Carnal Christians?
Where did the idea that there are two kinds of Christians, carnal and spiritual, come from? It apparently originated in the mind of a dispensationist, yeah, that's right, a dispensationist. His name? L.S. Chafer.
Two kinds of Christians? Might just as well rewrite Romans 8 - you know, like put a whole lot of qualifying statements in there. For example: Romans 8:14 - For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God... should read "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God (though some might go on to be carnal, and therefore this verse should not necessarily be used to define all Christians) these are the sons of God".
You get the point.
A great paper on the subject can be found here...
http://electexiles.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/history-of-the-lordship-salvation-controversy/
Happy reading!
Labels: Chaferian theology
posted by mark pierson at 9:20 PM
8 Comments:
From the paper...
"Hence, Chafer saw two great spiritual changes taking place in Christian’s lives: “the change from the ‘natural man’ to the saved man, and the change from the ‘carnal’ man to the spiritual man” (He that is Spiritual, 8)."
Some more from the paper...
"Chafer’s theology reflects the movement of removing repentance from the gospel call and placing it in the arena of sanctification. (Randall Gleason, “B. B. Warfield and Lewis S. Chafer on Sanctification,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40.2, 250)."
Yeah, a great contribution. The FGT movement stands proudly on his shoulders.
No wonder regeneration gets minimized. A new nature? Not necessarily.
Thanks, Lewis!
July 06, 2008 11:54 AM
I wonder if I might be allowed to ask Daniel a question in response to a comment he made on 29 June. He said:
> When I read the bible with the presumption that it was written by a bunch of ignorant cavemen
May I ask him which group of hominids he is referring to as "cavemen"? Modern man Homo sapiens evolved from his precursor (evidence is overwhelming that is Homo erectus) some three million years ago. The bible could only have been written some two THOUSAND years ago. Has he actually spent any time studying the international mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature on human evolution?
You might find this link useful, written by one of your own distinguished universities.
July 08, 2008 3:31 AM
Like I said, I'm praying for your salvation. In the mean time, please try to stay on topic. What you bring up here is NOT what the post is about. So please respect my wishes and stay on topic from now on. Thank you.
July 08, 2008 7:14 AM
I'm sorry Mark, but I have been away and I saw no way of bringing Daniel's comment to the front. I did ask your permission at the start of my comment and I note that it was refused.
I can only conclude that you have no answer to my point. Fundamentalists do seem rather nervous of evidence published by your own universities and you are right to be so.
July 08, 2008 9:04 AM
Although the question isn't on topic, I think I can answer briefly just to get the meta cleared.
Maalie, my use of the term cavemen was (or at least I thought it was) an obvious hyperbole. I said it that way to add some color to my conviction.
I presume that your correction was intented to be a tongue in cheek remark, and in no way indicates a some intellectual deficiency on your part.
Either way, if you want to discuss my original comment, that thread is found here.
July 08, 2008 2:56 PM
Daniel,
Maalie has shown at least 2 or 3 times that he bails out and runs when the debate paints him into corners he can't handle.
Examples: Why is there is something instead of nothing? What is the nature of the uncaused cause?
July 08, 2008 3:08 PM
Mark:
Those who deny Dispensationalism read the same Bible I have, and it professes at least two dispensations. In the front of many Bibles it says, “HOLY BIBLE.” Then it will tell me that the books of the Bible are divided into Old & New Testaments. For those who say, “There is no such thing as a dispensation,” the Bible clearly speaks of the dispensations. Four times the Apostle Paul speaks of the dispensations:
“For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me,” (1 Cor. 9:17).
“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him,” (Eph. 1:10)
“If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward,” (Eph. 3:2).
“Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God,” (Col. 1:25).
Those who say there no dispensations hold within their hands a Bible that professes itself to be dispensational.
Paul recognized the dispensations, seems to me you men want to over rule Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
And as you have been shown elsewhere, Dispensationalist Paul also wrote, by Inspiration in 1 Cor. 3:1-3 to born again Christians that they were “carnal.”
“I, brethren, 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 it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
Who originated the “Carnal” Christian?
You men, who are Covenant/Lordship advocates, seem intent on dismissing the clear teaching of Scripture. “Carnal” Christians were invented by modern day Dispensationalists like Chafer? The Bible answered your assumptions.
LM
July 09, 2008 12:32 AM
Lou says,
"As Matt once wrote, "...this is too irresistible"
Those who deny Dispensationalism read the same Bible I have, and it professes at least two dispensations. In the front of many Bibles it says, “HOLY BIBLE.” Then it will tell me that the books of the Bible are divided into Old & New Testaments."
================
No LS/Calvinist would disagree with you here. Your point?
=================
"For those who say, “There is no such thing as a dispensation,” the Bible clearly speaks of the dispensations. Four times the Apostle Paul speaks of the dispensations:"
============
Again, none of your opponents would disagree that Paul uses the word "Dispensation" 4x: 1 Cor.9:17; Eph.1:10; 3:2; Col.1:25. In fact Matt is a Dispensationalist, as is MacArthur, Phil Johnson, and the Pulpit Magazine staff that so convincingly corrected you back in November, 2006. So what's your point here?
==============
“For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me,” (1 Cor. 9:17).
“That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him,” (Eph. 1:10)
“If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward,” (Eph. 3:2).
“Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God,” (Col. 1:25).
Those who say there no dispensations hold within their hands a Bible that professes itself to be dispensational.
Paul recognized the dispensations, seems to me you men want to over rule Inspiration of the Holy Spirit."
===========
I repeat, Again, none of your opponents would disagree that Paul uses the word "Dispensation" 4x: 1 Cor.9:17; Eph.1:10; 3:2; Col.1:25. In fact Matt is a Dispensationalist, as is MacArthur, Phil Johnson, and the Pulpit Magazine staff that so convincingly corrected you back in November, 2006. So what's your point here?
=================
"And as you have been shown elsewhere, Dispensationalist Paul also wrote, by Inspiration in 1 Cor. 3:1-3 to born again Christians that they were “carnal.”
“I, brethren, 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 it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?"
============
As I stated at your blog the "carnal" state is a phase all Christians go through. Yeah, compared to Christ, do we really come out of it before the grave? Who is the arbiter? What are the guide lines? How does one (an arbiter) determine who is carnal and who is not? Any way what Paul is talking about here is not a static state, else Romans 8:14,28-30 should be ripped from scripture.
===========
"You men, who are Covenant/Lordship advocates, seem intent on dismissing the clear teaching of Scripture. “Carnal” Christians were invented by modern day Dispensationalists like Chafer? The Bible answered your assumptions."
==========
See my response above.
==============
"It is a sad commentary, and I mean sincerely, to read how you men give your Calvinistic/Covenant presuppositions the preeminence over the Word of God."
==============
It is sad to see that no mater how many times LS/Calvinists explain their position you persist in misrepresenting it. It is noted in Dispensationalist John MacArthur's book that carnal Christianity is not a static state, but a phase. 1 Corintians 3:1-3 in no way presents it as a state. That is an example of you coming at this portion of scripture with presuppositions and making it say what it really does not.
MP
July 09, 2008 6:53 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home