, any remaining credibility of the proponent's argument is then removed. If the Holy Ghost has no such part, then stating so is obviously not a sin since it is the truth. One could also claim that the Holy Ghost did not die for our sins and not be guilty of a sin since we are only stating a fact. An often used legal axiom states that the truth is the best defense against the charge of slander. This could also be said of blasphemy as well.
The best one word description of the Holy Ghost is found in Jn.14:16,26,15:26,and 16:7. Here the Savior uses the Greek word "Parakletos" which means advocate, spokesman, intercessor, representative, friend, and comforter. In other words, the function of the Holy Ghost is to be God's representative to us in God's absence (Acts 5:1-4) as well as Christ's (Jn.16:7). He gives us comfort, God's will for our lives, and testifies to us of the truthfulness of the Gospel and to the reality of Christ's atonement for our sins. Through the Holy Ghost, God bestows upon us certain spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues and their interpretation. The Holy Ghost has no involvement in the casting out of demons. The power to cast out demons comes from the priesthood given by Christ (Mk.3:14-15) combined with faith, prayer, and fasting (Matt.17:14-21). Many believe though that by simply using the name of Christ, one can cast out demons. This is clearly disproven in Acts 19:13-16.
Now that we have examined what the sin against the Holy Ghost is not, we now have to define what it is and determine if believers and/or non believers can commit it. Another scripture that alludes to a sin which can not be repented of is Hebrews 6:4-6. It reads:
4. For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5. and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6. and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. (NASB)
-or-
4. For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5. and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6. if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. (RSV)
Here, Paul goes out of his way to explain that this refers only to believers. Please note that the people have been enlightened, have tasted of (or experienced) the heavenly gift (either gifts of the Spirit or salvation. What other heavenly gifts are there? Please note that the major proponents of Eternal Security are also the ones who claim that only saved believers can experience these gifts), and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit (born again in the Spirit) and have experienced the Gospel and the power of the priesthood. It also speaks of it being impossible "if they shall fall away to renew them again unto repentance". How can a non-believer "renew again unto repentance" if they haven't been renewed to begin with? Verses 4 and 5 are given as qualifiers for verse 6 to show that only believers can commit this sin. The proponents, in defending their position, often claim that these verses refer to those who seem to be believers but are not, despite their familiarity with true believers and the Gospel message. As shown above, this is not the case. What non-believer could possibly meet the above mentioned criteria, especially being "enlightened" and a "partaker of the Holy Ghost"? Why also would God not allow a non-believer from ever becoming a spirit filled Christian? The proponents also claim that the Greek word for "falling away" ("parapipto", Strong's word #3895) isn't the same as the word for "apostasy"("apostacia", Strong's word #646), therefore it can not apply to believers. My Strong's Greek lexicon states that these two words mean the exact same thing. There is no difference in how they are defined. The proponents state that "parapipto" means to "turn or swerve aside" which would allow a believer to backslide without rejecting Christ. The Greek word for this is "ektrepo" (Strong's word #1624).
Another scripture that alludes to the fact that Christians can commit sins that cause them to lose their salvation is 2 Peter 2:20-22. With this scripture in mind, ask yourself how a Christian can have an eventual fate that is worse than non believers (v.21), especially if unrepentant non believers are destined to Hell? Another scripture that talks about this is Heb. 10:38-39 which talks about believers who "live by faith" who then "draw back unto perdition". How can a non believer walk by faith or draw back unto perdition? Col. 1:23 also talks about our salvation hinging upon us not moving from the Gospel. These all help us understand the true meaning of the sin against the Holy Ghost. The sin against the Holy Ghost is denying the Gospel message of Christ and His atonement for our sins after we have become born again and had the Holy Ghost indwell us and testify to us that the Gospel and the atonement are real and in effect in our own lives. This is how such "again crucify to themselves the Son of God". Please take a few minutes to review the scriptures discussed in these last four paragraphs and see if my definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost makes sense with them in mind.
The proponents of Eternal Security, in attempting to defend their position, quote scriptures, which they claim deny the possibility of losing one's salvation. One of the major proponents has published a flyer listing scriptures they claim support their argument. To their credit, they also list scriptures used by their detractors. The pro-security scriptures fall into 6 basic categories:
1. God Will Never Cast Out Believers - Jn. 6:37, 10:27-29; Rom. 8:32-39; 1 Jn.4:4
2. Faith Is All That Is Needed -Jn. 3:16; Rom. 1:16,17; Eph. 2:8,9; 1 Peter 1:3-10
3. Those In Christ Are Saved - Rom. 8:1,v.9-11; 1 Jn. 5:11-13; Ps. 37:28, Ps. 121
4. God Has Predestined All Believers To Heaven - Rom. 8:28-31; Eph. 1:2-6
5. Various Other Scriptures - Rom. 11:29; 1 Cor. 5:4,5; Ps. 40:11
6. Scriptures That Make No Sense To Me - Zech. 4:6; Jn. 6:29; Gal. 3:1; Phil. 1:6; 1 Jn. 3:2
Our definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost allows us to accept the first three arguments since such a sinner is no longer a believer. Please reread our definition to make this point clear. God would never cast out believers, but they are no longer believers and therefore have no faith in Christ or are "in Christ". The proponents often quote 1 Cor. 6:19,20 to prove that believers can be held against their will since they are not their own. The believer is purchased through the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). Please refer to Heb. 10:26-29 below to see how believers can cancel the sale through rejecting the blood. Previously quoted scriptures establish the fact that believers can fall from grace as well. The fourth category causes as many problems for the proponents as it was intended to cause for us. If one takes the position that all believers are predestined to be such, then what is the purpose of missionary work and the great command of the Savior to go out and preach the Gospel to every creature? What is the purpose of keeping the commandments, having faith, or doing anything if everything has already been predetermined and there is nothing that we can do about it? Does man have free will or free agency? These scriptures undoubtedly have been mistranslated. The Greek word "proorizo" used in both scriptures can also be translated "foreordained". This translation eliminates the problem. Please refer to Bruce R. McConkie's book, Mormon Doctrine for a discourse on foreordination.
Let's take a look at the three remaining scriptures that make no sense to me. If you have any idea what the last five scriptures have to do with this topic, please email me and let me know. Psalms 40:11 - This is a plea from David to the Lord to preserve him. Please note that this is a plea and not a doctrinal statement and can also be classified under category #1 above. Rom. 11:29 - If we had to be sinless to have gifts and callings, few would have any, at least not for very long. We all have sin. How can Christ give any man a calling or gift if the individual has rejected the sovereignty of Christ? 1 Cor. 5:4-5 - Let's look at verses 1-5 to get the whole feeling of this scripture. Is verse 5 saying that we should kill or allow individuals to be killed so that the soul of the individual may be saved? If an individual is committing the sins outlined in v.1-2, does it mean that he is on his way to losing his salvation so that it would be better for him if he were killed so that he could not continue sinning thereby he could avoid chancing losing his salvation? This interpretation could be used by the opponents of Eternal Security. What kind of an argument can the proponents make with this scripture? What kind of can of worms are they opening about murder? If this is the case, shouldn't we kill all believers so that they would have no chance of sinning enough to lose their salvation?!?! Suicide for believers must be O.K. This "Jim Jones" type of doctrine is obviously false. This still leaves the proponents with the problem of having an individual be in a position of losing his salvation unless he is "delivered unto Satan". This scripture clearly states that an individual can lose his salvation!
After examining the scriptures used by the proponents, let's look at a few of the remaining anti-Eternal Security scriptures not already mentioned. Rom. 4:15, 5:13,and 7:7-9 state that if an individual is ignorant of the laws of God, "sin is not imputed". How could the Scribes sin against the Holy Ghost if they were unaware of how the sin was committed or whether the sin even existed? They can't according to Paul. Since miracles can only be performed by God or Satan, "..and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" (1 Cor. 12:3), how else can a non believer explain the miracles of Christ? Are we condemning people to Hell by asking them to explain these miracles? One large group of scriptures state that only those who endure to the end shall receive salvation. These scriptures are: Matt. 24:13; Mk. 13:13; 1 Cor. 15:2; 1 Tim. 4:16; Heb. 3:12-14; Jas. 5:11; Rev. 2:7,10, and 3:5,15-16. These show that it is possible to lose your salvation if you don't remain faithful to the Gospel plan until death. Along the same line, Phil. 2:12 commands us to work out our own salvation. If we do not work at it, can we expect to obtain it? 1 Jn. 5:16 states that there is a sin unto death. This is not physical death since there are a number of sins which were worthy of capital punishment. John says there is only one sin which leads to spiritual capital punishment. Matt. 5:13, Gal. 5:1-4, and Heb. 12:15 also say that we can fall from grace. The parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13) tells of believers being locked out of the Lord's presence due to their not performing works required to prepare for His coming. 2 Tim. 2:10-12 has Paul "endur(ing) all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus...if we deny him, he also will deny us." Please note that Paul endures that the elect "may" have salvation. Nothing is assured. They may fall at some point and he states that if we (believers) deny Christ, he will deny us. See Matt. 10:33.
The best scripture remaining is Heb. 10:26-29. It reads in the NASB:
26. For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27. but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.
28. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
Please note that this scripture talks about those who were sanctified by the blood of Christ (a saved individual). It also mentions a terrifying judgment of fire. Verse 29 also points out that a previously saved person who denies Christ and "the blood of the covenant" will receive a punishment severer than death. What fate could be worse than death and involve a fiery judgment other than being sent to Hell?
One of the most vocal proponents was the late Walter Martin, the host of the "Bible Answer Man" radio program. Ironically, on one of his programs he stated that Judas Iscariot, though not saved in Martin's opinion, was so familiar with Christ and His miracles, that it was possible for Judas to sin so much that he went "beyond the point of no return" and was unable to repent and be saved. In other words, an unsaved person with intimate Gospel knowledge can sin so much that not even the blood of Christ can wash away his sins. As proof of this, Martin quotes 1 Cor. 5:1-5 where he claims that it says that a sinning and unrepentant believer should be killed in order to prevent him from sinning away his salvation. This is in 100% contradiction to the words of Christ found in Matt. 12:31,32; Mk. 3:28,29, the subject of this writing, where it says all manner of sin, except the sin against the Holy Ghost will be forgiven man. The only way Mr. Martin's example, to which he later added Satan, could be true, would be if Judas, Satan, and the sinning believer KNEW the Gospel was true and subsequently rejected it, as the Mormons teach. This is obviously true of Satan and his angels thereby explaining why he and his angels can not repent and be freed from Hell. Martin himself, however, denies that Judas was ever a truly Spirit filled believer. By making this claim, "Dr." Martin is stating that Christ was wrong about all manner of sin being forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost. Judas and the sinning believer never claimed that Christ was demon possessed as Martin's definition of the sin claims. His statement, along with my previous examples show the disharmony between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of the proponents.
In conclusion, the sin against the Holy Ghost is not saying that Christ had an unclean spirit. It is to deny the Christ and His atoning sacrifice, after having been born again. The reason this sin is so serious is that believers are commanded to be a light unto the world. By renouncing their testimony, they knowingly become spiritual fire extinguishers dousing not only the light within themselves but often the light in many of those around them. They become an anti-Christ.
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
The Security of the Seal
By Pastor Ricky Kurth
(From a message preached at Faith Bible Church, Pastor Kurth's home church in Steger, Illinois)
"And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption" (Eph. 4:30).
What does it mean to be "sealed" by the Spirit, and how secure does this seal make us? Words mean things, and we are not allowed to ascribe arbitrary meanings to Bible words. But a careful study of the Bible use of this word "seal" will develop it's meaning for us and fortify our faith.
In Esther 8:8, the king of Persia ordered that a decree be issued, and commanded: "seal it with the king's ring." When the king's ring was pressed against the hot wax that sealed a document in those days, the sealed scroll then bore an imprint that identified it with the king. Similarly, when you and I were baptized into Christ the moment we believed the gospel, we were identified with Christ, and to this day we bear the unseen imprint of the Holy Spirit. And while I like to identify with our Chicago sports teams only until they start losing, how good to know that God remains identified with us even when we grieve Him!
Esther 8:8 also teaches us that a decree sealed with the king's ring "may no man reverse!" Not even the king himself could overturn an order sealed with his ring. How reassuring to know that no matter how we grieve His Spirit, God Himself cannot reverse the eternal destiny of a believer that bears His seal. When Daniel was tossed into the lion's den, the king sealed the den with his own signet "that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel" (Dan. 6:17).
Moving on in our study of the seal, we see that Job enjoyed absolute confidence in his security (Job 19:25-27) because he knew that his sin was "sealed up in a bag" (14:17). He knew that no one could break the seal of God and release his sin. But how much more secure should we feel! Christ has done more than seal our sins in a bag, He has "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. 9:26) and sealed us with His Spirit!
Next in our study of the seal, Jeremiah 32:9,10 tells us that Jeremiah bought some land and "sealed" the deed, here called "the evidence of the purchase" (v. 11). Well does this writer remember as a young boy sending away for prizes advertised on the back of cereal boxes. The prizes were "free," but required two or three "proof of purchase" seals found on each box of cereal. That's what the Spirit is for us, proof that our pardon has been purchased by the blood of Christ, "evidence" that could be presented were we ever to be called to stand before God's bar of justice.
Just as there were "witnesses" (v. 10) to Jeremiah's purchase, we know that there were angelic witnesses to the purchase of our redemption, holy ones who watched in wonder as the Son of God purchased our redemption on Calvary, then rejoiced when we believed the gospel (Luke 15:10) and sealed the deal.
The evidence of purchase in Jeremiah's day came in two parts, "both that which was sealed according to the law and custom, and that which was open" (v. 11), an open deed left available for examination in the event of land disputes, and a sealed deed kept safe for security purposes. These deeds were identical. We know that criminal embezzlers often keep two different sets of books—one to show the authorities, and one that accurately reflects their wrongdoing! But Jeremiah's land deeds were the same, "both that which was sealed…and that which was open," reminding us that, while our Spirit seal is invisible (since "your life is hid with Christ in God"—Col. 3:3), our public lives should read the same as our title deed, for our open seal is "known and read of all men" (II Cor. 3:2,3). The Apostle Paul put it this way:
"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this SEAL, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity" (II Tim. 2:19).
Jeremiah's land deeds were placed "in an earthen vessel" for safekeeping (Jer. 32:14). Likewise, God placed the proof of our purchase within us, within these jars of clay that make up our physical bodies (Gen. 2:7; II Cor. 4:7). Wouldn't Jeremiah's deeds have been safer in the temple? Well, which lasted longer, Israel's temple or the Dead Sea Scrolls found recently after nearly two thousand years—in earthen vessels! God knows precisely what He is doing when He leaves your seal in the earthen vessel of your physical body, for it is secured by the power of His almighty arm.
Jeremiah was told to place his deed in an earthen vessel, "that they may continue many days" (Jer. 32:14). How many days? Well, Israel was about to be overrun by Babylon, meaning that even though Jeremiah held the deed to the land, the property would be out of his control for seventy years. When Jeremiah questioned the Lord about the wisdom of His command to buy the land (v. 24,25), the Lord assured him that the captivity would someday end, and the land would no longer be out of his control (v. 44). How this reminds us that when the Lord Jesus redeemed us, He knew that even though He would hold the deed to our hearts, we would be out of His control for about seventy years (Ps. 90:10). Thankfully He, like Jeremiah, went ahead and made the purchase anyway!
We learn more about the Bible meaning of the word "seal" in Ezekiel 28:12, where it is said of Lucifer, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." Here we learn that something that is sealed is perfect and complete. Not a single thing could be added to Lucifer to make him wiser or more beautiful. Similarly, God has not needed to add a single star since the original creation, since in the beginning He "sealeth up the stars" (Job 9:7). And wonder of wonders, not a single thing needs to be added to believers today who are sealed with the Spirit, for we are "complete in Him" (Col. 2:10).
In Jeremiah's day, both the seller and the buyer of land had to affix their seal to the deed to testify to the transaction. But what about the transaction of our redemption? John 3:33 says:
"He that hath received His testimony hath set to his seal that God is true."
How does a man "set to his seal" that God is true? Simply by receiving His testimony and believing on Christ (v. 36).
And speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ, John 6:27 says, "Him hath God the Father sealed." To what could John be referring to but our Lord's experience at His baptism when "the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon Him" (Luke 3:22). If this be the case, the conclusion we can draw from this is almost too precious to believe. If the "seal" with which God the Father sealed our Savior is the Holy Spirit, then you and I are sealed with the same seal with which the Lord Jesus Christ was sealed. If that doesn't make you feel secure, I'm not sure what will!
But why would the Lord need such a secure seal? Perhaps in some sense this would enable Him in His humanity to bear the awful load of sin that was placed upon Him at Calvary. If this be so, we have further proof that we need never fear the loss of salvation due to our sin. If all the sins of all the world were not sufficient to break His seal of the Spirit, then surely your comparatively small load of sin will never avail to break your seal of the Spirit.
Romans 4:11 teaches us that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." Abraham's seal was a wonderful illustration of our own in two blessed ways. First, circumcision was irreversible, re-inforcing our conviction that our seal is likewise permanent and irrevocable. Second, Abraham's seal went with him wherever he went. I'd forget my head if it weren't attached to my shoulders! And just as sure as getting pulled over by a policeman the day you forget your wallet, you know you'd die the day you forgot your seal, if it was something you had to remember. Bless God, it isn't!
