CARNAL SECURITY VS. ETERNAL SECURITY as Seen in the Lordship Debate

Introduction

 
    In 1991, an evangelical theologian and seminary professor wrote some startling statements in a devotional magazine.

    If, ten years ago, you had told me that I would live to see literate evangelicals, some with doctorates and a seminary teaching record, arguing for the reality of and eternal salvation, divinely guaranteed, that may have in it no repentance, no discipleship, no behavioral change, no practical acknowledgment of Christ as Lord of one’s life, and no perseverance in faith, then I would have told you that you were out of your mind.[1]    

Shock over this new trend, however, has not been the reaction of all.  Some evangelicals consider this topic to be of small importance and just a disagreement over the definitions of a few words.  Other Christians on both sides of this issue have realized that “the very nature of the gospel itself is at stake.”[2]  What message are we to proclaim and how should we share it?  One Christian has said, “To evangelize is for the whole people to present the whole gospel to the whole person.  Our goal is not just decisions, but disciples and a faithful witness that glorifies God.  We do all we can to avoid premature birth and deformed children, trusting God to bring his “full-term” children into the kingdom.”[3]  Is such a view correct or just the position of a ‘Judaizer’?  The answer to this question will be touched on in this study.  However, the primary task in this study will be to explore how the different sides of the lordship controversy explain the biblical doctrine of assurance of salvation.  It is this student’s contention that the Bible teaches that genuine repentance and a real faith are divine gifts exercised by a sinner before he or she is justified, and that the biblical assurance that follows has as its basis: the promises of God made alive by the Holy Spirit, the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit to his or her spirit, and the current possession of attitudes and actions that are corresponding to the fruits of the Spirit and the commands of God.


The Lordship Salvation Debate

    Many in the Southern Baptist Convention are not aware of how strongly the lordship debate has raged, especially among Baptists of the more conservative ilk in the north.  The author of this paper was invited as a guest to a debate in April of 1995 over Lordship Salvation at Practical Bible College in Johnson City, New York.  Dr. Tony Badger, the theology professor at that institution, was debating a local pastor named Bruce Parker.  Pastor Parker was a graduate of Master’s Seminary in California of which John MacArthur is president.  Dr. Badger was a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary where Dr. Zane Hodges formerly taught.  The debate was opened by Dr. Badger stressing how important the issue was by reading Galatians 1:6-10.  He declared unequivocally and, unfortunately, without any visible remorse that John MacArthur and any in the audience or in the country who taught lordship salvation were guilty of the Galatian heresy -- of adding works to the gospel.  He then read again the text, “Let them be accursed.”  Later on in the debate he made the remark that “John MacArthur even reads works of Covenant theologians.”  At this statement the Bible college students behind me hissed.[4]  I soon realized that I was among future pastors who had been taught that those who believed as I did were heretics and accursed.  On the other hand, I had been fervently preaching of the need for sinners to receive the whole Christ of the Bible as both Lord and Savior and to receive Him on His terms of repentance and faith. Therefore, I could not claim exemption from personal zeal on this issue.  
 

    Nevertheless, as I reflect on that debate, my heart is saddened that some students are graduating from that school either confused over the content of the gospel or embracing a partial gospel.  Furthermore, they may produce false converts and be issuing false assurance to make-believers who are in desperate need of further evangelization.  Let me be clear that I am not saying that those who hold to Dr. Badger’s view are heretics, nor should these men be hated or verbally abused.  Nevertheless, if my position is correct, then the Church I love is being damaged as people receive assurance before conversion and membership before salvation.[5]  This mixing of light and darkness and this progressive weakening of Christ’s bride should move our hearts with sadness to prayerful concern.[6]

