Carnal Christians -- do they exist?
Paul wrote (NKJV)
And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ.
I chose the NKJV because it retains the word “carnal,” and the term “carnal Christian” was derived from that. So do genuinely carnal Christians exist? Or are these new believers who haven’t progressed much? Or is Paul uncertain about their conversion?
This could tie in with 2 Corinthians 13:5 perhaps?
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!
What do you think?
- 474 views
I voted #1, but I see it mainly as a mixture of both of the first two.
Have read JMac and others’ arguments for ‘no such thing,’ but have not found them persuasive.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I agree with what Aaron said.
I don’t remember the particulars of the ‘no such thing view,’ but “brethren” and “in Christ” in 1 Cor 3.1 establish a high burden of proof for the “no such thing” thesis.
Maybe the argument focuses on “as” and takes it as “as though you were.” But how can we read the second “as” that way and not the first?
Here’s NASB, with emphasis added…
And I, brothers and sisters, could not speak to you as spiritual people, but only as fleshly, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to consume it. But even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like ordinary people?
New American Standard Bible. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 2020. Print.
What we don’t have here is the idea that a Christain dominated by the flesh will, or even can, stay that way for the duration of their life as a believer. Those who are alive grow.
So I’d have to say that the third option in the poll is also compatible with the first two. Peter’s ‘make your calling election sure’ (2 Pe 1:10) comes to mind in addition to this…
Ed Vasicek wrote: This could tie in with 2 Corinthians 13:5 perhaps?
I’d argue that Paul assumes that they are believers, and shows that believers can be that way for a time, but doesn’t exclude the possibility that they might not be truly regenerate and doesn’t say believers can be that way for, say, decades.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
One's answer will depend on how one views these professing Christians: Donald Trump, Jerry Falwell Jr., Jack Schaap., Josh Duggar. (As my sons would humorously say of Hitler and Stalin, "We don't know their hearts.")
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Aaron, you I think captured what I believe to be the crux (and choice #2 was meant to capture this —“for a while,” but it could have been worded more clearly) when you said:
What we don’t have here is the idea that a Christain dominated by the flesh will, or even can, stay that way for the duration of their life as a believer. Those who are alive grow.
I think MacArthur does overkill, but people like Chafer and those influenced by him did “underkill” (is there such a word?). Sounds like a number of us have this opinion.
"The Midrash Detective"
Ron, good to see you posting again. I was just praying for you last week because I had not noticed as many of your posts lately. I hope you are doing well (sorry to sidetrack the thread)
I drop in now and then to see how you "kids" are doing. I get a good chuckle whenever SI's resident music expert pokes the bear. I mean, someone has to pick up Frank Garlock's mantle, right?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ron Bean wrote: I drop in now and then to see how you "kids" are doing. I get a good chuckle whenever SI's resident music expert pokes the bear. I mean, someone has to pick up Frank Garlock's mantle, right?
I wonder if this previous comment (quoted above) in this thread is in violation of comment guideline C.5., quoted below:
C. Do not engage in rude or other un-Christlike conduct, including—but not limited to the following:
- derogatory name-calling or attacks on the motives of other participants
- malicious ridiculing of other participants
- focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic
- intentionally disrupting a discussion or posting off topic
- posting criticism, speculation, etc. in threads about persons recently deceased
If so, I hope that the moderators will act swiftly to deal with this commenter or any other SI commenters who violate the guidelines by either posting or inciting others in the direction of "posting criticism, speculation, etc. in threads about" Dr. Garlock in view of his recent promotion to glory.
I think it’s a spectrum. We call people “godly” but we do not mean they are sinless. Similarly, there are believers that are more “carnal”. I believe in progressive sanctification and that the process begins when a person becomes a believer. The idea that all Christians are “carnal” until receiving a crisis work of sanctification is serious doctrinal error.
josh p wrote: The idea that all Christians are “carnal” until receiving a crisis work of sanctification is serious doctrinal error.
Agree. It might be mostly reaction against that idea that has fueled views that err in a sort of opposite direction.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I also agree. That’s the way of things in theology but I still think the opposite extreme is at least closer to the truth.
I voted for #1. Living a life for Christ is extremely challenging. Christ does not overcome sin in our daily life without us coming to Him. We need to pray, be in His Word, have faith, have hope.... And for those of us who have gone through extreme trials, we know that they nearly break us. I have known people that provide a clear testimony of faith. They know that the only way to salvation is through faith in Christ alone. But they struggle with sin in their life. They have not abandoned Christ, and they are not defiant to His will, but they mightily struggle with it, and the fruit can be minimal. They go through great valleys. While it is not the ideal Christian life, I struggle to see them in eternal punishment, because I don't see that they have rejected Christ or that they cannot articulate their faith. Scripture is clear that nothing can separate us from Christ. I see a lot of people distort passages in Scripture to paint a picture that our life needs to be filled with abundant fruit that all can see. I just don't see Scripture putting a hard requirement on fruit being a condition of true Salvation. I am convinced that most saints in Scripture would never qualify for membership at most of our churches based on their fruits, yet it was the heart they had toward God, and how they looked upon Him. At the end of the day it is only God that can look upon a man and know his heart.
As to what Paul thinks. He clarifies carnal as those who are babes in Christ. They have faith, but it is immature faith. Either it has not been tested, or when it has been tested, it is unable to stand fully on its own and needs protection.
Discussion