In Revelation 7:1,2, John describes how in the coming Tribulation four angels will be given power "to hurt the earth and the sea." But before they can act, they are told, "Hurt not the earth....till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads" (v. 3). Imagine how secure those believers will feel with the visible seal of the Lord "written in their foreheads" (Rev. 14:1). Many believers today refuse to believe in their seal because they cannot see it, but I don't know of any believer today who refuses to breathe the air because he cannot see it. Believers today can and should enjoy the same assurance as these 144,000 (v. 4), for while our seal is not visible, "we walk by faith, not by sight" (II Cor. 5:7). Our spiritual seal is just as real as their visible one, just as our spiritual circumcision and our spiritual baptism (Col. 2:10-12) are just as real as Israel's visible circumcision and baptism.
These 144,000 sealed ones offer us dynamic proof of the security of our seal. Revelation 12 describes how in the middle of the Tribulation they are "caught up unto God, and to His throne" (v. 5). We see them next standing with the Lamb in the heavenly Mount Sion (Rev. 14:1), "redeemed from the earth" (v. 3), just as we will be someday (Rom. 8:23; 13:11), and they haven't lost a single sealed one! They still number 144,000! Likewise, at the Rapture, the Lord will not misplace a single sealed member of "the church which is His body." Talk about "signed, sealed and delivered!"
Sometimes the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer is challenged with the notion that while our seal renders us safe from external dangers such as Satan and his host, God's seal of the Spirit cannot protect us from within, from ourselves. An alligator's powerful jaws can exert 3,000 pounds of pressure per square inch when closing, but once closed can be held shut with a man's bare hands. It is argued by some that God's seal works the same way, protecting us mightily from without, but helpless to keep us sealed should we sin too much from within.
Obviously, our Lord's seal in John 6:27 was designed to protect Him from external dangers, for there was certainly no danger that He would sin from within and break the seal. So what assurance do we have in Scripture that God's seal cannot be broken from the inside out? Surely this is powerfully answered in Revelation 20, where we are told that during the millennial kingdom God will take the devil and "shut him up and set a seal upon him" (v. 1-3). Imagine Satan's frustration when after a lifetime of failing to break the seal of individual believers from without, he finds himself sealed up and helpless to break the seal from within! My dear Christian friend, if even the devil with his awesome power of evil can't break God's seal from within, what makes you think you can with your comparatively puny power of evil? In a great type of Christ, Noah was told to seal the ark "within and without with pitch" (Gen. 6:14). Once "the Lord shut him in" (Gen. 7:16), no water was going to get in, and no one was going to get out until it came time for God to break the seal and release the sojourners into the new world.
Will God ever break our seal? Not until it is time to usher us sojourners into our new world! We have a dramatic picture of this in Romans 15:26, where Paul talks about the collection that he had taken among the Gentile churches "for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem." Whilst this money was in Paul's hands, it was sealed and absolutely safe and secure. Even though Paul was "in prisons more frequent" than just about anyone (II Cor. 11:23), and bribing your way out of prison was commonplace in that day (Acts 24:26), you wouldn't catch Paul missappropriating funds for his own personal use to save his life! Speaking then of his plan to deliver this money personally to Jerusalem, he tells the Romans in Verse 28:
"When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain."
Paul determined to make sure that the transfer of this sizeable collection was sealed air-tight to the possession of the people for whom it was taken. What a lesson for all those who handle the Lord's money today! And what a picture of the sacred transfer that will take place at the Rapture! We have seen in this study that the seal of the believer in this life goes infinitely beyond what the world calls "hermetic," but what happens when it comes time for us to be ushered into the new world? Ah remember, Paul says that you and I are "sealed unto the day of redemption" (Eph. 4:30), that is, "the redemption of our body" at the Rapture (Rom. 8:23). There will be no last minute fumble when the Body of Christ is joined to the host of heaven, for the Lord Jesus Himself will have "sealed to them this fruit," this fruit of the church which is His Body. Just as our nation's space shuttle remains sealed until it docks with the space station, even so the individual believer today will remain sealed unto our rendezvous with eternity.
The very honor of God is at stake in this matter of the security of our seal. II Corinthians 1:20 says that "all the promises of God in Him are yea, and in Him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." What are some of these unconditional promises that we have in Christ? Well, Verse 22 speaks of God....
"Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."
If God's promise were broken and sealed believers were somehow lost, God would get no glory "by us." Indeed, the loss of a single Spirit-sealed saint would be a thrust at His integrity, for the soundness of the believer's seal depends not on his works but on the solemn promise of God. We know this is so because Paul does not make mention of the Spirit's seal exclusively to the spiritual Ephesians, but here includes the carnal Corinthians when speaking of this precious blessing. Thus we know that the most backslidden believer need never fear that he has sinned too deeply, broken his seal, and endangered his soul.
This is why we must be careful to "grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." When God's Spirit was "grieved" at man before the Flood, God vowed to "destroy" man from the face of the earth (Gen. 6:6,7). When Israel "grieved" the Lord for forty years in the wilderness, God swore in His wrath that that generation would not enter the Promised Land (Ps. 95:10,11). But, when you as a believer grieve Him at His heart, your seal remains intact as the Spirit just stands there and takes it, choosing to respond with grace, not wrath. How it behooves each blood-bought believer to tremble at the thought of presuming upon such grace.
Imagine a Christian Secret Service agent, assigned to protect a president that continually took the Lord's name in vain. This president knows that his speech grieves the agent, but he could care less! Until one day the agent saves his life! Surely now he will amend his speech! But no, he continues to blaspheme and the agent, though grieved, continues to keep him safe. Before you holler, "What an ingrate!", remember that when you sin against the Spirit that saved you and keeps you sealed, you have more in common with this ungrateful president than you would care to admit.
What is it specifically that grieves the Lord? Well, if Paul had warned us not to grieve "the Lonely Spirit," we would know not to ignore Him and make Him to feel left out. If Paul had cautioned us not to grieve "the Shy Spirit," we might grieve Him by showering Him with the same attention as our Pentecostal friends! But it is "the Holy Spirit" that Paul tells us not to grieve, and His name says it all! It is the ungodly and unholy behavior of the context (Eph. 4:25-31) that grieves Him at His heart. Thus may each of us determine in our hearts to "grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."
Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on
:
becauseHElives
quote:
For centuries, one of the most debated topics among Christians is that of "Eternal Security". Eternal Security is the concept that states that once a person has become born again in the spirit, they are assured of their salvation no matter what terrible sins they subsequently commit. Many also refer to this as "once saved, always saved". Many adherents also say that those with unrepented sins will go unpunished since they believe that all rewards in heaven are equal.
Romans 3:8 (NLT)
And some people even slander us by claiming that we say, “The more we sin, the better it is!” Those who say such things deserve to be condemned.
Posted by barrykind (Member # 35) on
:
your sick
Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrykind:
your sick
Does this mean you ran out of intelligent rebuttals?
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
'CARNAL' CHRISTIANS - SAVED or NOT??
>
> The following quote from Leonard Ravenhill caused the biggest
> reaction yet on our Facebook page. We are now discussing it on
> our new website - where ANYONE can now comment (not just
> members). Here is the quote and a few of the replies-
>
> The QUOTE:
>
> "Get rid of this bunkum about the 'carnal Christian'. Forget it! If
> you're carnal, you're not saved." - Leonard Ravenhill.
>
> Some REPLIES:
>
> A.M - "Well the Bible is white and black, there is no gray, either
> you're with Christ or you are against Him.
> "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather
> with me, scatters.""
>
> R.B - "I have enjoyed reading through all the comments regarding
> this quote. In my opinion, and correct me if am wrong Andrew, but
> I feel that the meaning of this quote is refing to those who
habitually
> live in carnality. I think that every Christian falls into carnallity
from
> time
> to time, does that make them "unsaved"? I don't think so."
>
> L.C - "Well I don't agree on this one! The Bible speaks of carnal
> "Christians"! In 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 Paul is speaking to the
> Corinthian BELIEVERS when he tells them he couldn't speak to
> them as spiritual (one governed by the Spirit) but as carnal, mere
> infants in Christ."
>
> A.M - "If you read 1 Corinthians, Paul is rebuking them for
> being carnal, not condoning it."
>
> Olive Branch - "Without the phrase ('Carnal Christian') many so
> called Christians have no way of justifying their sin."
>
> Do you have something important that you would like to say about
> this topic? Please add your comment at the following website-
>
> http://www.JohntheBaptistTV.com/
>
> God bless you all!
>
> Andrew Strom.
>
> --
> YES! - You have permission to post these emails to friends
> or other groups, boards, etc - unless there is something
> different written in the Copyright notice above.
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
FOUR KINDS OF MEN
by Cornelius R. Stam
becauseHElives what kind of man R U?
According to St. Paul's inspired epistles, the human race is divided into four categories:
1. The natural man, i.e., the fallen son of Adam, as he is, without God. Of him the Apostle says: "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (ICor.2:14).
2. The babe in Christ. When a person sees himself as a sinner and trusts Christ as his Saviour, he is "born again" and becomes a "babe in Christ". But babes can and should grow, so these are exhorted: "As newborn babes, desire the sincere [pure] milk of the Word, that ye may grow thereby" (IPet.2:2).
3. The carnal Christian is one who, though perhaps a Christian for years, has not grown, due to indifference and neglect of the Word of God. He still has to be treated as a babe in Christ. The Corinthian believers were examples of this. Paul had to write them: "I...could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear [digest] it, neither yet now are ye able" (ICor.3:1,2). Everybody loves a baby, but the joy that fills the hearts of loving parents turns to bitterest sorrow if their baby fails to grow.
4. The spiritual Christian is one who, through prayerful study of the Word of God, has grown to spiritual maturity. He is no longer merely a child of God; he is a "man of God". We should all "desire the sincere [pure] milk of the Word that ye may grow thereby" (IPet.2:2) -- "THAT WE HENCEFORTH BE NO MORE CHILDREN, TOSSED TO AND FRO, AND CARRIED ABOUT WITH EVERY WIND OF DOCTRINE" (Eph.4:14). Let us then heed St. Peter's inspired exhortation: "BUT GROW IN GRACE, AND IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR, JESUS CHRIST" (IIPet. 3:18).
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
"If you read 1 Corinthians, Paul is rebuking them for being carnal, not condoning it."
Many who regularly occupy church pews, fill church rolls, and are intellectually acquainted with the facts of the gospel never strike one blow for Christ. They seem to be at peace with his enemies. They have no quarrel with sin and, apart from a few sentimental expressions about Christ, there is no biblical evidence that they have experienced anything of the power of the gospel in their lives. Yet in spite of the evidence against them, they consider themselves to be just what their teachers teach them -- that they are 'Carnal Christians'. And as carnal Christians they believe they will go to heaven, though perhaps not first-class, and with few rewards.
That something is seriously wrong in lives which reveal such features will readily be admitted by most readers of these pages; no argument is needed to prove it. But the most serious aspect of this situation is too often not recognized at all. The chief mistake is not the carelessness of these church-goers, it is the error of their teachers who, by preaching the theory of 'the carnal Christian', have led them to believe that there are three groups of men, -- the unconverted man, the 'carnal Christian' and the 'spiritual Christian'.
My purpose in this booklet is to argue that this classification is wrong and to set out the positive, historic, and biblical answer to this 'carnal Christian' teaching. The argument from Church history is not unimportant, for it is a fact that less than two- hundred years ago this teaching was unknown in the churches of North America, but I am concerned to rest my case on an honest statement of the teaching of the Bible. I have written after study, private meditation and prayer, and after using many of the old respected commentaries of another day, but my appeal is to the Word of God and it is in the light of that authority that I ask the reader to consider all that follows.
I must also confess that I am writing as one who, for many years, held and taught the teaching which I am now convinced is erroneous and which has many dangerous implications. As one who has deep respect for many who hold this position, I am not going to attack personalities, but to deal with principles, and with the interpretation of the particular passages of Scripture on which the teaching is built.
In matters of controversy it must ever be kept in mind that a Christian's experience may be genuine even though his understanding of divine truth is tainted with error or ignorance. The opposite is also possible -- a man's intellectual understanding may be good and his experience poor. I pray that if I am in error on this or any other doctrine I shall be corrected before I leave this world. I trust I am willing ever to be a learner of divine truth.
I know that one of my motives is the same as that of many who hold this erroneous view, namely, to advance biblical holiness and to seek to 'adorn the doctrine of God our Savior'.
To accomplish my purpose it is of the greatest importance that the whole subject should be set on a proper foundation. I do not want to make a caricature of the view of others and then demonstrate success by tearing it apart. I shall also seek to avoid disproportionate and one-sided statements. The danger that we may 'darken counsel by words without knowledge' is still with us. I pray that this effort will elicit truth and that the existence of varied opinions will lead us all to search the Scriptures more, to pray more, and to be diligent in our endeavors to learn what is 'the mind of the Spirit'.
My greatest difficulty will be to achieve brevity because this subject is so closely related to, and interwoven with the main doctrine of the Bible, particularly with justification and sanctification, the chief blessings of the new covenant. The subject therefore involves a right understanding of what the gospel really is and what it does to a person when applied efficaciously by the Spirit. Our view of this matter will also affect our judgment of the relationship of the Ten Commandments to the Christian in the area of sanctification, and of the biblical doctrine of assurance.
Some of the fundamental questions which need to be faced are these:
1. Are we sanctified passively, that is, 'by faith' only, without obedience to the law of God and Christ? If sanctification is passive -- a view represented by the slogan 'Let go and let God' -- then how do we understand such apostolic statements as 'I fight', 'I run', 'I keep under my body', 'let us cleanse ourselves', 'let us labor', 'let us lay aside every weight'? Surely these statements do not express a passive condition, nor do they indicate that by one single act we may possess the experience of 'victory' and thus become spiritual and mature Christians.
2. Does an appeal to the so-called 'carnal Christian' to become a 'spiritual Christian' minimize the real conversion experience by magnifying a supposed second experience, by whatever name it may be called -- 'higher life', 'deeper life', 'Spirit-filled life', 'triumphant living', 'receiving Christ as Lord, and not merely as Savior', and so on? The words we read in 2 Corinthians 5:17, 'Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new', do not refer to a second experience but rather to what happens when any real conversion occurs.
3. Has the 'spiritual Christian' finished growing in grace? If not, what is he to be called as he continues to grow in grace? Do we need to make yet another class whose members are the 'super-spiritual Christians'?
4. Who is to decide who the carnal Christians are, and exactly what standard is to be used in determining this? Do the 'spiritual Christians' decide who the 'carnal Christians' are? Does a church or preacher decide where the line is to be drawn that divides the two classes or categories? Since all Christians have sin remaining in them, and since they sin every day, what degree of sin or what particular sins classify a person as a 'carnal Christian'?
5. Do not all Christians sometimes act like natural men in some area of their lives?
6. Do not the inward sins, such as envy, malice, covetousness, lasciviousness (which includes immorality on the mental level) demonstrate carnality as much as do the outward and visible manifestations of certain other sins?
In Romans 8:1-9 there is a division stated, but it is not between carnal and spiritual Christians. It is a division between those who walk after the flesh (the unregenerate) and those who walk after the Spirit (they that are Christ's). There is no third category.
Again, in Galatians 5:17-24 we have only two classes or categories -- those that do the works of the flesh and those that are led by the Spirit. There is no third or fourth class or group.
My purpose, then, in these pages is to contend that the division of Christians into two groups or classes is unbiblical. I want also to show the dangerous implications and present-day results of this teaching.
The interpretation that I will seek to establish is a result of studying the proven and respected commentators of former days, such as, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, John Gill, and John Calvin; and theologians such as Charles Hodge (of the old Princeton Seminary), James P. Boyce (founder of the first Southern Baptist Seminary), Robert L. Dabney (the great theologian of old Union Seminary, Virginia) and James H. Thornwell (distinguished Southern theologian who was Professor of Theology at Columbia, South Carolina). I have also examined the writings of John Bunyan and searched the old Confessions and Catechisms, such as The Heidelberg Catechism, and Westminster Confession (that mother of all Confessions), the Baptist Confession of 1689 (The London Confession, later known as the Philadelphia Confession), and the Declaration of Faith of the Southern Baptist Church.
In all these sources there is not one trace of the belief that there are three classes of men. All of them have much to say about carnality in Christians, and about the biblical doctrine of sanctification and its relationship to justification, but there is no hint of the possibility of dividing men into 'unregenerate', 'carnal' and 'spiritual' categories. If the sources I have named had come across the 'carnal Christian' theory, I believe that with one voice they would have warned their readers, 'Be not carried away with divers and strange doctrines' (Hebrews 13: 9).
I confess that I take up my pen in this controversy with deep sorrow. Although the teaching that I wish to expose is so relatively new in the church, it is held by so many fine Christians, and taught by so many able and respected schools of the present day, that I can only approach my present undertaking with caution and anxiety.
We live in a day when there are so many books and such a variety of teaching on the subject of the Christian life that Christians are 'tossed to and fro', and liable to be 'carried about by every wind of doctrine' (Ephesians 4:14). There is also the Athenian love of novelty and a distaste for the old, well-tested, and beaten paths of our forefathers. This excessive love of the new leads to an insatiable craving after any teaching which is sensational and exciting, especially to the feelings. But the old paths lead to a 'meek and quiet spirit' which the apostle Peter commends: 'But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price' (I Peter 3: 4).
The Issue in Controversy
At a church service that I attended recently, the preacher, a sincere minister, was expounding 1 Corinthians chapter 3, and he said to a large congregation, 'Now after you become a Christian you have another choice -- either to grow in grace, follow the Lord and become a spiritual Christian, or to remain a babe in Christ and live like natural men.' He used 1 Corinthians 3: 1 -- 4 to state that there were three categories of men -- the natural man, the spiritual man, and the carnal man. He described the carnal man as being like the natural man who was unconverted.