Historical Considerations

    As a beginning point in considering the issue at hand, it will be helpful to let some of those who represent the other side of this debate speak for themselves.  This position that will be described has been known by such names or labels as Antinomian, Sandemanian, non-lordship salvation, and free grace theology.  Church historians and theologians tell us that this debate surfaced long before our day in Scotland in the ministries of Archibald McLean, John Glass, and his son-in-law, Robert Sandeman, around 1800.[7] These three are very important figures in the formation of the group first known as Scotch Baptists in Scotland.  The English Baptist theologian and missionary statesman, Andrew Fuller, reluctantly took up his pen against this movement (he was a pastor and president of the Particular Baptist Society for the Propagation of the Gospel among the Heathen, that sent and supported William Carey). Concerning Fuller’s article written in 1810, entitled “Strictures on Sandemainism in Twelve Letters to a Friend,”[8] one British scholar wrote, “it is generally agreed that Fuller more or less demolished Sandemainism in those twelve letters.”[9] These letters are biblical, fair, and show well-reasoned orthodox theology in its finest form.  They deserve to read and studied by every Baptist.
 

    According to Andrew Fuller, McLean and Robert Sandeman liked to use the phrases “simple truth” and “simple belief.”[10]  Sandeman taught that justifying faith is “the bare belief of the bare truth; by which definition he intends, as it would seem, to exclude from it every thing pertaining to the will and the affections, except as effects produced by it.”[11] 

   Likewise, Sandeman had written, “Everyone who obtains a just notion of the  person and work of Christ, or whose notion corresponds to what is testified of him, is justified, and finds peace with God simply by that notion.”[12]  The mind in the saving transaction is totally passive and does not actively receive this new truth or embrace it in any way.[13]  His position is sufficiently clear.

    The denomination that Sandeman founded in England disappeared after a few short years.  But, did his teachings effect American Baptists’, especially in the South?  Yes, profoundly, through one of Sandeman’s students Alexander Campbell.  Years ago, this author traveled in the state of Tennessee.  I noticed a huge number of large Disciples of Christ or Christian church’s (Campbellites), often with a small Southern Baptist church nearby.  This phenomenon exists in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri which in the 1800's were the frontier states.  Baptist church historian H. Leon McBeth explains this situation:

    Another influential spokesman against missions was Alexander Campbell (1788-1866).  Though he was a Baptist for only seventeen years, 1813 -1830, Campbell had a great impact on the denomination . . .He attacked mission societies, Bible societies, associations, confessions of faith, use of the title reverend, and many other things he considered nonbiblical . . .Eventually the “Reformers” almost wrecked the Baptist denomination in the West, sowing seeds of discord wherever they appeared . . . Hundreds of Baptist churches left the denomination to line up with Campbell’s “Reformers,” who after 1830 formed a new denomination known as Disciples of Christ or Church of Christ.  Historians estimate, for example, that fully half the Baptist churches of Kentucky switched to the new Disciples movement.[14]

   Where did this former Presbyterian minister get these divisive views he so vigorously spread in the frontier states? 

   Alexander spent a year at the University of Glasgow, where he absorbed elements of Scottish philosophy, along with the strict biblicism of men like Greville Ewing, John Glas, and Robert Sandeman.  From these sources young Campbell developed rationalistic views of faith, insistence upon every Sunday communion, distaste for confessions of faith, and belief in baptismal remission of sins . . . In time, several areas of disagreement between Campbell and the Baptists came into focus.  First, on the nature of saving faith, Campbell had absorbed the rationalism of Scottish realism.  To him simply to believe, in the most rationalistic sense of that term, that Jesus is the Christ was sufficient for salvation.  Campbell taught that “faith is only a historical belief of the facts stated in the Bible.”  Thus he would settle for what some have called “head belief,” or “mental assent.”  The Baptists, on the other hand, felt that biblical faith should include an element of personal trust or life surrender to Christ.  This “heart faith” sometimes led to emotional expressions at conversion.  Campbell once snapped his fingers and said, “I would not give that much for the conversion of a person who weeps.”  He taught that “the belief of one fact, . . .is all that is requisite as far as faith goes, to salvation.  The belief of one fact, and submission to one institution, expressive of it {baptism[15]}, is all that is required.”  That one historical fact, said Campbell, is “that Jesus, the Nazarene, is the Messiah.”[16]

  
   This is even a more minimized gospel than Sandeman appeared to have taught.  Sandeman gospel at times included an idea of Christ’s person and work, however, he did often qualify this in his writings to seem to indicate that just a bare idea of his Messiahship was sufficient.  His student Campbell reduced it to his earthly personage.  We will probably not know for certain if Sandeman’s classes were narrower than his writings.  Nevertheless, as is often the case, doctrinal error gets worse with each new generation rather than better.[17]  It was Campbell’s spread of many doctrinal errors that caused such losses to the Baptist Churches in the South and provided such a fertile ground for Landmarkism to grow and flourish.