This is the essence of the 'carnal Christian' teaching. One reason why it is so widespread is that it has been popularized for many years in the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible. A statement from these notes will indicate the precise nature of the teaching: 'Paul divides men into three classes: "Natural" i.e. the Adamic Man, unrenewed through the new birth; "Spiritual" i.e. the renewed man as Spirit-filled and walking in the Spirit in full communion with God; "Carnal", "fleshly", i.e. the renewed man who, walking "after the flesh", remains a babe in Christ." (Scofield Reference Bible, pp. 1213, 1214.)
It is very important to observe the two main things in this Scofield note. First, the division of men into three classes; second, we are told that one of these classes of men comprises the 'carnal', the 'fleshly', 'the babe(s) in Christ', 'who walk after the flesh'. To 'walk' implies the bent of their lives; their leaning or bias is in one direction, that is, towards carnality.
We ought not to miss three very salient and important facts about the teaching:
First, we note again that it divides all men into three classes or categories. With this fact none of its proponents disagree, though they may present it differently and apply it differently.
Second, one class or category is set out as containing the 'Christian' who 'walks after the flesh'. The centre of his life is self, and he is the same as the unrenewed man as far as the bent of his life is concerned.
Third, all those who accept this view use 1 Corinthians 3: 1-4 to support it. Consequently, if it can be established that the preponderance of Scripture teaches only two classes or categories of men -- regenerate and unregenerate, converted and unconverted, those in Christ and those outside of Christ -- the 'carnal Christian' teaching would be confronted with an insurmountable objection. It would be in conflict with the whole emphasis of Scripture and of the New Testament in particular.
Before I turn to some of the errors and dangers of the 'carnal Christian' teaching it may be wise to indicate what I am not saying.
In this discussion of the 'carnal Christian' theory I am not overlooking the teaching of the Bible about sin in Christians, about babes in Christ, about growth in grace, about Christians who back-slide grievously, and about the divine chastisement which all Christians receive.
I acknowledge that there are babes in Christ. In fact there are not only babes in Christ, but there are different stages of 'babyhood' in understanding divine truth and in spiritual growth.
I also recognize that there is a sense in which Christians may be said to be carnal but I must add that there are different degrees of carnality. Every Christian is carnal in some area of his life at many times in his life. And in every Christian 'the flesh lusteth against the Spirit' (Gal. 5:17).
All the marks of Christianity are not equally apparent in all Christians. Nor are any of these marks manifest to the same degree in every period of any Christian's life. Love, faith, obedience, and devotion will vary in the same Christian in different periods of his Christian experience; in other words, there are many degrees of sanctification.
The Christian's progress in growth is not constant and undisturbed. There are many hills and valleys in the process of sanctification; and there are many stumblings, falls and crooked steps in the process of growth in grace.
There are examples in the Bible of grievous falls and carnality in the lives of true believers. Thus we have the warnings and the promises of temporal judgment and of chastisement by our heavenly Father.
These truths are all acknowledged and are not the point of this present discussion. The question we have to consider is: Does the Bible divide men into three categories? This is the issue at the heart of the 'carnal Christian' teaching.
The teaching that I am opposing involves nine serious errors:
1. The misuse of I Corinthians 3
First: This 'carnal Christian' doctrine depends upon a wrong interpretation and application of 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, 'And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ... are ye not carnal?' To understand the true meaning of these words it should be remembered that 1 Corinthians is not primarily a doctrinal epistle. Like all Scripture it contains doctrine, but it was not written -- as was the Epistle to the Romans -- to lay doctrinal foundations. Paul's immediate concern in writing this Epistle was to deal with practical problems in a young church. In the third chapter, and earlier, he is dealing with the danger of division arising out of a wrong esteem for those from whom they heard the gospel. They were looking at second causes and forgetting the God to whom alone all glory belongs. Instead of saying, 'We are Christ's disciples' and recognizing their union in him, they were forming parties and saying, 'We are Paul's for he founded the church in our city'; or 'Apollos is more eloquent than Paul and he edifies us more'; or, 'We are of Peter'. Thus opposing parties were set up.
It is important to see that the whole context is dealing principally with this one problem of unwholesome division. However, it has a common root with all the other problems in 1 Corinthians -- the defrauding of one by another, the disorder at the Lord's Table, and so on. All the problems were the result of carnality, the outcome of that remaining principle of sin in all believers which Paul describes in Romans 7:2I-23: "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."
In endeavoring to understand how Paul thinks of those he addresses in 1 Corinthians 3 we must bear in mind the designation he gives to them in chapter 1. He says they are 'sanctified in Christ Jesus', they are recipients of 'the grace of God', enriched by Christ 'in all utterance, and in all knowledge' (1:2-5). They are rebuked in chapter 3, not for failing to attain to privileges which some Christians attain to, but for acting, despite their privileges, like babes and like the unregenerate in one area of their lives.
This is very different from saying that the Apostle here recognizes the existence of a distinct group of Christians who can be called 'carnal'. When Paul comes to speak of classes, he knows only two, as is clear in chapter 2 of this same Epistle where he divides men into 'natural' and 'spiritual', and says, 'But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man' (1 Cor. 2:14-15). Under the term natural the Apostle includes all those persons who are not partakers of the Spirit of God. If the Spirit of God has not given to them a new and higher nature then they remain what they are by their natural birth, namely, natural men.
The spiritual may be but babes in grace and babes in knowledge. Their faith may be weak. Their love may be in its early bud, their spiritual senses may be but little exercised, their faults may be many; but if 'the root of the matter' is in them and if they have passed from death unto life -- passed out of the region of nature into that which is beyond nature -- Paul puts them in another class. They are all spiritual men although in some aspects of their behavior they may temporarily fail to appear as such.
Certainly these Christians at Corinth were imperfectly sanctified, as indeed are all Christians to a greater or lesser degree. But Paul is not saying that they were characterized by carnality in every area of their lives. He is not expounding a general doctrine of carnality but reproving a specific out-cropping of carnality in one certain respect. When Paul does state a foundational truth respecting the position of all Christians it is in such words as, 'If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature', and for all who are 'in Christ' it is also true that, 'old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new' (2 Cor. 5:17). There is no place for two classes of Christians in Paul's letter to the church at Corinth, and indeed no place for it anywhere in the teaching of Scripture. To interpret 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 in such a way as to divide men into three classes is to violate a cardinal rule for the interpretation of Scripture, namely, that each single passage must be interpreted in the light of the whole. It was a wise saying of one of the church fathers, 'If you have one Scripture only on which to base an important doctrine or teaching you are most likely to find, on close examination, that you have none'.
2. New covenant blessings are separated
Second: The 'carnal Christian' teaching divides the two basic blessings of the new covenant because it denies that one of them is experienced by all true Christians. Let me point out how basic the covenant is to Christianity. Jesus was the mediator of the new covenant -- Hebrews 8:6-10: 'But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises'. The New Testament preachers were ministers of the new covenant -- 1 Corinthians 3:5, 6: 'Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament (A.S.V. new covenant); not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.'
Every time we come to the Lord's table we are reminded of the blessings of the new covenant -- Luke 22: 20, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood...'
These facts are enough to establish the importance of the new covenant. But what are the two blessings of the new covenant? The answer is clearly seen in many scriptural statements:
'Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah ... I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts ... I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sin no more'(Jeremiah 31:31-34).
'For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them' (Ezekiel. 36: 24-27).
'Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more' (Hebrews 10:15-17).
It is important to note that this is one covenant with two inseparable parts -- the forgiveness of sins and a changed heart. When a sinner is reconciled to God something happens in the record of heaven, the blood of Christ covers his sins. Thus, the first blessing is the forgiveness of sins. But at the same time something happens on earth in the heart, a new nature is given.
From the above Scriptures we also learn that Christ purchased the benefits and blessings of the new covenant. And the Epistle to the Hebrews reminds us that the gospel which the apostles preached as the gospel of Christ was the gospel of the new covenant. Therefore, whatever else sinners may receive when they are savingly called by the gospel, they must come into the primary blessings of the new covenant, namely, the forgiveness of sins and a new heart.
Well, what is the forgiveness of sins? It is an essential part of the justification of a man before God. And what is a new heart? It is nothing less than sanctification begun. But the 'carnal Christian' teaching appeals to those who are supposed to be justified, as though a new heart and life are optional. Sanctification is spoken of as though it can be subsequent to the forgiveness of sins and so people are led to believe that they are justified even though they are not being sanctified!
The truth is that we have no reason to believe that Christ's blood covers our sins in the record of heaven if the Spirit has not changed our hearts on earth. These two great blessings are joined together in the one covenant. The working of the Spirit and the cleansing of Christ's blood are inseparably joined in the application of God's salvation. Hence the teaching which calls for an act of submission or surrender (or whatever else it may be called) subsequent to conversion in order that the convert may live the spiritual life, cuts the living nerve of the new covenant. It separates what God has joined together.
3. Saving faith and spurious faith are not distinguished
The third major error is that this teaching does not distinguish between true, saving belief and the spurious belief which is mentioned in the following Scriptures: 'Many believed in his name ... But Jesus did not commit himself to them' John 2:23,24. 'Many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him' John 12:42,43. 'These have no root, which for a while believe' Luke 8:13. Simon Magus 'believed' and was baptized but his heart was 'not right in the sight of God' 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 did not ask for deliverance from sin!
In all these scriptural instances men 'believed'; they had 'faith', but it was not saving faith. And all 'carnal Christians' profess their faith but it is not always saving faith.
Charles Hodge, following the Scriptures, makes a clear distinction between the different kinds of faith, (1) Speculative or dead faith, (2) temporary faith, (3) saving faith.' Robert Dabney differentiates, (1) Temporary faith, (2) historical faith, (3) miraculous faith, (4) saving faith.' The 'carnal Christian' teaching makes no allowance for these distinctions, it gives little or no recognition to the possibility of a spurious belief, instead it implies or assumes that all who say they 'invite Jesus into their lives' are in possession of saving faith. If these professing believers do not live and act like Christians, their teachers may well say that it is because they are not 'spiritual Christians'. The fact is they may not be true believers at all!
4. The omission of repentance
A fourth flaw in the 'carnal Christian' teaching lies in its virtual exclusion of repentance from the conversion experience. This is implied by the suggestion that the 'carnal Christian' has not changed in practice but lives and acts just like the natural man. This teaching is obviously set forth in the diagram given above where self is still on the throne in the case of those in the second group. But thus to suggest that repentance, including a changed attitude to sin, is not an essential part of conversion is a very grave error. It is to depart from the apostolic gospel. No one who so minimizes the necessity of repentance can say with Paul, 'I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ' (Acts 20: 20, 21).
John Cotton, one of the Puritan leaders of New England, was right when he wrote: 'There is none under a covenant of grace that dare allow himself in any sin; for if a man should negligently commit any sin, the Lord will school him thoroughly and make him sadly to apprehend how he has made bold with the treasures of the grace of God. Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid: None that has a portion in the grace of God dareth therefore allow himself in sin; but if through strength of temptation he be at any time carried aside, it is his greatest burden'.
5. Wrong teaching on assurance
In the fifth place the three-class theory is prone to give assurance to those who were never really converted. When a person professes to belong to Christ and yet lives like the world, how do we know that his profession is genuine? How do we know it is not genuine? We don't! There are always two possibilities: he may be a true Christian in a condition of back-sliding, or it is quite possible he was never savingly united to Christ. Only God knows. Therefore when we speak of a back-slider two errors must be avoided: (1) Saying unequivocally that he is not a Christian; (2) Saying unequivocally that he is a Christian. The fact is that we do not know, we cannot know
The Bible certainly teaches that to make men consider they are Christians when in reality they are not is a great evil, and insofar as the 'carnal Christian' theory allows for a whole category of 'Christians' whose hearts are not surrendered in obedience to Christ, its tendency is to promote that very evil. Nothing could be more dangerous. Lost, self-deceived souls who should be crying out to God for that supernatural change which is made known to themselves and to the world by a changed heart and life are often found hiding comfortably behind this very theory. As long as they believe it they will never seek a real salvation. Although they profess to hold evangelical truth their position is far worse than that of natural men who know that they are not converted!
The 'carnal Christian' teaching ignores much biblical teaching on the doctrine of assurance, especially those Scriptures which show that Christian character and conduct have a bearing on our assurance. The short First Epistle of John was written in order that those who believe may know that they have eternal life; that is, may know that they are born of God (5.13). Throughout the Epistle John stresses the marks that accompany the new birth (3:9; 5:18). He shows that a man born again is not at home in the realm of sin, and that disobedience to God's commandments cannot be the bent of a Christian's life, as the 'carnal Christian' teaching would lead us to believe. 'For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world; and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith (5:4). 'And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him (2:3-5).
From such texts it is clear that obedience is intimately related to assurance; if we do not live and practice righteousness we have no reason to think that we are 'born of God'.
Again, Jesus said, 'If you love me, keep my commandments,' (John 15.10) not, 'To be a spiritual Christian keep my commandments', for obedience is for all disciples. 'Follow holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord' (Hebrews 12:14). 'Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him' (Hebrews 5:8, 9). 'But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation, because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy'(1 Peter 1:15, 16).
The Bible makes it crystal clear that there is a close relationship between assurance and obedience; but the 'carnal Christian' teaching gives assurance to those who are at home in the realm of sin. They are classed as Christians. Many times this is a false and damning assurance because such have no biblical reason to believe that they are Christians at all.
6. A low view of sin.
Sixth: The fruits of this teaching are not new to Christianity even though the teaching appears on the present scene under a new mask. It is the old doctrine of Antinomianism. Paul attacks this in Romans 6:1, 2 when he asks, 'What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid...' By implication, the answer of the three-category teaching to Paul's question is, 'Yes, you can continue in sin and be a carnal Christian'. And that is Antinomianism!
7. A second work-of-grace made necessary
Seventh: 'carnal Christian' teaching is the mother of many second work-of-grace errors in that it depreciates the biblical conversion experience by implying that the change in the converted sinner may amount to little or nothing. It goes on to say that the important change which affects a man's character and conduct is the second step which makes him a 'spiritual Christian'.
8. A wrong view of Christ
Eighth: The 'carnal Christian' teaching is also the mother of one of the most soul-destroying teachings of our day. It suggests that you can take Jesus as your Savior and yet treat obedience to his lordship as optional. How often is the appeal made to the so-called 'carnal Christians' to put Jesus on the throne and 'make him Lord'! When they accept Jesus as Lord, they are told, they will cease to be 'carnal Christians'. But such teaching is foreign to the New Testament. When our Lord appeared in human form in history the angel announced his coming in the words, 'For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord' (Luke 2:11). He cannot be divided. The Savior and Lord are one. When the apostles preached they proclaimed Christ to be Lord. To bow to his rule was never presented in the Bible as a second step of consecration. 'For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake' (2 Corinthians 4:5).
When sinners truly receive him they do receive him as Lord. 'As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him' (Colossians 2:6).
Matthew Henry, in his Introduction to the Gospel according to Matthew said: 'All the grace contained in this book is owing to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior; and, unless we consent to him as our Lord we cannot expect any benefit by him as our Savior.'
Charles Haddon Spurgeon warned his students: 'If the professed convert distinctly and deliberately declares that he knows the Lord's will but does not mean to attend to it, you are not to pamper his presumption, but it is your duty to assure him that he is not saved. Do not suppose that the Gospel is magnified or God glorified by going to the worldlings and telling them that they may be saved at this moment by simply accepting Christ as their Savior, while they are wedded to their idols, and their hearts are still in love with sin. If I do so I tell them a lie, pervert the Gospel, insult Christ, and turn the grace of God into lasciviousness.'
It is vital in this connection to notice how the apostles preached the lordship of Christ. The word 'Savior' occurs only twice in the Acts of the Apostles (5:31; 13:23), on the other hand the title 'Lord' is mentioned 92 times, 'Lord Jesus' 13 times, and 'The Lord Jesus Christ' 6 times in the same book! The gospel is: 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.'
It is the 'carnal Christian' teaching that has given rise to this erroneous teaching of the divided Christ. When Peter preached what we might call the first sermon after our Lord's ascension he made it abundantly clear that we do not make Christ Lord at all: 'Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ' (Acts 2:36). God has made him Lord! 'For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord of the dead and living' (Romans 14: 9). And the same grace which saves brings sinners to recognize this. But the three-category teaching invites 'carnal Christians' to make Christ Lord and thus become spiritual Christians. Again, we see that this is treating our acceptance of his lordship as something additional to salvation, when, in fact, recognition of him as Lord is an integral and necessary part of conversion. A. A. Hodge has written:
'You cannot take Christ for justification unless you take him for sanctification. Think of the sinner coming to Christ and saying, "I do not want to be holy;" "I do not want to be saved from sin;" "I would like to be saved in my sins;" "Do not sanctify me now, but justify me now." What would be the answer? Could he be accepted by God? You can no more separate justification from sanctification than you can separate the circulation of the blood from the inhalation of the air. Breathing and circulation are two different things, but you cannot have the one without the other; they go together, and they constitute one life. So you have justification and sanctification; they go together, and they constitute one life. If there was ever one who attempted to receive Christ with justification and not with sanctification, he missed it, thank God! He was no more justified than he was sanctified."
9. False spirituality
Ninth: This teaching breeds Pharisaism in the so-called 'spiritual Christians' who have measured up to some man-made standard of spirituality. There ought to be no professed 'spiritual Christians', much less 'super-spiritual' ones! George Whitefield, a man who lived very close to his Savior, prayed all his days, 'Let me begin to be a Christian'. And another Christian has truly said: 'In the life of the most perfect Christian there is every day renewed occasion for self-abhorrence, for repentance, for renewed application to the blood of Christ, for application of the rekindling of the Holy Spirit'.
Conclusion
The effect of believing the truth set out in these pages ought to be that we long to see more true evangelism.
The 'carnal Christian' teaching is, after all, the consequence of a shallow, man-centered evangelism in which decisions are sought at any price and with any methods. When those pronounced to be converts do not act like Christians, do not love what Christians love, and hate what Christians hate, and do not willingly serve Christ in his church, some explanation must be found other than calling upon them to 'decide' for Christ. They have already done that and have already been pronounced by the preacher or personal worker to be 'Christians'. But when they don't act like Christians something is wrong. What is it? The teaching I have sought to answer says that the trouble is that they are just 'carnal Christians'; they have not made Christ 'Lord' of their lives; they have not let him occupy the throne of their hearts. Once this explanation is seen to be unscriptural it will also be seen to be closely connected with an initial error over evangelism itself. Too often, modern evangelism has substituted a 'decision' in the place of repentance and saving faith. Forgiveness is preached without the equally important truth that the Spirit of God must change the heart. As a result decisions are treated as conversions even though there is no evidence of a supernatural work of God in the life.
Surely the best way to end this evil is to pray and labor for the restoration of New Testament evangelism! Whenever such evangelism exists it is certain that men will learn that it is not enough to profess to be a Christian, and not enough to call Jesus 'Lord, Lord' (Luke 6:46). The gospel preached in awakening power will summon men not to rest without biblical evidence that they are born of God. It will disturb those who, without good reason, have believed that they are already Christians. It will arouse backsliders by telling them that as long as they remain in that condition the possibility exists that they never were genuine believers at all. And to understand this will bring new depths of compassion and urgency to the hearts of God's people in this fallen world.
One of the greatest hindrances to the recovery of such preaching is the theory we have considered. To reject that theory is to be brought back to a new starting-point in evangelism and in the understanding of the Christian life. It is to bring God's work into the center of our thinking. It is to see afresh that there are only two alternatives -- the natural life or the spiritual life, the broad way or the narrow way, the gospel 'in word only' or the gospel 'in power and in the Holy Ghost' (1 Thessalonians 1:5), the house on the sand or the house on the rock.
There is no surer certainty than the fact that an unchanged heart and a worldly life will bring men to hell. 'Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience' (Ephesians 5: 6)
It is not only in the world today that evangelism is needed. It is needed in the church.
steward@peacemakers.net
The Carnal Christian
Ernest C Reisinger
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
Carnal ordinances make carnal Christians
It is clear to all what is required by the legal/grace gospel.
1That OSAS,is a license to SIN~~~!"
2That the Sabbath is to be kept on Saturday.
3That Yahushua must be used in the place of the name JESUS.
4That the Harpazo is a lie.
5That there is no BEMA.
6That there is no such thing as a carnal Christian.
7That THE MYSTERY is a lie.
Think of the presumptuous, egotism of any man who thinks he can make the redemptive work of Christ more efficacious by his carnal ordinance. It is not always true, but generally it is, that carnal ordinances make carnal Christians.
THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CHAPTER OF ACTS . . .
THE GREAT COMMISSION . . . AND THE MYSTERY
AND SOME CONFUSED THEOLOGIANS
WE MIGHT WELL GIVE TO THIS MESSAGE THE INTERESTING TITLE
“SOME SAY THIS . . . AND . . . SOME THAT . . . WHO IS RIGHT?”
If you have not read the pamphlet of A. E. Bishop, entitled, “Tongues-Visions-Signs, Not God’s Order For Today”, by all means write to the Moody Bible Institute and procure a copy; for in that printed message you will find some valuable and helpful truth. Perhaps, like many sincere Christians, you have been puzzled and perplexed as you have read I Corinthians 12:28 and I Corinthians 12:8 to 11, that God put into the Church miracle-workers, healings, diversities of tongues, discerning of spirits and other gifts of the Holy Spirit, and you have asked the question, “where are they?” Those Corinthians were carnal, divided, puffed up, gluttons at the Lord’s Table, some of them said there was no resurrection of the dead, they defrauded one another. But they exercised all of those sign-gifts mentioned in the twelfth chapter of I Corinthians. How many Christians have wondered why the most carnal saints of Paul’s day exercised these miraculous gifts, whereas not even the most faithful, spiritual saint to-day exercises any one of these gifts?
There must be an explanation. Have you not asked yourself the question, why Christians to-day are not to follow the order in Acts 19:3 to 8, where we learn that believers were baptized with water then hands were laid on them, then they received the Holy Spirit, then they spoke with tongues; then Paul healed with handkerchiefs and aprons, sick people? There we have the last Scripture Record of water baptism. Why is it that Christians are holding on to water baptism to-day and have given up the imposition of hands for Holy Spirit baptism, speaking with tongues, healing, visions and jail deliverances, angelic visitations and raising the dead, as we find recorded all through the Book of Acts?
Do you know of any sound Bible exegesis that will explain the absence of tongues, visions, signs and healings from God’s spiritual program to-day that will not relegate the water ceremony to the same former period? Can you answer this question, “which one of the six or more baptisms of the Four Gospels and Acts is the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5?” When the outstanding Fundamentalist of Minneapolis gave over his auditorium for a fellow-preacher to bless handkerchiefs to apply to the sick for their physical healing, was he not consistent? Was he not just as Scriptural as when he baptized believers? Have I not just as much right to lay hands on the sick and raise the dead as any other preacher has to bury people in a tank of water? Do not answer by tradition, but by the Word of God rightly divided. Now referring to Mr. Bishop’s printed message, it has been published and distributed by the Moody Colportage Association for years. They have printed six or seven editions, and they never did a better work to help set Christians straight. In order that they might increase the sales of this pamphlet they have printed on the front page the unreserved endorsement of Dr. C. I. Scofield. You “Scofield Bible men” take note of this teaching of Dr. Scofield concerning a most radical change that took place in God’s spiritual program after Acts 28:28, and when you hear other preachers speak against Dr. Scofield’s teaching, go to Dr. Scofield’s defense, inasmuch as he is not here to defend himself. Note his teaching, to which we refer:
“The sign-gifts of I Corinthians 12 were operative only during the Book of Acts period.
“A careful study of the Epistles, especially of the latest Epistles of Paul, WHICH GIVE
THE NORMAL COURSE OF THE CHURCH DURING THE PRESENT DISPENSATION, would dismount all from their hobbies, eliminate the last vestige of Judaism from their lives.”
“After repeated study of the EPISTLES WRITTEN AFTER PAUL’S ARRIVAL AT ROME, I am convinced that in them is found a curative teaching for all of the present day delusions and fanaticisms found among many of the most sincere saints in the Church.” “There is no foundation in the Word of God for the prevailing popular doctrine of Divine
healing.”
Some one has said, it is as difficult to take the last vestige of Judaism, hobbies, fanaticisms and delusions away from religious Christians as it is to take an all-day sucker from a baby. But Dr. Scofield offers to Christians the only sane, sensible principle of Bible study that will give us the normal course of the Church in this present dispensation, the only answer to the
wild fanaticism of the Pentecostalists. But many Christians find the remedy worse than the disease, because they know that with the last vestige of Judaism must go the religious water baptism of the same period during which signs, visions, tongues and healings were in order.
MR. WILLIAM R. NEWELL VERSUS DR. C. I. SCOFIELD
One of Chicago’s pastors is inviting to his pulpit for a series of Bible messages Mr. William R. Newell, beginning June 7, 1942. He is bringing Mr. Newell here to oppose the teaching of Dr. Scofield, as outlined above. In the pastor’s invitation letter he has written: “During the opening days of his visit, Mr. Newell will discuss the fallacy and danger of the No-Baptism and Ultra-Dispensational teaching as well as the teaching that Paul’s real ministry to the Gentiles did not fully materialize until after the event of Acts 28:28. Mr. Newell has had a burden on his heart to set believer’s straight, and to warn against this dangerous doctrine.”
I do not know of any man who needs to be set straight on these very things any more than
does William R. Newell, and I would like to have an opportunity in company with a number of
Christians to go into the Scriptures with Mr. Newell. In the Town-Hall meetings and other
similar gatherings where interesting and important subjects are discussed, the presiding officer
permits the audience to hear both sides of the question. How profitable it would prove, for the
edification of saints, if the pastor, who has invited Mr. Newell, would permit the people to hear the answer to Mr. Newell’s faulty dispensationalism, and faulty it is.
We have recently printed two books, one entitled, “Bullingerism, The Preacher’s Scarecrow”, and the other “Why Did Not The Twelve Apostles Do What The Lord Jesus Told Them To Do . . . Or Did They?” Many of our outstanding Fundamentalists will surely give an account to the Lord for keeping the younger preachers in darkness concerning the most blessed truth for saints in all the Bible. They bluff, and intimidate, and silence them, and even drive them away from the study of the blessed Pauline truth with the cry of “Bullingerism.” Then to think of the unjust and ungracious accusations they bring against the twelve apostles, who they declare did not do what they were told to do because of their prejudice, indifference, ignorance or disobedience. What an indictment against those Spirit-filled men of God, and the indictment is true, if these confused theologians are Scripturally correct concerning their teaching that the dispensation of the mystery began with the twelve apostles and Pentecost.
THE RECOVERY OF TRUTH
Some time ago a speaker at the Moody Founder’s Week Bible Conference declared that three great Bible truths were lost before the apostle John died. First, the truth concerning the mystery and the Divine unity of Ephesians, chapters three and four, was lost.Second the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ, was lost. Third, the great, foundation truth, “Justification by faith”, was lost. Then, said the speaker, “two of these great truths have been recovered, Justification by faith’, by Martin Luther and others: ‘the blessed hope’, by John Darby and others.” “But”, said the speaker, “the wonderful truth of Ephesians concerning ‘the mystery and the Divine unity’ has not yet been recovered.” Sad to say, this dear man of God, since that time has done little or nothing to help in the important task of recovering, or uncovering, this most wonderful truth for saints in all of the Bible.
Paul suffered untold agony, even as an evil doer in jail for making known this glorious and blessed truth. He was hated and persecuted even unto death by his religious enemies, because the truth that was revealed to him and by him to others was the deathblow to their undispensational religion and Judaism in the program of grace. The same devil, who caused Paul’s imprisonment by the hands of religious men, is still viciously and unceasingly opposed to the truth for which Paul was Christ’s prisoner for the Gentiles. It was in connection with Satan’s hatred for this Divine truth that Paul declared that Christians wrestle not against flesh and blood. Ephesians 6:12 to 20.
Note Ephesians 6:19 and 20:
“And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the MYSTERY OF THE GOSPEL, for which I am an ambassador IN BONDS; that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.” Paul was in jail for telling a SECRET; God’s SECRET, “which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God.” Ephesians 3:9. “The MYSTERY, which hath been hid from ages and from generations.” Colossians 1:26.
Note again Paul’s sincere desire that this wonderful MYSTERY OF THE GOSPEL be made known to others. We quote Colossians 4:3 and 4: “Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance to speak the MYSTERY OF CHRIST, for which I am also IN BONDS: That I may make it manifest as I ought to speak.” In Ephesians 3:1 and Ephesians 3:9 we read: “For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles.”
“And to make all see what is the dispensation of THE MYSTERY, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God.” The Lord’s servants, who are messengers of grace, are supposed to be stewards of the mysteries of God. I Corinthians 4:1 to 4. They may disagree among themselves in their dispensational divisions of the Scriptures, but there is absolutely not a single excuse for one single dissenting voice, that the apostle Paul was in the jail at Rome for disclosing to others a distinctive message and spiritual program, which the Lord in heaven revealed to Paul, a message and program which had never been revealed to any servant of the Lord before it was revealed to Paul. This leads to the positive and dogmatic statement, that Paul was not in jail for preaching the gospel, recorded in I Corinthians 15:1 to 4. We learn that that gospel was “according to theScriptures.” All of that was in fulfillment of prophecy. Acts 13:29 and 30. But Paul was in prison for a ministry concerning which all of Israel’s prophets were silent. Note the words of Dr. H. A. Ironside: “The Mystery of the Church, as the Body of Christ, was never made known in Old Testament times, nor yet in the days when our Lord was on the earth. The Divine method of making it known was by a special revelation to the apostle Paul. It was a ministry committed unto Paul to pass on to the saints.”
Many harsh and ungracious accusations and much unpleasant controversy would have been avoided, had the servants of the Lord prayed the prayer of Ephesians 1:16 to 23 and learned a very important fact, the fact that there is a great difference between the saving GOSPEL for sinners, ‘according to the Scriptures’ and the “Mystery of the Gospel” for saints, which is not ‘according to the Scriptures’, but was hid from the holy men who were moved by the Holy Spirit to give us the more sure Word of Prophecy. Let us not follow the erring brethren who do not know the difference between the gospel for the sinners and the gospel for the saints. When the believer is saved by the gospel, “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, was buried, and was raised again according to the Scriptures”, he immediately becomes a saint and a member of the only true Bible Church which God recognizes for this present age of grace, the Joint-Body of Ephesians 3:6. When the believer is saved God has on deposit for him unlimited spiritual blessings in the heavenlies. As we inventory or itemize the blessings of Ephesians 1:3, for the
saints, we know that the gospel means every spiritual benefit and blessing which the believer has in Christ. Therefore, no sane, spiritual, intelligent student of the Scriptures will be so foolish as to say, there is only one gospel. The gospel of I Corinthians 15:1 to 4 differs from the
Mystery of the gospel in Ephesians 6:19 and 20.
Perhaps, you have read the monthly magazine, “The Revelation”, published by an outstanding Fundamentalist in Philadelphia. Some time ago he confessed that after years of Bible study he had just been taught by the Holy Spirit, from the study of Romans 15:8, Romans 15:16 and Romans 16:25 and 26, that the risen Christ gave to the apostle Paul a message different from the message which Christ on earth had preached.
SOME FUNDAMENTALISTS AND THE MYSTERY
Some time ago a preacher asked one of the outstanding Fundamentalists in Chicago why he did not obey Ephesians 3:9 and preach the mystery. His answer was, that he did not know what “The MYSTERY” is. In a sense he is the workman who needs to be ashamed, but if he had made the confession of his ignorance and disobedience in humility and would cease his condemnation of men of God who are doing what he, as a steward of the mysteries of God, should be doing, the Holy Spirit might reveal to him the most blessed truth for saints in all the Scriptures. His confession should make him very humble and cause him to ask his people and other Christian workers to pray that the eyes of his understanding might be enlightened that he might understand the hope of His calling, the one hope of Ephesians 4:4 and 5. And right here I throw out this challenge, show me one Christian worker or Bible teacher, who understands the One Hope and the One Body until he understands the One Baptism of the same verses. No man contends for the One Faith of Ephesians 4:4 and 5, who does not contend for the One Body and the One Baptism. No one, who substitutes human baptism for the Divine baptism of Ephesians 4:5, is doing one thing, or can do one thing, to obey Ephesians 3:9.
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
I did not mention one word of legalism...WildB did you bother to read my post ....
here is one point.....
your post speak nothing to the topic in question.....
3. Saving faith and spurious faith are not distinguished
The third major error is that this teaching does not distinguish between true, saving belief and the spurious belief which is mentioned in the following Scriptures: 'Many believed in his name ... But Jesus did not commit himself to them' John 2:23,24. 'Many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him' John 12:42,43. 'These have no root, which for a while believe' Luke 8:13. Simon Magus 'believed' and was baptized but his heart was 'not right in the sight of God' 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 did not ask for deliverance from sin!
In all these scriptural instances men 'believed'; they had 'faith', but it was not saving faith. And all 'carnal Christians' profess their faith but it is not always saving faith.
Charles Hodge, following the Scriptures, makes a clear distinction between the different kinds of faith, (1) Speculative or dead faith, (2) temporary faith, (3) saving faith.' Robert Dabney differentiates, (1) Temporary faith, (2) historical faith, (3) miraculous faith, (4) saving faith.' The 'carnal Christian' teaching makes no allowance for these distinctions, it gives little or no recognition to the possibility of a spurious belief, instead it implies or assumes that all who say they 'invite Jesus into their lives' are in possession of saving faith. If these professing believers do not live and act like Christians, their teachers may well say that it is because they are not 'spiritual Christians'. The fact is they may not be true believers at all!
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by becauseHElives:
I did not mention one word of legalism...WildB did you bother to read my post ....
here is one point.....
your post speak nothing to the topic in question.....
3. Saving faith and spurious faith are not distinguished
The third major error is that this teaching does not distinguish between true, saving belief and the spurious belief which is mentioned in the following Scriptures: 'Many believed in his name ... But Jesus did not commit himself to them' John 2:23,24. 'Many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him' John 12:42,43. 'These have no root, which for a while believe' Luke 8:13. Simon Magus 'believed' and was baptized but his heart was 'not right in the sight of God' 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 did not ask for deliverance from sin!
In all these scriptural instances men 'believed'; they had 'faith', but it was not saving faith. And all 'carnal Christians' profess their faith but it is not always saving faith.
Charles Hodge, following the Scriptures, makes a clear distinction between the different kinds of faith, (1) Speculative or dead faith, (2) temporary faith, (3) saving faith.' Robert Dabney differentiates, (1) Temporary faith, (2) historical faith, (3) miraculous faith, (4) saving faith.' The 'carnal Christian' teaching makes no allowance for these distinctions, it gives little or no recognition to the possibility of a spurious belief, instead it implies or assumes that all who say they 'invite Jesus into their lives' are in possession of saving faith. If these professing believers do not live and act like Christians, their teachers may well say that it is because they are not 'spiritual Christians'. The fact is they may not be true believers at all!
Your mixing of text taken out of context and dispensation is a great sadness and proves nothing what your opinion states.
Please learn how to rightfully divide the word.
Now carefully read....
Romans 10
1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
This twisting of text by you has nothing what soever to do with the Carnal Christian that Paul talks about in Corinthians.