The Modern “Free Grace” Proponents

    Another teacher, who, according to some, has arisen in the shadow of Robert Sandeman, is Zane Hodges.  Dr. Hodges has written, “Repentance is not essential to the gospel message.  In no sense is repentance related to saving faith.”[18]  “To ‘believe’ unto salvation is to believe the facts of the gospel.”[19] “‘Trusting Jesus’ means believing the ‘saving facts’ about Him.”[20]  “Those who add any suggestion of commitment [to believing the facts] have departed from the New Testament idea of salvation.”[21]  “Spiritual fruit is not guaranteed in the Christian life.”[22]  “If people are sure they believe, their faith must be genuine.”[23]  Thus, one may see some common ideas in theses quotes from these two men from different eras of history.

    Also, consider these quotations from Dr. R.T. Kendall.  “One need only see the Sin Bearer once to be saved.”[24] 

    Whoever once truly believes that Jesus was raised from the dead, and confesses that Jesus is Lord, will go to heaven when he dies.  But I will not stop there.  Such a person will go to heaven when he dies no matter what work (or lack of work) may accompany such faith.[25]

 
    Another person who holds to the free grace view is Dr. Charles Ryrie.  He has written, “Repentance is a change of mind about Christ.”[26]  “No turning from sin is required for salvation.”[27]  “Faith might not last.  A true Christian can completely cease believing.”[28]  Furthermore, “saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel.”[29]  Though Dr. Ryrie is milder than Dr. Hodges in some points, they  both stand as proponents of the free grace position.[30] One last person to consider is R.B. Thieme, Jr.   He has written, “Yet believers who become agnostics are still saved, they are still born again.  You can even become an atheist, but if you once accepted Christ as Savior, you cannot lose your salvation, even though you deny God.”[31]  Of course many other contemporary writers could also be cited.[32] 

    Therefore, as the careful student views the above quotations, he can see a common position emerging from these writers.  If one assents with the mind to the “bare belief of the bare truth” [33] or simply “believe[s] the facts of the gospel . . . taking God at His Word,”[34] this person is saved.  Furthermore, he is guaranteed 100% assurance of his salvation 100% of the time and is told that to ever doubt it would be a sin.[35] Thus, the free grace teachers offer an eternal salvation and continual assurance to those who meet the requirement of assenting to the death and resurrection of Christ at one moment in their lives. Is this position correct according to the Word of God?  To evaluate these statements we will examine the free grace teachers’ preferred gospel account to see if there are elements that go beyond mere consenting to the designated facts.  Does the gospel of John actually teach that saving faith is nothing more than mentally acknowledging the death and resurrection of a person named Jesus?  I propose to demonstrate that the free grace gospel is correct in what it affirms, but is sadly lacking in what it omits.


New Testament Theology

    In studying the gospel of John, a careful student will see the need to start at the end.  This is because John gives us his purpose for writing this book in John 20:30-32.  This purpose-statement can be turned into four questions.  These questions should be asked and answers should be sought in each chapter of John’s gospel.  The questions are: 1) Who is Jesus?  2) What does it mean to believe in Jesus?  3) What does unbelief look and act like?  4) What does it mean to have life?  John masterfully uses the contrasts between belief and unbelief in almost every chapter so that his readers will receive a clear picture of what saving faith is and is NOT.  If this gospel is explored observantly, it will display that the concept of “simple faith” expressed above is not the gospel according to John.