Please stop your sillyness.
It is clear to all what is required by the legal/grace gospel.
1That OSAS,is a license to SIN~~~!"
2That the Sabbath is to be kept on Saturday.
3That Yahushua must be used in the place of the name JESUS.
4That the Harpazo is a lie.
5That there is no BEMA.
6That there is no such thing as a carnal Christian.
7That THE MYSTERY is a lie.
Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on
:
quote:
Charles Hodge, following the Scriptures, makes a clear distinction between the different kinds of faith, (1) Speculative or dead faith, (2) temporary faith, (3) saving faith.' Robert Dabney differentiates, (1) Temporary faith, (2) historical faith, (3) miraculous faith, (4) saving faith.' The 'carnal Christian' teaching makes no allowance for these distinctions, it gives little or no recognition to the possibility of a spurious belief, instead it implies or assumes that all who say they 'invite Jesus into their lives' are in possession of saving faith. If these professing believers do not live and act like Christians, their teachers may well say that it is because they are not 'spiritual Christians'. The fact is they may not be true believers at all!
Either someone is born again or he isn't. There is no such thing as a temporary birth. "Temporary faith" does not reside in a regenerated heart.
quote:
Charles Hodge (born Dec. 27, 1797, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S. died June 19, 1878, Princeton, N.J.) was the principal of Princeton Theological Seminary between 1851 and 1878. He is considered to be one of the greatest exponents and defenders of historical Calvinism in America during the 19th century.
Wikipedia
Why does becauseHElives quote a Calvinist? Calvinism is opposed to almost everything he believes.
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
Remember there are some here that think it is a cult to repeat the "Roman Road" and tell someone they are saved because they quoted those scriptures...
ENOUGH SAID!
![[wave3]](graemlins/18.gif)
It is clear to all what is required by the legal/grace gospel.
1That OSAS,is a license to SIN~~~!"
2That the Sabbath is to be kept on Saturday.
3That Yahushua must be used in the place of the name JESUS.
4That the Harpazo is a lie.
5That there is no BEMA.
6That there is no such thing as a carnal Christian.
7That THE MYSTERY is a lie.
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
You know what Im a discerning with this tread is that both the legalistic members have no problem at all posing stuff that adds scandalous names before grace and cloak it as a teaching.
fleshly "Grace"
Slezzy "Grace"
Spurious "Grace"
Hum.
spu·ri·ous Adjective
Synonyms:
adjective: false, sham, counterfeit, bogus, mock, phony, phoney, dummy, supposititious, fake, artificial
Not being what it purports to be; false or fake
separating authentic and spurious claims
(of a line of reasoning) Apparently but not actually valid
this spurious reasoning results in nonsense
(of offspring) Illegitimate
slea·zy Adjective /ˈslēzē/
Synonyms:
adjective: thin
sleazier comparative; sleaziest superlative
(of a person or situation) Sordid, corrupt, or immoral
(of a place) Squalid and seedy
a sleazy all-night cafe
(of textiles and clothing) Flimsy
Who thinks like this? That their 1st fleshly thought of the day is to add to Grace? Personally, I find it Slezzy with a spurious overtone and not keeping with the mission of this Free will-Grace opperated Board.
Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on
:
It's like saying "bad goodness". It's an oxymoron.
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carol Swenson:
It's like saying "bad goodness". It's an oxymoron.
Being a moron that needs oxy scub, I thank MY Lord that He, "JESUS" will not leave me in enemy hands if I fail in my CODE of CONDUCT.
Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on
:
ox·y·mo·ron
–noun
a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
GRACIOUS LAW
http://www.contra-mundum.org/essays/theonomy/Gracious.pdf
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 2 Corinthians 3:6
Since we have been freed from the letter of the law by the death of Christ, he having fulfilled and settled our obligation, we have a new offer of life on a new condition, viz., if we walk after or strive to keep the spirit of the law. To such there is no condemnation. They may thus have life through Christ. The spirit of God's law is love. As Jesus and Paul taught, "Love is the fulfilling of the law." (Matt. 22:37,40, and Rom. 13:10.) We are as unable to fully keep the spirit of the law as Israel was, but we are only required to walk after or strive to keep it, and in so far as in our weakness we fail, the merit of Jesus supplies our deficiency.
It is then the spirit of the law (love) manifested in us, which, through Christ, gives or guarantees life. Even though that spirit be not fully developed, "he that has begun the good work in us is able to complete it." Our desire and effort to keep the very spirit of the law is reckoned as a perfect keeping of it, while our inability to do so is compensated for by the sacrifice of Christ. When men are restored to perfection, the law of God will be written in their hearts (Jer. 31:33), and its spirit of love will permeate their whole being, and its retention will be their guarantee of everlasting life. The letter of the law killeth, but the spirit of the law giveth life. "Thanks be unto God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 15:57.)
call me a legalist....but if the Law is not written on your heart you have not been born of the Spirit !
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by becauseHElives:
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 2 Corinthians 3:6
call me a legalist....but if the Law is not written on your heart you have not been born of the Spirit !
If you are not born of the Spirit by a personal faith in what Christ did on the cross, it is his righteousnesses remember not ours, then the law cannot be made known or imprinted on ones heart.
Abraham Believed first what was required of him by God in the Dispensation of Promise then received circumcision of the flesh.
It was his Faith that God Honored. Please read the next text prayerfully my friend.
Romans 4
1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
And remember what Paul said concerning his own "personal sanctification"...
Philippians 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
The Spirit works with each person in different ways, within Gods timing not yours, not mine.
So I guess to you seeing someone not at the pinnacle of greatness you have attained would consider them not babes or carnal but instead not even have been born of the Spirit at all.
This thinking is in great error on your part and very Pharisaical as it mater's to the present Dispensation of the Grace of God.
Some cannot take the FULL truth all at once.
I shall pray that the Spirit of God enlighten his word to you in his timing.
This will be done in Jesus name.
For as of this day it is clear to all you just don't get it.
![[cool_shades]](graemlins/cool_shades.gif)
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
Remember there are some here that think it is a cult to repeat the "Roman Road" and tell someone they are saved because they quoted those scriptures...
ENOUGH SAID!
It is clear to all what is required by the legal/grace gospel.
Becausehelives states "When men are restored to perfection, the law of God will be written in their hearts (Jer. 31:33), and its spirit of love will permeate their whole being, and its retention will be their guarantee of everlasting life."
1That OSAS,is a license to SIN~~~!"
2That the Sabbath is to be kept on Saturday.
3That Yahushua must be used in the place of the name JESUS.
4That the Harpazo is a lie.
5That there is no BEMA.
6That there is no such thing as a carnal Christian.
7That THE MYSTERY is a lie.
8That retention of the Law will be the guarantee of everlasting life.
This is that other gospel that Paul warns about and says will be accursed.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Rules, Policies, and Disclaimers
You may not promote any cult or false religions such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Scientology, Wicca, etc... If you do there will be no warning and you will be removed from this message board. This is not debatable.
( This should be amended to add the legal/grace gospel )
This is not a Catholic message board. Don't promote Roman Catholicism on this board. One needs only to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. He alone can save you and nothing else.
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
if your heart has not been changed it is impossible to be saved!
WildB, for sure the Gospel you teach is another Gospel from the Gospel Yahshua preached so from your understanding I am accursed , I'm just glad Yahshua is my Savior....not the Apostle Paul or the Bearen Bible Society Cult....
I will follow after what Yahshua taught about salvation because He alone is the author and finisher of my faith...even the Apostle Paul said follow me as I follow Christ!
Yahshua is the same in every "Dispensation", He is the same yesterday, today, forever amen....
Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” 1 Corinthians 11:1
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by becauseHElives:
if your heart has not been changed it is impossible to be saved!
WildB, for sure the Gospel you teach is another Gospel from the Gospel Yahshua preached so from your understanding I am accursed , I'm just glad Yahshua is my Savior....not the Apostle Paul or the Bearen Bible Society Cult....
I will follow after what Yahshua taught about salvation because He alone is the author and finisher of my faith...even the Apostle Paul said follow me as I follow Christ!
Yahshua is the same in every "Dispensation", He is the same yesterday, today, forever amen....
Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” 1 Corinthians 11:1
You were not talking about a changed heart but a heart with the law imprinted on it for proof of salvation.
My statement was, "If you are not born of the Spirit by a personal faith in what Christ did on the cross, it is his righteousnesses remember not ours, then the law cannot be made known or imprinted on ones heart."
Your statement was, "When men are restored to perfection, the law of God will be written in their hearts (Jer. 31:33), and its spirit of love will permeate their whole being, and its retention will be their guarantee of everlasting life."
Lets let the baseball fans decide who teaches a different gospel.
The law/grace gospel.
1That OSAS,is a license to SIN~~~!"
2That the Sabbath is to be kept on Saturday.
3That Yahushua must be used in the place of the name JESUS.
4That the Harpazo is a lie.
5That there is no BEMA.
6That there is no such thing as a carnal Christian.
7That THE MYSTERY is a lie.
8That retention of the Law will be the guarantee of everlasting life.
![[rapture]](graemlins/rapture.gif)
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
Again you say, "I will follow after what Yahshua taught about salvation because He alone is the author and finisher of my faith.."
Is He really the finisher of your faith if you fall away short in your walk? Can you find the foreskin and reattach it?
The Apostle Paul nor the Bearen Bible Society Cult have never said "Yahshua" is not your Savior.
Again you say, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” 1 Corinthians 11:1"
But what does the Bible say?
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Sorry Im not very impressed with your example and your interpretation of the example of Christ.
I will Follow the Gospel of the uncircumcised committed to Paul as I follow Christ.
Not your,
The law/grace gospel.
1That OSAS,is a license to SIN~~~!"
2That the Sabbath is to be kept on Saturday.
3That Yahushua must be used in the place of the name JESUS.
4That the Harpazo is a lie.
5That there is no BEMA.
6That there is no such thing as a carnal Christian.
7That THE MYSTERY is a lie.
8That retention of the Law will be the guarantee of everlasting life.
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
changed heart....
when born as a baby out of the womb, man has a heart that is in total rebellion to the Law of Yahweh...hates and opposes Yahweh.....
but when man is Born Again , the Spirit of Yahweh changes the rebellious heart to a heart that as the Old Testament prophesied would be changed....Yahweh Spirit would write His Law upon the heart, changing the desires of the heart....
where there was in the unregenerate man no conflict ...now because a man has been Born Again and the Law is on and in the heart there is conflict.... 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
but as Paul states because I am Born Again ....
22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
and then again...
25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God;
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by becauseHElives:
changed heart....
when born as a baby out of the womb, man has a heart that is in total rebellion to the Law of Yahweh...hates and opposes Yahweh.....
This is not Biblical.
I think just inherited sin.
If not,
Then Why does the Law have a age of accountability?
Jonah doubts that their repentance is genuine, and believing it was only a matter of time before they rebelled against God, he determined to pitch a tent outside of town so as to wait and watch it happen (Jonah 4:5). Since Jonah refused to answer God's question about whether he is right to be angry (4:4), God gave him a little object lesson to prompt him to respond. The Lord supplied the prophet with a sun-blocking gourd, and then took it away from him. Sadly, Jonah's reaction was not the same as Job's (Job 1:21), but rather mirrored the attitude of the foolish women of Job 2:9,10.
Like all sin, sinful anger must be checked or it will worsen. Jonah was angry enough to die when God spared Nineveh, and now he is angry enough to die because God took away his shade! (Jonah 4:5-9). Likewise if we allow ourselves to be sinfully angry over big things, it won't be long before we are sinfully angry over little things.
Asking the same question in Jonah 4:9 that he asked in Verse 5, God provoked a response from Jonah, in which the prophet declared he had a perfect right to be angry about the gourd that at first had shielded him from the desert sun, but then was taken away. Now that Jonah has taken the bait, God springs the trap on His wayward prophet, pointing out how He had "laboured" much in Nineveh, while Jonah had not expended the least bit of energy to produce the gourd. And yet while Jonah had pity on the gourd, he did not want God to have pity on Nineveh! Once the incongruity of this was pointed out to the seer, Jonah is left with nothing to say in his own defense.
Something should be said, however, about the many people in Nineveh that could not discern between their right hand and their left (4:11). These would include young children and the mentally retarded. God was saying to Jonah, in effect, "You want Me to destroy Nineveh because of the atrocities committed by the adults. But remember, Jonah, there are one hundred and twenty thousand innocent people in Nineveh who would perish along with the guilty," something God found repugnant (cf. Gen. 19:23-33).
If the reader object that these people, having inherited sin from Adam, were not "innocent," we would tend to agree, in light of verses like Psalm 51:5 and Psalm 58:3. However, our text points up the truth that there is an "age of accountability," and children who die before reaching it, and adults whose limited mental capacity never allows them to reach it, are "covered under the Blood," as Pastor Stam used to say. We see a symbol of this very thing when Ezekiel 45:20 states that the sacrifice of the priest is offered "for him that is simple."
We see more evidence of an age of accountability when the people of Israel left Egypt. We read that there was an entire generation among them "which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil" (Deut. 1:39). God made it clear that these children would not be held responsible for the rebellion of the adults, but would be allowed to enter the Promised Land. And so it is just sound Biblical hermeneutics to extrapolate from this that God does not hold children and the mentally impaired responsible for their sins.
This precious doctrine is what enabled David to assert with confidence concerning the child that he had lost, "I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me" (II Sam. 12:23). This beloved truth also enabled this writer to preside recently at the funeral of a darling one-year-old little girl and comfort her parents from the Word of God that their hearts would ache only until they are caught up together with their daughter in the clouds.
The lessons to be learned from a wayward prophet are many and varied. May we take them to heart as things that were written "for our learning" (Rom. 15:4), as we determine as never before to obey the Lord without question, to the infinite blessing of our soul, and to the souls of those about us.
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
I shall address these charges.
quote:
1That OSAS,is a license to SIN~~~!"
2That the Sabbath is to be kept on Saturday.
3That Yahushua must be used in the place of the name JESUS.
4That the Harpazo is a lie.
5That there is no BEMA.
6That there is no such thing as a carnal Christian.
7That THE MYSTERY is a lie.
8That retention of the Law will be the guarantee of everlasting life.
1That OSAS,is a license to SIN~~~!"
no what I said and say now is grace is not a license to sin...16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
For there is no respect of persons with God.
For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
2That the Sabbath is to be kept on Saturday.
I have never once said that...and unlike you I have never in the 8 years on this board ever deleted one post, so anyone wanting to verify what I have said in the past can check it out.
what I have said is the Sabbath has not been changed to Sunday. There is only one day Yahweh blessed and in His word has told those who are called His people are to remember ...see Genesis 2:2 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. and Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
3That Yahshua must be used in the place of the name JESUS.
again I never said that...I said Yahshua is His name and Jesus is not His name but a mistranslation...could not be anything close to His name because the letter "J" didn't come into existence until the year 1520 CE. The letter j is less than 500 years old.
I just choose to use His given name not the name the Roman Catholic wh0re gave Him.
I once was ignorant of His true name but once I learned I had been lied to about His name, I changed.
4That the Harpazo is a lie.
never said that either...I am very intently waiting and watching for His soon coming, keeping myself unspotted from this world ...2Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
now I am not sure who is right pretrib or midtrib...I'm just living like it might be today!
I will answer the other 4 charges against me later .....
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
quote:
when born as a baby out of the womb, man has a heart that is in total rebellion to the Law of Yahweh...hates and opposes Yahweh.....
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
quote:
when born as a baby out of the womb, man has a heart that is in total rebellion to the Law of Yahweh...hates and opposes Yahweh.....
this is a true statment!
yes it is true there is a age of accountability but when anyone comes out of the womb he or she has the Adamic nature. A heart born in rebellion.
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by becauseHElives:
[QUOTE] when born as a baby out of the womb, man has a heart that is in total rebellion to the Law of Yahweh...hates and opposes Yahweh.....
this is a true statment!
yes it is true there is a age of accountability but when anyone comes out of the womb he or she has the Adamic nature. A heart born in rebellion. [/Q]
Sorry rebellion is learned.
Jeremiah 28:16 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the LORD.
But the Bible does say...
Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
Again you reiterate,
"unlike you I have never in the 8 years on this board ever deleted one post"
It is clear to all of your prideful, lawful faith and I assure you it is not a proof,
of righteousness.
OR
Eternal salvation.
Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on
:
quote:
That Yahshua must be used in the place of the name JESUS.
again I never said that...I said Yahshua is His name and Jesus is not His name but a mistranslation...could not be anything close to His name because the letter "J" didn't come into existence until the year 1520 CE. The letter j is less than 500 years old.
The New Testament was NOT translated into Greek; it was WRITTEN in Greek.
That at the name of Jesus (iEsous G2424) every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and[things]in earth, and [things] under the earth. (Philippians 2:10)
In Old English, the 'J' was still pronounced like the German 'J,' i.e. it had a 'Y' sound as 'J' still has in German to this day. After 1066, the 'J' sound began to be hardened to the French 'J' which is the origin of the Modern English 'J'.
No Scripture Identifies Yeshua as Messiah
Yeshua people are trying to build a case with no proof from the New Testament. Again, the New Testament was not written in Hebrew but rather in Greek and translated directly into English for our English speaking society to read. So Almighty God wanted the known Greek speaking inhabited world at that time of the first century to know the name of Messiah, which brings salvation, healing and power over demons, to be "Iesous" (or Jesus in English) and not "Yeshua." If God wanted the JEWISH writers of the New Testament to use "Yeshua" they would have, BUT THEY DIDN'T. To say Yeshua means "salvation" is not a clear connection to the Savior from Nazareth. It doesn't identify the one who shed his blood on the cross of Calvary, rose from the dead and is coming back again, as the NT identifies Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus has the name that is above every name (Phil. 2:9). It, therefore, should be used unashamedly in our English speaking society in spite of all the lies and fabrications being spread around. It is also noteworthy to consider that Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews (Phil. 3:5), yet wasn't off on some strange fictional concept that Iesous (Greek for the English equivalent Jesus) was inferior or of pagan roots like some people of our day that claim to believe in the Messiah of Christianity.
No Bible Verse Tells Us Messiah's Name Is Yeshua
I like to ask the Yeshua people the following: Would you please give us a Bible verse from the Hebrew Scriptures that tells us Messiah's name is Yeshua? None have ever done so or ever will since Yeshua is never found in the OT or NT in reference to Messiah. Messiah is never identified by name in the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures.
Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on
:
Yeshua not Yahshua
becauseHElives
"Yahshua" is a mistransliteration by Sacred Name advocates to fit an erroneous interpretation of John 5:43. "Yeshua" is far more accurate. You have the accurate name in your profile.
If you choose to honor our Lord by using His Hebrew name, don't use "Yahshua". That isn't even a name...it's made up.
Proponents of the Yahshua form claim that the Messiah’s name was the same as Joshua’s, written vwhy or wvwhy (Strong’s #3091). The only problem is that neither of these Hebrew spellings of Joshua’s name can possibly be pronounced "Yahshua." The third letter in Joshua’s name (reading from right to left) is the letter vav (w) and a vav cannot be silent. The letter vav must be pronounced as either a "v" or an "o" or an "u." (In the case of Joshua, it takes an "o" sound, giving us "Ye-ho-SHU-a." Strong’s confirms this pronunciation.) For a name to be pronounced "Yahshua," it would have to be spelled [wv--hy, and no such name exists anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. You don’t have to just take my word for it, though. Dr. Danny Ben-Gigi says of the Yahshua form that "there is no such name in Hebrew" and that "people invented it to fit their theology."[1] Dr. Ben-Gigi is an Israeli and the former head of Hebrew programs at Arizona State University. He is the author of the book First Steps in Hebrew Prayers, and he designed and produced the "Living Israeli Hebrew" language-learning course. Dr. David Bivin, a Christian, says that the Yahshua form "is rooted in a misunderstanding."[2] Dr. Bivin is a renowned Hebrew scholar and teacher and author of Fluent Biblical Hebrew.
The English form Jesus is derived from the New Testament Greek name Ihsouß, pronounced "Yesous." According to Strong’s, Yesous (Strong’s #2424) is "of Hebrew origin" and can be traced back to Joshua’s Hebrew name, Yehoshua (#3091, [wvwhy). But how do we get the Greek Yesous from the Hebrew Yehoshua? Someone armed with nothing more than a Strong’s Concordance may have difficulty answering that question. Someone who reads the Bible in Hebrew, though, knows that the name Joshua sometimes appears in its shortened form, Yeshua (wvy). In Neh. 8:17 it is apparent even in English: "Jeshua the son of Nun." (The letter J was pronounced like a Y in Old English.) Strong does not tell the reader that the Greek Yesous is actually transliterated from this shortened Hebrew form, Yeshua, and not directly from the longer form Yehoshua.
The process from "Yehoshua" to "Jesus" looks like this:
1. Hebrew Yehoshua to Hebrew Yeshua
2. Hebrew Yeshua to Greek Yesous (Iesous)
3. Greek Yesous to English Jesus
There is no "sh" sound in Greek, which accounts for the middle "s" sound in Yesous. The "s" at the end of the Greek name is a grammatical necessity, to make the word declinable.
So where did the transliteration Yahshua come from? This form of the name can be traced back to the beginnings of the Sacred Name movement, a movement that grew out of the Church of God, 7th Day, in the late 1930s. I have in my files an article entitled, "A Brief History of the Name Movement in America" by L.D. Snow, a Sacred Name believer.[5] According to this article, "John Briggs and Paul Penn were the FIRST to pronounce and use the name Yahshua" (emphasis Snow’s). This was in 1936 and in 1937, the article states. No information is given about how Briggs and Penn came up with this (mis)translation.
Later Sacred Name literature appeals to the Messiah’s statement in John 5:43 as "proof" of the Yahshua form: "I am come in My Father’s name," He said. In the minds of Sacred Name believers, this means that "Yah," a shortened form of Yahweh, must appear in the name of the Son. However, the Messiah did not say "My name contains My Father’s name" or "My Father’s name must appear inside My name" or any such statement. He said absolutely nothing here about His own name. The only "name" mentioned here was the Father’s name. He said, "I am come in My Father’s name," which simply means that He was coming by His Father’s authority, on His Father’s behalf. If we take Yeshua’s statement "I am come in My Father’s name" to mean that His own name must contain the Father’s name, then we ourselves cannot do anything "in the Father’s name" unless our own personal name happens to contain the syllable "Yah." The folly of this interpretation is also evident if the same line of reasoning is applied to the rest of Yeshua’s statement: "…if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." If the logic of Sacred Name believers is applied to this half of the verse, it would be saying "a person’s name must contain his own name," which is meaningless. If, on the other hand, "in his own name" means "by his own authority," then the statement makes sense.
Why is the Yahshua form used by no one but Sacred Name believers and people who have been influenced by Sacred Name believers? Probably because no such name exists in the Hebrew Bible and, to my knowledge, no such name exists in any extra-Biblical Hebrew literature. It appears that Dr. Ben-Gigi is correct when he says that people invented the name Yahshua to fit their theology.
http://www.yashanet.com/library/Yeshua_or_Yahshua.htm
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
In Old English, the 'J' was still pronounced like the German 'J,' i.e
Ya think!
Posted by Betty Louise (Member # 7175) on
:
Add pushing that we can't use the Name: Jesus,to the list of things I am sick of hearing. I can't imagine any good coming to someone pushing their legalism agenda. We are NOT interested. Get it through your thick skulls!!!!! Enough is enough.
betty
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
1That OSAS,is a license to SIN~~~!"
2That the Sabbath is to be kept on Saturday.
3That Yahushua must be used in the place of the name JESUS.
4That the Harpazo is a lie.
5That there is no BEMA.
6That there is no such thing as a carnal Christian.
7That THE MYSTERY is a lie.
8That retention of the Law will be the guarantee of everlasting life.
9That Pushing is a must.
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mudAEAPuLk
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by becauseHElives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mudAEAPuLk
Open Our Eyes Lord
Open our eyes, Lord
We want to see Jesus,
To reach out and touch Him,
And say that we love Him.
Open our ears, Lord
And help us to listen.
Open our eyes, Lord
We want to see Jesus.
Posted by barrykind (Member # 35) on
:
Nice Brother...Because He Lives!
You know this is probably one of the lasts posts ill make here... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
There is NO SUCH THING as a "carnal Christian"; the very term "Christian" was used mockingly at Antioch, toward those that "were little "Jesus‘"; those that were lost were making fun of the followers of Jesus (Yahushua)!
BECAUSE they were like "Jesus"!
That understood , to say "carnal" "of the flesh" is "Christ like” is absurd"
For Yahushua was never carnal, never in the flesh, and without sin!
So let the pigs wallow in the mud who believe this "excuse" to live ungodly!
Blind leaders of the blind! Wild Bill is a offense to the Gospel. A viper, spewing venom wherever he's allowed. Hardly ever having an idea of his own or from the LORD, Just a Stammer!
Giving excuse for sin and his "bad" angry sinning behavior!
He appears to "hope" carnal Christians are allowed; for if not he wont be there! (in heaven)
There is NO excuse for SIN whatsoever!
For if , if , if, if, we sin we have an advocate with the FATHER..YAHUSHUA (Jesus) CHRIST (MESSIAH) THE ANNOINTED ONE! The RIGHTEOUS!
This should be an occasional stumbling, a slip into sin...Not living like a "PIG" a heathen, like the Stam trash, and wild bill life style suggests!
Repent for defending such trash! Guilty....Drew, Carol, Betty.....Defense of such trash is offensive to the cause of Christ!
One can live a Holy, separated life apart from sin.....Not that i have attained but i press on...You cannot live a "carnal" life, a sinful life and say grace will cover every thing because i said the Roman road years ago....Let this statement be a warning to you who believe that "satan's" lie!
You must be HOLY as HE is HOLY...! Wake up you that are asleep, separate yourselves from that lie that “no matter what you do, nor what you say, nor what you live like” GRACE will cover everything, Grace will NOT COVER A ROTTEN HEART Bill!...
Grace when applied to ones life is all that is needed for that initial sanctification, but then you must walk the walk have {FRUIT}: Grace is what initially saves you yes; what then!
Why is the gate narrow, and the path straight???????? WHY be FEW that find it???????
If your right Drew, why not sell all you have buy gospel tracts in every language in the world and drop them from airplanes???? SAYING the ROMAN Road; and at the end of the tract tell them that no matter what you do now "GRACE" will cover it???
Pig talk, hogwash; lying statements originated from the father of lies...satan!
Why does the LORD tell us to be Holy, why does Paul warn, that we will not escape the damnation of hell if we do the things the world does...fornication, murder, stealing, etc??????
Why?
Blind leaders of the blind, not only are you hindered from entering the kingdom of Heaven, you stop others with your lying false gospel. Makes me sick...like unto vomiting!
Day after day; perpetrating your filth and lies from satan and trying to teach you can live like a PIG or be a PIG and grace will pull you through!
Garbage.......at least wildbill is consistently living the false gospel, but Drew you and Carol flip back and forth like a fish out of water; neither consistent nor correct. Like wind changing with the tempest!
I have posted some bold things I see in the gospel, I never said one would go to hell for not keeping the Sabbath (on Fri eve to sat eve).
I never said that to be saved one must keep the law!
I never said that Yahushua “must” be used instead of Jesus to be saved!
The mystery is NOT a lie, don’t think I ever said that either, but some things that are taught as the mystery is a lie!
Esp. the misinformation of #8 I never said that retention of the law will be the guarantee of everlasting life!
YHWH will Judge the HEART of man, what is in your heart????
Things Bill constantly posts:
1That OSAS, is a license to SIN~~~!"
2That the Sabbath is to be kept on Saturday.
3That Yahushua must be used in the place of the name JESUS.
4That the Harpazo is a lie.
5That there is no BEMA.
6That there is no such thing as a carnal Christian.
7That THE MYSTERY is a lie.
8That retention of the Law will be the guarantee of everlasting life.
Granted I do not see (2) two judgments, I think that all will stand at THE Judgment Day.
So if im wrong does that make me a legalist, or not a brother?
Im constantly misquoted, about the law, the commandments, etc…
The law is good, the law is perfect and I meditate on it day and night……is that legalism?/
Is the law of YHWH gone? Is the Gospel of Yahushua HaMashiach now different because Yahushua talked with and saved Paul?
Pigs love to roll around in mud puddles, but lambs have no business being near mud puddles! Therefore, if you claim to be a lamb, do what lambs do. Don't act like a pig. Lambs are humble and they like to stay clean. Lambs are most comfortable when they are laying on clean straw in a clean stable. But a pig will always return to the mud puddle, because pigs love mud! The mud puddle is home to a pig. And a clean stable with fresh pasture is home to a lamb because a true lamb hates filth! No true lamb would willfully roll in a mud puddle and no pig would be satisfied without a mud puddle. Neither does a shepherd attend to pigs. A shepherd attends to lambs because lambs are dependent on the shepherd. But pigs are solitary in nature. They would never stay in a "herd" because pigs care only for themselves. Likewise a pig would never follow a shepherd, because pigs are not followers, rather they are roamers, and they roam wherever their own hearts lead them. But a lamb follows. A lamb is dependent on a shepherd. A lamb loves his shepherd and recognizes the shepherds voice. A lamb obeys the shepherd's call. Let us all follow our shepherd, YHWH, by striving to follow all of His Laws, without deviating to the left or to the right, without adding, subtracting, or changing His Laws in any way!
Does this offend you? All of it of the part about striving to follow all of YHWH’s laws?
What’s wrong with that? You’re a former deputy Drew? Do you now teach to steal, murder, etc; because of grace?
Surely not! Let us not now SIN that GRACE may abound!
Carol its not in your heart to please YHWH?, do you not strive to be Holy and SIN NOT? Do you not think about YHWH’s law and try to please HIM?
Betty is it in your heart to “lay your life down, take up your cross and follow Yahushua?”
What about covetousness, can we love YHWH and not steal, not murder, and covet?????
Will grace cove a covetous heart, without conviction and repentance???
Wildb , let the LORD Yahushua Judge this man!
If the part above about the PIGS bother you then, perhaps you need space to repent!
For a sheep will follow Yahushua the shepherd, and will repent upon conviction. Brother Paul stated follow me as “I FOLLOW” Christ, the Messiah…NOT a different gospel; the same!
The wonderful (part of the mystery) mystery is that the gentiles were also to be grafted in! To THE Gospel!
The only good news (GOSPEL) which is that Yahushua is EVERLASTING LIFE! Paying the price for even the gentiles SIN!;
Part of the mystery were that we were GRAFTED in contrary to the vine; BEWARE the natural branches (Jew) can be reattached easier than the unnatural branch (gentiles)
This is my heart, I do not know how I can help any of the “leaders” here , I post this as a witness against, Them; and also for the lambs seeking the truth and the right way…..
Unless the Master Yahushua HaMashiach leads I will no longer post here.
My email is: barrykind@yahoo.com
I will correspond with as many as would comment.
YHWH Bless and keep the lambs; convert the pigs that would repent and rebuke those otherwise!
Love
Barry
Bondservant of Yahushua the Messiah and my Master
Posted by Caretaker (Member # 36) on
:
Dear Barry I will continue to lift you up in heart and most fervent prayers. May you some day find the Truth in Christ Jesus our Lord, and are able to break the Yoke of Bondage to the obsolete Law of Moses.
Barry this is the "stink bomb in church", which you have thrown:
quote:
Let us all follow our shepherd, YHWH, by striving to follow all of His Laws, without deviating to the left or to the right, without adding, subtracting, or changing His Laws in any way!
Brother Paul had to stand against the Legalists time and again to protect the early Church from bondage, and we can do no different.
It is a New Testament which the Lord Jesus Christ has established, NOT the Old Covenant which the Lord made with Israel on Sinai.
One does NOT put new wine in an old wineskin.
The Law of Moses is DONE OBSOLETE, and we have the NEW written upon our hearts through Christ Jesus our Lord, and the LORD GOD indwelling our hearts.
Heb. 8:
8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Posted by Caretaker (Member # 36) on
:
Barry the true nature of the redeemed is BOTH pig and sheep. This is the DUALITY which Paul speaks about in Romans 7.
It is not either or as you premise.
Although a Christian is a new creature in Christ, yet he continues to have an inward man and an outward man. So we may say with emphasis of each Christian that he is two persons in one. This dual nature of humankind is referred to often in Scripture. The Bible says, “But though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day” (2 Corinthians 4:16). The outward man refers to the physical body, and the inward man refers to the soul. Man and woman then have a soul and a body; they are spirit and flesh. But what actually is the soul? The clearest definition of the soul is found in the rendering of Luke on the great question of Jesus about the soul. In Mark 8:36 the Lord said, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” We learn from this verse that the soul of man is more valuable than all material possessions combined. In Luke 9:25 Jesus said, “For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?” Jesus reveals in this statement that your soul is yourself, that part of you that hopes, loves, prays, is tempted, sins, repents, and can be saved. Your soul is your higher spiritual self. By comparison the physical body is composed of a little iron, lime, water, sulphur, gluten, salt, and a few other ingredients. Our physical bodies cannot be saved; they are material, perishing, and corruptible. The Bible says that our bodies cannot enter into heaven by reason of their material and corruptible nature. The Bible says, “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption(I Corinthians 15:50).
Hence, we have two entirely different natures. The body is fleshly and interested in earthly things, but the soul is spiritual and interested in heavenly things. The result is that we have a split personality, a part of us can die and a part of us cannot die. Accordingly, we can be heavenly minded or earthly minded, according to which part of our nature is allowed to dominate our lives.
Within us dwells the Lamb and our Lamb nature desires the righteousness of Christ. It is our pig nature which so often takes us back to the mud. Praise God that we are redeemed and declared righteous because of the righteousness of Christ. As we mature, as we progress in the process of sanctification our Lamb nature leads us more often than our pig nature.
It will ONLY be fully Lamb when our imperfection puts on perfection as we are translated to Glory.
1 Cor. 15:
15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrykind:
Nice Brother...Because He Lives!
You know this is probably one of the lasts posts ill make here...
There is NO SUCH THING as a "carnal Christian"; the very term "Christian" was used mockingly at Antioch, toward those that "were little "Jesus‘"; those that were lost were making fun of the followers of Jesus (Yahushua)!
BECAUSE they were like "Jesus"!
That understood , to say "carnal" "of the flesh" is "Christ like” is absurd"
For Yahushua was never carnal, never in the flesh, and without sin!
So let the pigs wallow in the mud who believe this "excuse" to live ungodly!
Blind leaders of the blind! Wild Bill is a offense to the Gospel. A viper, spewing venom wherever he's allowed. Hardly ever having an idea of his own or from the LORD, Just a Stammer!
Giving excuse for sin and his "bad" angry sinning behavior!
He appears to "hope" carnal Christians are allowed; for if not he wont be there! (in heaven)
There is NO excuse for SIN whatsoever!
For if , if , if, if, we sin we have an advocate with the FATHER..YAHUSHUA (Jesus) CHRIST (MESSIAH) THE ANNOINTED ONE! The RIGHTEOUS!
This should be an occasional stumbling, a slip into sin...Not living like a "PIG" a heathen, like the Stam trash, and wild bill life style suggests!