    How does John answer the question -- what does it means to believe in Jesus?  To believe is to: receive Jesus (1:12), come to Jesus (1:39), be following Jesus (1:40, 43), be believing IN Jesus (2:11), be believing in the name [whole person of Christ in all His offices and attributes](3:18), be doing the truth (3:21), be honoring Jesus (5:23), be surrendering to Jesus’ mastery (9:37), and be worshiping Jesus (9:37) (to list just a few).[36]  The study in contrast of what unbelief looks and acts like has been skillfully set forth by this apostle in almost every chapter.  For example he portrays the following unbelievers alongside genuine believers: mankind as a whole (1:10), the Jewish nation (1:11), the temple leaders (2:18-20), false believers (2:23-25), the people of Galilee (4:43-55), the Jewish leaders who witnessed miraculous evidence (5:10, 16-18), scripture-reading lost men (5:38), the proud (5:44), unconverted entertainment seekers (6:24-5), a Satan-filled make-believer (6:70), and the Pharisees (7:32, 49, 52).[37]  Just a casual study of John reveals that this apostle would not accept the view that “bare belief of the bare facts” or “to believe the facts of the gospel” describes the salvation transaction or saving faith.  There are other excellent works available that carefully show what Jesus’ gospel was in the synoptic gospels[38] and what the gospel included that was taught by the apostles in the epistles.[39]  Furthermore, John also penned these following words. “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:9, NIV). Thus, it appears that the Apostle John is at odds with this modern view of faith and salvation.

    Furthermore, even though John does not use any of the Greek words for repentance except for (strepo) in John 12:40 quoting Isa 6:10 where the main Hebrew word for repentance Shuv is used and is translated as strepo by John, it cannot be proven that the concept of repentance is missing in his gospel or that he would affirm consenting to a few facts as the essence of saving faith.  Moreover, one of the reoccurring synonyms for faith is the word “receive.”  What does it mean to receive the Lord Christ?  Elabon, ἔλαβον (Jn. 1:12 BGT)}[aorist active indicative](1:12) is from the root word lambano, λαμβανω that is used in John 1:12; 5:43; and 13:20. This term means to “take hold of, grasp, seize, receive, get, or obtain.”[40]  It is used in both the Septuagint and the New Testament for “men taking wives” (Gen. 6:2 and Luke 20:28)[41] and it can be a very intimate word.[42]  Beck translates this word in 1:12 as “welcome” and Arndt says its use in this verse is to “receive someone in sense of recognizing his authority.”[43]  A modern word that is close to the concept conveyed by elabon[44] is ‘embrace.’ John uses this word (elabon) in contrast with the rejection Christ received by the world and by the Jewish nation.  Those to whom God gives birth embrace His Son rather than reject Him.  Thus, we can understand that John would not merely be content with someone saying, “Yeah, that’s true,” to two facts about Jesus and calling that mental action salvation.  John says that the people who are continually believing upon His name, the ones who are children of God, are the same ones who at one point in the past (aorist) embraced the Lord Jesus Christ.  Jesus is a living person, the God-Man.  Therefore, please note that in John 1:12, it is not the facts about Jesus that are embraced but a person -- Jesus Himself.  This event of receiving Christ is either prior to or concurrent with believing upon His name (His Person and offices, not two facts about Him). To merely believe some facts is what the demons do in James 2:18-20; and as Pastor Albert N. Martin has correctly said, “If you have a demon’s faith, then you shall go to a demon’s Hell.”  Thus, part of saving faith is embracing the Jesus of the Bible Himself as Prophet, Priest, and King, and as the God-Man Who is the Lord (Sovereign Divine Master) and Christ (Acts 2:36-39).

    Another key section for us to consider is the tenth chapter of John concerning the Shepherd and His sheep.  Jesus tells us how to spot His sheep amidst the goats.  “My sheep are continually hearing My voice [present tense] and I am knowing them, and they are continually following Me” (10:26-27).[46]  The true sheep hear and follow the Shepherd’s voice because they have “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thes. 1:9).[46]  Thus, it appears that John’s gospel does not affirm that saving faith is merely consenting to several facts about a person named Jesus.