Repent for defending such trash! Guilty....Drew, Carol, Betty.....Defense of such trash is offensive to the cause of Christ!
One can live a Holy, separated life apart from sin.....Not that i have attained but i press on...You cannot live a "carnal" life, a sinful life and say grace will cover every thing because i said the Roman road years ago....Let this statement be a warning to you who believe that "satan's" lie!
You must be HOLY as HE is HOLY...! Wake up you that are asleep, separate yourselves from that lie that “no matter what you do, nor what you say, nor what you live like” GRACE will cover everything, Grace will NOT COVER A ROTTEN HEART Bill!...
Grace when applied to ones life is all that is needed for that initial sanctification, but then you must walk the walk have {FRUIT}: Grace is what initially saves you yes; what then!
Why is the gate narrow, and the path straight???????? WHY be FEW that find it???????
If your right Drew, why not sell all you have buy gospel tracts in every language in the world and drop them from airplanes???? SAYING the ROMAN Road; and at the end of the tract tell them that no matter what you do now "GRACE" will cover it???
Pig talk, hogwash; lying statements originated from the father of lies...satan!
Why does the LORD tell us to be Holy, why does Paul warn, that we will not escape the damnation of hell if we do the things the world does...fornication, murder, stealing, etc??????
Why?
Blind leaders of the blind, not only are you hindered from entering the kingdom of Heaven, you stop others with your lying false gospel. Makes me sick...like unto vomiting!
Day after day; perpetrating your filth and lies from satan and trying to teach you can live like a PIG or be a PIG and grace will pull you through!
Garbage.......at least wildbill is consistently living the false gospel, but Drew you and Carol flip back and forth like a fish out of water; neither consistent nor correct. Like wind changing with the tempest!
I have posted some bold things I see in the gospel, I never said one would go to hell for not keeping the Sabbath (on Fri eve to sat eve).
I never said that to be saved one must keep the law!
I never said that Yahushua “must” be used instead of Jesus to be saved!
The mystery is NOT a lie, don’t think I ever said that either, but some things that are taught as the mystery is a lie!
Esp. the misinformation of #8 I never said that retention of the law will be the guarantee of everlasting life!
YHWH will Judge the HEART of man, what is in your heart????
Things Bill constantly posts:
1That OSAS, is a license to SIN~~~!"
2That the Sabbath is to be kept on Saturday.
3That Yahushua must be used in the place of the name JESUS.
4That the Harpazo is a lie.
5That there is no BEMA.
6That there is no such thing as a carnal Christian.
7That THE MYSTERY is a lie.
8That retention of the Law will be the guarantee of everlasting life.
Granted I do not see (2) two judgments, I think that all will stand at THE Judgment Day.
So if im wrong does that make me a legalist, or not a brother?
Im constantly misquoted, about the law, the commandments, etc…
The law is good, the law is perfect and I meditate on it day and night……is that legalism?/
Is the law of YHWH gone? Is the Gospel of Yahushua HaMashiach now different because Yahushua talked with and saved Paul?
Pigs love to roll around in mud puddles, but lambs have no business being near mud puddles! Therefore, if you claim to be a lamb, do what lambs do. Don't act like a pig. Lambs are humble and they like to stay clean. Lambs are most comfortable when they are laying on clean straw in a clean stable. But a pig will always return to the mud puddle, because pigs love mud! The mud puddle is home to a pig. And a clean stable with fresh pasture is home to a lamb because a true lamb hates filth! No true lamb would willfully roll in a mud puddle and no pig would be satisfied without a mud puddle. Neither does a shepherd attend to pigs. A shepherd attends to lambs because lambs are dependent on the shepherd. But pigs are solitary in nature. They would never stay in a "herd" because pigs care only for themselves. Likewise a pig would never follow a shepherd, because pigs are not followers, rather they are roamers, and they roam wherever their own hearts lead them. But a lamb follows. A lamb is dependent on a shepherd. A lamb loves his shepherd and recognizes the shepherds voice. A lamb obeys the shepherd's call. Let us all follow our shepherd, YHWH, by striving to follow all of His Laws, without deviating to the left or to the right, without adding, subtracting, or changing His Laws in any way!
Does this offend you? All of it of the part about striving to follow all of YHWH’s laws?
What’s wrong with that? You’re a former deputy Drew? Do you now teach to steal, murder, etc; because of grace?
Surely not! Let us not now SIN that GRACE may abound!
Carol its not in your heart to please YHWH?, do you not strive to be Holy and SIN NOT? Do you not think about YHWH’s law and try to please HIM?
Betty is it in your heart to “lay your life down, take up your cross and follow Yahushua?”
What about covetousness, can we love YHWH and not steal, not murder, and covet?????
Will grace cove a covetous heart, without conviction and repentance???
Wildb , let the LORD Yahushua Judge this man!
If the part above about the PIGS bother you then, perhaps you need space to repent!
For a sheep will follow Yahushua the shepherd, and will repent upon conviction. Brother Paul stated follow me as “I FOLLOW” Christ, the Messiah…NOT a different gospel; the same!
The wonderful (part of the mystery) mystery is that the gentiles were also to be grafted in! To THE Gospel!
The only good news (GOSPEL) which is that Yahushua is EVERLASTING LIFE! Paying the price for even the gentiles SIN!;
Part of the mystery were that we were GRAFTED in contrary to the vine; BEWARE the natural branches (Jew) can be reattached easier than the unnatural branch (gentiles)
This is my heart, I do not know how I can help any of the “leaders” here , I post this as a witness against, Them; and also for the lambs seeking the truth and the right way…..
Unless the Master Yahushua HaMashiach leads I will no longer post here.
My email is: barrykind@yahoo.com
I will correspond with as many as would comment.
YHWH Bless and keep the lambs; convert the pigs that would repent and rebuke those otherwise!
Love
Barry
Bondservant of Yahushua the Messiah and my Master
It is clear to all your prideful working of the law and this continued arrogant use of Gods most holy name as a smoke screen for your deeds is just plain evil.
I assure you it is not a Biblical proof,
of Righteousness.
OR
Eternal salvation.
The Spirit works with each person in different ways, within Gods timing not yours, not mine.
Ephesians 4
1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
Application is individual.....
So I guess to you seeing someone not at the pinnacle of greatness you have attained would consider them not babes or carnal but instead not even have been born of the Spirit at all.
This thinking is in great error on your part and very Pharisaical as it mater's to the present Dispensation of the Grace of God.
Father forgive him because he does know what hes doing..
I shall pray that the Spirit of God enlighten his Word to you and send correction your way post hast.
This will be done in Jesus name.
Amen.
For as of this day it is clear to all you just don't get it.
ENOUGH SAID!
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
My my, I wonder if Dale approves of Berrys {FRUIT}
Posted by Caretaker (Member # 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
Heres a card I got today in the mail Berry.
Its what real fruit looks like.
Its from a person I only met once,
Dears Mr Gainer,
I don't know if you remember me, but I am the lady that had the hit and run accident in my Drs parking lot. I wanted to write you much sooner, but did not have your address.
All I wanted to do is thank you so very much for what you did for me.
It is not every day that some stands up for someone and do the right thing, you are a hero in my book and I cant thank you enough.
I have a new found faith in humanity,
Thanks again, great fully yours,
Ma Casaroll.
A very precious "thank you" indeed Bro. Thank you for sharing, and it means so much to have touched another heart with Christ's love.
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caretaker:
quote:
Originally posted by WildB:
Heres a card I got today in the mail Berry.
Its what real fruit looks like.
Its from a person I only met once,
Dears Mr Gainer,
I don't know if you remember me, but I am the lady that had the hit and run accident in my Drs parking lot. I wanted to write you much sooner, but did not have your address.
All I wanted to do is thank you so very much for what you did for me.
It is not every day that some stands up for someone and do the right thing, you are a hero in my book and I cant thank you enough.
I have a new found faith in humanity,
Thanks again, great fully yours,
Ma Casaroll.
A very precious "thank you" indeed Bro. Thank you for sharing, and it means so much to have touched another heart with Christ's love.
ThanX Drew.
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrykind:
Blind leaders of the blind! Wild Bill is a offense to the Gospel. A viper, spewing venom wherever he's allowed. Hardly ever having an idea of his own or from the LORD, Just a Stammer!
Giving excuse for sin and his "bad" angry sinning behavior!
He appears to "hope" carnal Christians are allowed; for if not he wont be there! (in heaven)
There is NO excuse for SIN whatsoever!
For if , if , if, if, we sin we have an advocate with the FATHER..YAHUSHUA (Jesus) CHRIST (MESSIAH) THE ANNOINTED ONE! The RIGHTEOUS!
This should be an occasional stumbling, a slip into sin...Not living like a "PIG" a heathen, like the Stam trash, and wild bill life style suggests!
Repent for defending such trash! Guilty....Drew, Carol, Betty.....Defense of such trash is offensive to the cause of Christ!
Man's natural righteousness is an offense to God. ...
Now it is very clear to all whats really on you and Dales heart.
Becausehelives should disqualify himself ASAP as moderator of this Grace BBS and you Berry, need to publicly apologize to those you have attacked and continuously bear false witness against or be stricken from membership until said time that you do repent.
And I strongly caution any of the baseball fans of a private tutoring from this person via e-mail. As said individual has put forward in this ranting post of his approved by Dale's silence.
Its best to keep all that he teaches in the open that all may learn of his great error in not rightfully dividing the word of Truth.
Most Respectfully,
WK GAINER,
USNR BT2
In service of God, Family, and Country.
Posted by Carol Swenson (Member # 6929) on
:
Barry, you are the one who is spewing venom. Good grief! Listen to yourself!
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
Berry less force , more finesse.
![[hug]](graemlins/hug.gif)
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
Easy Christianity
7. Carnal Christians?
The "Carnal Christian Theory" is another of the teachings of "Easy Christianity" designed to take the pressure off the average church-goer.. The "great" thing about this teaching is that it also takes pressure off the teachers of "Easy Christianity." Time was that if "converts" went on in or went back to their ungodly lifestyles, they were labeled hypocrites or apostates. Now they are called "Carnal Christians." This looks much better for the evangelists' statistics and avoids painful evaluation of his message and methods.
What is the "Carnal Christian Theory"? Let its advocated explain! "After you have invited Christ to come into your life, it is possible for you to take control of your life again. The New Testament, 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3, identifies three kinds of people... These three kinds of people are "the natural man", "the carnal man", and "the spiritual man". The carnal man is the "Christian who has invited Christ into his life," but "is not trusting God" and in rebellion against the lordship of Christ has "taken control of his life again." This is the theory as it is taught in the notes of a popular study Bible and the tracts of a well-known evangelistic organization. Many regard themselves as Christians because of it who are nevertheless under the wrath of God. Like false prophets its teachers cry, "Peace, peace; where there is no peace" (Jeremiah. 6:14 and 8:11).
Don't you be deceived by them! Examine the Scriptures. The entire New Testament testifies against this theory. Read Romans 8:1-17, Ephesians 5:3-7, Galatians 5:19-26. Galatians. 5:24 epitomizes their teaching, "Those who belong to Christ have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires." If your sinful nature has not been crucified by the grace of Christ, you are not a carnal Christian. You are no Christian and need to become one.
The idea that a man may have Christ in his life but not on the throne of his life is the heart of the "Carnal Christian Theory." We noticed already that this dangerous doctrine is contradicted by the entire New Testament. What about 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, its supposed proof-text, does it teach this theory?
The Apostle Paul was not only divinely inspired, but also perfectly sane--not given to contradicting himself in the space of a few lines. In the same letter he made perfectly clear what he would have said about this modern theory. "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral not idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
All Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 is that Christians can and do sometimes in some areas of their lives act like unconverted, worldly men. "Are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? for when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos, " are you not mere men?" (1 Corinthians 3:3,4).
It is one thing in some areas at some times to act like unconverted men, it is something else to be a carnal man as to the dominant characteristic of one's life. Of such the Bible says, "their place will be the fiery lake of burning sulfur" (Revelation 21:8). May God deliver you from going to the place where all "Carnal Christians" will go!
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
As we continue our series on True Spirituality, Pastor Stam effectively addresses the two natures in the believer. The conflict between these two natures explains the present warfare we experience within our members. The lesson that follows is a biblical guide on how to have victory over sin in your life.
The Two Natures in the Believer -
THE OLD MAN AND THE NEW
By Cornelius R. Stam
The believer who would be truly spiritual must recognize the fact that within him there are now two natures; that in addition to the fallen nature of Adam there is also the perfect nature of Christ, begotten of God through the Holy Spirit.
So real is the presence of both these natures in every child of God, that in Paul's references to the believer's experience, his personal pronouns refer sometimes to the one and sometimes to the other.
A good example of this is found in Romans 7, where the apostle says on the one hand: "I am carnal, sold under sin" (Ver. 14) and on the other: "I serve the law of God" (Ver. 25). Again he says, on the one hand: "In me...dwelleth no good thing" (Ver. 18) and on the other: "I delight in the law of God" (Ver. 22) referring on the one hand to the old nature, and on the other to the new. Surely the "I" who delights in the law of God is not the same "I" who is "carnal, sold under sin" (Ver. 14). Yet in both cases the apostle uses the first person pronoun, associating both conditions with himself.
That the apostle here refers to two natures in one person is clear from the qualifying clauses he employs. On the one hand he says: "In me [THAT IS IN MY FLESH] dwelleth no good thing" (Ver. 18) while on the other, he says: "I delight in the law of God AFTER THE INWARD MAN" (Ver. 22). Thus the "me" in Verse 18 refers to the old nature, while the "I" in Verse 22 refers to the new. In the former dwells no good thing, while the latter delights in the law of God.
THE OLD NATURE IN THE BELIEVER
The believer who would be truly spiritual must recognize the presence of the old nature within. It would be dangerous not to recognize a foe so near.
The old nature in the believer is that which is "begotten of the flesh." It is called, "the flesh," "the old man," "the natural man," "the carnal mind."
Just as "they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8) so that which is of the flesh, in the believer, cannot please God. "The flesh," as we have already seen, is totally depraved. God calls it "sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3),1 warns that it seeks "occasion" to do wrong (Gal. 5:13) and declares that "the works of the flesh" are all bad (Gal. 5:19-21).
Nor is the old nature in the believer one which improves by its contact with the new. It is with respect to "the flesh" in the believer, even in himself, that the apostle declares that in it "dwelleth no good thing" (Rom. 7:18), that it is "carnal, sold under sin" (Rom. 7:14), that it is "corrupt according to the deceitful lusts" (Eph. 4:22), that it is at "enmity against God," and is "not subject to the law of God, NEITHER INDEED CAN BE" (Rom. 8:7).
"The flesh," even as it remains in the believer after salvation, is that which was generated by a fallen begetter. It is the old Adamic nature. It is sinful in itself. It cannot be improved. It cannot be changed. "That which is born [begotten] of the flesh is flesh," said our Lord (John 3:6) and it is as impossible to improve the "old man" in the believer as it was to make him acceptable to God in the first place.
The "old man" was condemned and dealt with judicially at the Cross. Never once is the believer instructed to try to do anything with him or to make anything of him, but always to reckon him dead, and so "put him off." But more of this later.
THE OLD NATURE NOT ERADICATED IN THIS LIFE
There are those who, with good motive, to be sure, strive to achieve the eradication of the old nature in this life. Such do not help, but hinder, the attainment of true spirituality.
First, the doctrine of eradication, far from taking a truly serious view of sin, takes a very shallow, superficial view of it. Those who teach it suppose that if we could get rid of the sins we recognize we should be perfect, not realizing that at our very best we all, having fallen into sin in Adam, constantly "come [present tense]2 short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23) and will continue to come short of it until we are changed to be "like Him." Thus "We, through the Spirit, WAIT for the hope of [perfect, personal] righteousness by faith" (Gal. 5:5).
Concerning those who feel that they have achieved the eradication of the old nature, the fact is that others can invariably testify that they have not! And generally those who claim to be without sin are guilty of one of the greatest of all sins—spiritual pride.
Certainly the doctrine of eradication is a flat contradiction of Scripture. The first epistle of John emphatically declares:
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (I John 1:8).
"If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His Word is not in us" (I John 1:10).
Paul also speaks of "the law of sin which is in my members" (Rom. 7:23) and urges constant reliance upon the Holy Spirit for overcoming power (Rom. 8:11-13; Gal. 5:16,25). Indeed, if the doctrine of eradication were Scripturally sound there would be no reason for Paul to instruct all believers to deal with the old nature, in such terms as: "reckon," "yield not," "put off," "mortify," etc.
But let us suppose for the moment that it were possible to achieve the eradication of the flesh; would that also dispose of our other two enemies, the world and the devil? Surely not, and having gotten rid only of the fallen nature of Adam, we would, like Adam before the fall, be as subject to temptation from without as he, and would as surely fall. But the Scriptures clearly teach that we all fell once in Adam:
"by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12).
THE NEW NATURE IN THE BELIEVER
It has been well said that if there is anything good in any man it is because it was put there by God. And something good—a new, sinless nature—has been imparted by God to every believer.
While there is still within us "that which is begotten of the flesh," there is also "that which is begotten of the Spirit," and just as the one is totally depraved and "cannot please God," so the other is absolutely perfect and always pleases Him.
Adam was originally created in the image and likeness of God, but he fell into sin and later "begat a son in HIS OWN likeness, after HIS image" (Gen. 5:3). It could not be otherwise. Fallen Adam could generate and beget only fallen, sinful offspring, whom even the law could not change. But "what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son IN THE LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH, and for sin," accomplished, "that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom. 8:3,4).
As Adam was made in the likeness of God, but fell, so Christ was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, to redeem us from the fall, that by grace, through the operation of the Spirit, a new creation might be brought into being, a "new man...renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him" (Col. 3:10) a "new man, which, after God is created in righteousness and true holiness" (Eph. 4:24).
John, who does not go as far as the symbol of the new creation in this connection, nevertheless refers to the impartation of the new nature to believers, when he says:
"Whosoever is born [begotten] of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born [begotten] of God" (I John 3:9).
"We know that whosoever is born [begotten] of God sinneth not..." (I John 5:18).
It is evident that the "whosoever," here, does not refer to the individual as such, but to that part of the individual which Paul calls the "new man," for we have already seen that John, in this same epistle, declares that if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and make God a liar. It is the new nature in the believer that cannot sin, for it is the new nature, not the old, that was begotten of God.
Thus in addition to our fallen Adamic nature we, through faith, have also become "partakers of the divine nature" (II Pet. 1:4). This is the "inner man" of which Paul speaks in Ephesians 3:16, and this "inward man" delights to do God's will (Rom. 7:22).
Let us thank God that the old nature is under the condemnation of death. Judicially it has already been dealt with. It was put to death representatively in Christ. Practically it will come to its end when our "earthly house...is dissolved" (II Cor. 5:1) or when we are "changed" (I Cor. 15:52) and "caught up...to meet the Lord in the air" (I Thes. 4:17), but the new nature—that which is begotten of God—will never die. In the first place it does not come under the condemnation of sin. In the second, it is that which is begotten, "not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever" (I Pet. 1:23).
Paul, by the Spirit, gives particular emphasis to this fact as it affects believers in this present dispensation, for we are not only "begotten" of the Spirit and given the resurrection life of Christ, but we belong to the "new creation" (II Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10) which God will glorify "in the ages to come," in order to "show the exceeding riches of His grace" (Eph. 2:7).
We have now cleared the way for a consideration of the conflict between the old nature and the new, and of the means placed at our disposal to overcome the old.
THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW NATURES
The epistles of Paul have much to say about the conflict continually going on between the old and new natures in the believer. God has a gracious purpose in permitting this conflict and it has its real advantages to the believer; also, abundant provision has been made for spiritual victory in any given case, but before considering all this, let us deal first with the fact of the conflict itself.
Concerning this conflict, the Apostle Paul writes, by inspiration:
"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would" (Gal. 5:17).
Regarding this conflict in his own personal experience, he writes:
"For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do."
"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
"But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members" (Rom. 7:19,22,23).
It has been taught by some that we need not experience this continual strife between the old nature and the new. They say: "Get out of the 7th of Romans into the 8th."
We would remind such that the Apostle Paul wrote Romans 7 and Romans 8 at the same sitting; that in the original the letter goes right on without interruption—without even a chapter division. Thus the same apostle who exclaims: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1) refers in the same letter, only a few sentences before, using the present tense, to "the law of sin which IS in my members," and freely acknowledges the present operation of that law in his members, as we have seen above. How then shall we get out of the 7th of Romans into the 8th? Paul experienced both at the same time, and so do we, for while we are free from the condemnation of sin, sin itself nevertheless continues to work within us.
It is true indeed that no amount of striving can improve the old Adamic nature, but it is not true that there should be no strife between the old and new natures, otherwise the exhortations not to "yield" to the dictates of the old nature, but to "put off" the deeds of the old man and "mortify," or put to death, our earthward inclinations, would all be meaningless.
It is a simple fact that the conflict described in Romans 7 is experienced in the life of every believer. Else let those who contend that we should get out of Romans 7 deny it. If they have come to the place where they can consistently do the things that they would;3 where "the law of sin" no longer operates in their members; if in their experience they have been wholly delivered from its captivity; if they need not—up to this very day in their experience—acknowledge: "The good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do"; if they need not cry with Paul: "O wretched man that I am!" if they need not "wait" with Paul "for the hope of [perfect, personal] righteousness by faith," they should take their stand with those who teach sinless perfection and the eradication of the old nature. If, however, they are not prepared to make these claims, they should acknowledge the naked truth of Galatians 5:17 and Romans 7:22,23.
Should it be asked how we are to be blamed if we "cannot" do the things that we would, we reply that Galatians 5:17 was not written to teach us our helplessness, but rather our utter depravity. The Spirit is always present and willing to bestow needed help, but we are so inherently bad by nature that we never consistently succeed in doing the things that we would. Indeed, the flesh wages constant, relentless war to prevent us from doing them.
It is true that the believer has been made "free from sin" by grace (Rom. 6:14,18); that is, he need not, yea, should not, yield to sin in any given case (Rom. 6:12,13). It is also true that the believer is "free from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2) for Christ bore the death penalty for him. But no believer is free from the presence of what Paul calls "the law of sin which is in my members;" that is, from the old nature, with its inherent tendency to do wrong. Nor is he free from the conflict with the new nature, which this involves. If we would be truly spiritual and deal in a Scriptural way with the sin that indwells us, we must clearly recognize its presence; we must face the fact that while, praise God, we are no longer "in sin," sin is still in us, and that though the "old man" is counted as having died with Christ, he is still alive and very active as far as our experience is concerned.
THE BLESSINGS OF THE CONFLICT
But this conflict should not discourage us, for it is one of the sure signs of true salvation. It is unknown to the unbeliever, for only the additional presence of the new nature, along with the old, causes this conflict, for "these are contrary the one to the other."
If we did not experience this conflict at all it could only mean that we were not saved, for with two natures so utterly incompatible dwelling within, conflict would be inevitable. If we know little of this conflict it can only mean that the old nature, in any of its subtle, deceitful forms, has attained the upper hand, for when the new nature asserts itself, as it should, the old nature is sure to "war" against it all the more fiercely.
But not only is the conflict within us a sure sign of salvation; it also creates within us a deep and necessary sense of our inward corruption, and of the infinite grace of a holy God in saving us and ministering to us daily in helping us to overcome sin. And in turn this again gives us a more understanding approach as we proclaim to the lost the gospel of the grace of God.
Endnotes
1. Even though, as we have shown, it may express itself in an attempt at self-betterment, seeking to control the baser passions, and revelling in religious rites and ceremonies, in ascetic practices or in other substitutes for true spirituality.
2. The idea in Romans 3:23 is not, as might appear from the Authorized rendering: "All have sinned and have come short of the glory of God," but "All have sinned and do come short of the glory of God."
3. Granting that Galatians 5:17 might be rendered: "to prevent you from doing what you would," as in R.S.V., the fact still remains that "the law of sin" operates in our members and does hinder us from doing (consistently) what we would.
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
quote:
"The flesh," even as it remains in the believer after salvation, is that which was generated by a fallen begetter. It is the old Adamic nature. It is sinful in itself. It cannot be improved. It cannot be changed. "That which is born [begotten] of the flesh is flesh," said our Lord (John 3:6) and it is as impossible to improve the "old man" in the believer as it was to make him acceptable to God in the first place.
Mr. Stam in continuing his perverted Gospel missed the point of sanctification...taking up your cross and following Yahshua. Crucifying the flesh.
Controlling Your Flesh and Keeping it Under Subjection to Your Spirit
In order for us as Christians to Live the New Life of the Spirit, we must be led by the right leader. Who we obey becomes our master, so we must obey the leading of the spirit and not the lusts of the flesh. In a world controlled by lust, greed and covetousness, we must not be like them and follow our fleshly greeds. Instead we must follow the Spirit of God within us, He will guide our heart/spirit.
St. Paul had a lot to say about this, in one place he said "I buffet my body daily", No He did not go to his local all you can eat restaurant daily. To "buffet" means to constantly beat into subjection, and no he did not walk around physically beating himself like those crazy in Psych. wards. He used this word to describe the constant hard discipline he demanded of himself. Christianity takes discipline. The word "Disciple" comes from the same root word "to Discipline" and Christianity is not a easy walk in the park of blessings all the time. We must pick up the cross daily and follow Jesus, we must consider ourselves dead to sin and Alive unto Righteousness
Keeping the body under subjection
by: J. Doctor www.fofmc.net
1Co 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.the word castaway mean unfit for, unproved, spurious, reprobate
in the Greek )
Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Summary - Review
As we have learned from the Word of God, Man is a spirit, he has a soul (mind, will and emotions), and he lives in a physical body. Man’s spirit is his heart, and his heart must become recreated, regenerated, or be born again to enter into the Kingdom of God. The only way to experience the new birth is to receive Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, at that instance the Holy Spirit comes into you and changes your heart, (your spirit), and you were born again, born of the Spirit of God. Our minds must be renewed with the Word of God, and our flesh must be crucified, mortified and put to death; In other words our body must be kept under control, under subjection. This lesson focuses on what the Bible tells us to do with our body (the house you live in).
A. Paul said that he kept his body under subjection. (1 Co 9:27)
1. We can do the same. (Rom. 8:13-14)
2. We crucify our flesh (there is a war going on and we need to take the side of the spirit)
Gal 5:16 [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Col 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
Col 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
3. The reason why we mortify, and crucify our flesh, and bring our bodies into subjection is because our bodies were not changed like our heart, (our spirit). Our bodies will be redeemed in the future, but until then we must control our flesh.
B. The Word of God also tells us to present our bodies to God and live Holy.
Rom 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, [which is] your reasonable service.
Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
C. In Matt. 18:8,9 Jesus meant to rid of the things that cause us to sin.
Heb 12:1 … let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
Jam 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
(BBE) For this reason, putting away all dirty behaviour and the overweight of evil, take into your souls without pride the word which, being planted there, is able to give you salvation.
1Pe 2:1 Having put aside, then, all evil, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envyings, and all evil speakings,
D. Controlling your tongue is the major way to control your body. (James 3:2,8)
Conclusion: We need to keep our bodies under control, so we can be led by the Spirit of God. We don’t want to be led by our feelings or emotions. If we listen to our spirit and are led by the Spirit of God we will never make a mistake. The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. If we are doers of this Word of God we will live a victorious Christian life. [B][/B]
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
Its not surprising that becausehelives(moderator unqualified) Failed to read this by Brother Stam.
THE OLD NATURE NOT ERADICATED IN THIS LIFE
There are those who, with good motive, to be sure, strive to achieve the eradication of the old nature in this life. Such do not help, but hinder, the attainment of true spirituality.
First, the doctrine of eradication, far from taking a truly serious view of sin, takes a very shallow, superficial view of it. Those who teach it suppose that if we could get rid of the sins we recognize we should be perfect, not realizing that at our very best we all, having fallen into sin in Adam, constantly "come [present tense]2 short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23) and will continue to come short of it until we are changed to be "like Him." Thus "We, through the Spirit, WAIT for the hope of [perfect, personal] righteousness by faith" (Gal. 5:5).
Concerning those who feel that they have achieved the eradication of the old nature, the fact is that others can invariably testify that they have not! And generally those who claim to be without sin are guilty of one of the greatest of all sins—spiritual pride.
Question
"Is there such a thing as a Carnal Christian?"
Answer
Yes, in fact, there is no such thing as a Christian who is not at times carnal. Did you get that? And if you're saying to yourself, "I have never been carnal," then, "God have mercy on you."
But let me tell you what people mean by that. There was a definition of a Christian as a Carnal Christian, as if that was a permanent condition. The people in the Church used to teach that there were three kinds of people, Natural, Carnal, and Spiritual. And they would define the Natural person as unregenerate, unsaved, self on the throne, life in chaos, and sin everywhere.
Then there is the Carnal person. What's that? That's the Christian who still has self on the throne. Christ is still in there somewhere, running around, but He is not in charge, and the life is still in chaos. So the only difference between a natural and a carnal person is that Christ is in there somewhere, but the life hasn't changed.
And then thirdly, there is the Spiritual Christian. Self is off the throne, Christ is on it, and the life is all in order. And so people came up with the idea that you could be either a Carnal Christian or a Spiritual Christian. You know, once you are saved you could say, "Well, I am going to stay a Carnal Christian, I like it better."
And that brings in this whole idea of Lordship, because those are the people who accepted Jesus as Savior, but not as Lord. Those are the people who said, "I don't want to go to Hell, and I want you to save me from Hell and I want you to forgive my sins, but I just don't want you to run my life.
And the old definition of a Carnal Christian was a person who believed in Jesus for salvation, but didn't let Him be Lord, and didn't let Him run his life. That's not what a Carnal Christian is. That isn't at all what Paul had in mind in 1Corinthians 3, not at all. Let me show you what it is.
There is only two kinds of people in the world. My grandfather use to say the "saints" and the "ain’ts," that's it, Christians and Non-Christians, Believers and Unbelievers. Now listen, the Natural man is the unregenerate. The Spiritual man is the regenerate man. Read Romans 8, the Spiritual man is the regenerate. But the Spiritual man can act in a fleshly way. Anytime you disobey the Lord, you are carnal. Anytime you obey the Lord, you are Spiritual. Anytime you do what you ought not to do, you are carnal. That means fleshy, you're operating off the principle of sin. Anytime you do what the Lord wants you to do, you honor the Word.
So carnality is not a permanent state of Christians who have not given Christ Lordship. Carnality is simply a momentary experience of the Believer who is disobedient to God. So it is not a state, it is simply a kind of behavior. And all Christians at any given moment, right now, this moment here, are either Carnal or Spiritual, depending on whether you functioning in the Spirit or in the flesh. If you are sitting there and the Spirit of God is teaching you, and you are enjoying what's happening, then the Spirit of God is at work, you're a Spiritual person.
If you're sitting there saying, "I don't like what he is saying, I don't buy any of this stuff. I reject all this stuff. This stuff isn't true." And you have hostility in your heart, and you may be dealing with sin, and you don't like what I said, I don't know. Your flesh is reacting, that's Carnality. Understand?
Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "MacArthur’s Questions and Answers" by:
Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 119
Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022
Websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com
Email: tony@biblebb.com
Online since 1986
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
My contention is that the modern school of self-styled "grace teachers" have in reality "turned the grace of God into lasciviousness" (Jude 4). It is all a part of the age-end apostasy. It genders the antinomianism, which is going to cause a large part of professing Christendom as well as the world, to take the mark of the Beast when he appears.
It is difficult to account for the attitude of these ministers who claim themselves to be teaching that the Divine justification is "by grace through faith" aside and distinct from any work or merit of man. The fathers of the reformation did a very thorough work of rediscovering and setting forth this magnificent doctrine, yet without disparaging the principle of law, or reducing grace to a kind of divine sentimentality, or faith to an empty babble of "taking Jesus as personal Savior." In their zeal to displace the dead works of human righteousness as a cause of salvation, have they not, consciously or unconsciously, discounted the God-wrought righteousness, which is its inevitable effect and its immutable objective.
"For we (Christians) are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before prepared that we should walk in them." It is this class of teachers that have been the proponents of the "carnal Christian" doctrine. They have misused one passage of scripture to divert the whole course of New Testament teaching.
The use of the term "carnal Christian" unavoidably implies a habitual state of carnality, and it is from any such constant state that regeneration is represented as being the alternative, the antithesis. For carnality to be a habitual characteristic is a sure indication of the dominion of sin. But we are plainly told by the Apostle:
"For sin shall not have dominion over you. Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves as servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey: whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? . . . Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness" (Rom. 6:14, 16, 18).
It is a serious thing for any Christian teacher to water down the implications of regeneration. For in so doing he conveys a false hope: he comforts the self-deluded individual who thinks he is saved and is not: he condones sin and lowers the standards of discipleship: he does despite to the Spirit of Grace and even to the divine character, because he asserts (in effect) that one can be "a partaker of the Divine nature" and continue in a course of fleshliness: he implies that one can "eat his cake and have it too," or that he can successfully serve both God and Mammon. He sets forth the spiritual walk as preferable but the carnal as passable. Say they; that there are three classes of men, the natural man, the carnal man and the spiritual man. The natural man is, of course, the unsaved child of the world. The carnal man is a saved man who, however, still walks in the flesh. The spiritual man is the higher quality of saved man, who walks in the Spirit and in the course of obedience. (A book by Lewis Sperry Chafer called "He that is Spiritual" and the notes in the Scofield Bible on pages 1213-14 have been two great contributors to this widespread error. - ED.)
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
If U don't like legal ham , then SPAM!
U R Cold Short Iron.
“
My name Becausehelives and Berry ar bible Legalist ,we search grace people, send us messages LawisGrace@fordhx.com we send u info:)
bvkap zgfhj slnbm
„
—LOLWUT
Spam is a delicious processed luncheon meat product that your mom cooks with everything. Spam is also a legitimate form of advertising and a multi-million dollar industry that everyone loves to hate. Spam had its origin when authors like Alexandre Dumas were paid by the word to publish novels so they would be of superior quality. Most spammers make an honest living out of reposting the same quality content over and over again, ad infinitum, you know, until people really get the picture. Sadly, some people invoke actual wire, mail, and e-mail fraud laws to abuse these humble public servants simply trying to get the word out about their new methods of curing sinful dysfunction. Some, however, spam with malicious intent on forums and message boards. Those people are not from God.
Don't knock it. It's got its own key. Hormel Foods Corporation, the makers of spam, have revealed future revisions of their spam would use the latest in 128-bit public encryption technology for the cans, as the traditional key is insecure, especially as it is included with the can.
Three great characters to spam on board with character limits on their posts are the following : ፼ (U+137C), ₔ, and (U+E366) (seriously, those are three single characters) because they are hueg liek Xbox and will allow you to cover more page area with the small character limit.
Posted by becauseHElives (Member # 87) on
:
I truly feel sorry for you WildB....I sincerely pray Yahweh open the eyes of your understanding.
Posted by WildB (Member # 2917) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by becauseHElives:
I truly feel sorry for you WildB....I sincerely pray Yahweh open the eyes of your understanding.
As I do you.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0