    Now that consideration has been given to the position of some of the free grace teachers and an examination of the gospel of John has been made in that light, it may be helpful to ponder if Andrew Fuller has stood alone against this movement or if other gifted orthodox Christian men have stood with him.  The thirty-seven Baptist pastors who prepared the 1689 London Confession of Faith preceded Andrew Fuller in time, yet they stood with him in doctrine.  The thousands of Baptist churches that adopted this confession also stand with Fuller.  Both the London and Philadelphia confession states,     
 

    The grace of faith by which the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls is the work of the Spirit in their hearts. . . .The principal acts of saving faith relate in the first instance to Christ as the believer accepts, receives and rests upon Him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life. . . .The repentance that leads on to salvation is a gospel grace by means of which a person who is caused by the Holy Spirit to feel the manifold evils of sin is also caused by faith in Christ to humble himself on account of sin.[47]

Dr. Bailey E. Smith reminds us of the position of two other men from our heritage.  

    The nineteenth-century Baptist theologian John Dagg said: “The blessing of forgiveness is bestowed upon all who truly repent of their sins . . . God, in the gospel, commands all men everywhere to repent . . . Repentance and faith are twin graces, proceeding from the same Holy Spirit, and wrought in the same heart; and, although they may be contemplated separately, they exist together, and the promise of forgiveness belongs to either of them.”

    Another nineteenth-century Baptist theologian, James P. Boyce, said, “Christian repentance . . . involves a change in the outward life because such  change is a result of the change of inward opinions.”  He goes on to note that true repentance involves an intellectual and spiritual perception of sin, a sorrow for it, a deep regret, and an earnest turning to God for help and deliverance.[48]

 

Dr. Herschel H. Hobbs has written in The Baptist Faith and Message:

    Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus.  It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.  Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God.  Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.[49]

   Andrew Fuller has not stood alone. This author has many clear quotations from the writings of Charles Spurgeon, John Broadus, Basel Manley, Jr., Patrick Hues Mell, and Millard Erickson[50] that display that Fuller has a host of others[51] standing with him on the gospel of Christ and its proper appropriation.[52]

    The issues that have been explored thus far lay a foundation for an inspection of two extreme views on the believer’s security.  One view is that of the Antinomian.  This position has been labeled by some as carnal security.  The person who for one moment gives credence to the two facts about Jesus can thus after  that moment believe what he wants and behave as he wills.  The most he can lose are a few rewards.  The phrase, “Once saved, always saved,” is often used by the antinomians to mean salvation in the terms of the free grace gospel seen above.[53]  The other extreme view is Arminianism.  This view is correct in what it affirms; namely, “without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14) and “the soul that sins will die” (Ezek.18:4).  However, this view is incorrect in what it denies; namely, the eternal security and the perseverance of those “elected unto holiness” (Eph. 1:3-11).

    Each extreme view has focused on one aspect of the truth so strongly that the counterbalancing truth is ignored.  However, biblical truth is often in tension or even paradoxical.  Dr. Millard Erickson has accurately written, “The truth here, as in so many matters, lies somewhere between the two poles.”[54]  Thus, the truth includes the strengths of both of these extremes. The Bible teaches that those who are secure are the same ones God has determined ahead of time that they will become like Christ in many areas of living while they are on this earth (Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:3-5).  These will imperfectly, but actually, produce visible fruit and pursue holiness (Matt.13:8; Eph. 2:8-10; Phil. 1:6; Heb. 12:14).  This view has been known historically as the perseverance view.

    For this view to be correct, it must be based on the Bible.  The focus of this author will again be on the writings of the Apostle John to discern if there is biblical support for this view.  Just as the gospel of John was written so that we would know what saving faith was really like, I John was written so that we could know we are saved by passing a series of tests.  The following verse is often quoted out of context and has not been very carefully examined by the many who use it.  

These things {tauta, ταυτα} I wrote to all of you, the ones continually believing on the name of the Son of God, in order that [hina,  ἵνα of purpose] you all may know with certainty that you all have everlasting life, and that you all may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God” (1 John 5:13).

To ignore the implications of the first word tauta is to most assuredly misinterpret this verse and overlook the purpose[55] and structure[56] of John’s letter.

    Let us ask three questions about this verse: (1) To whom is John writing?  “Unto you that believe.”  (2) What is his purpose for writing?  “That ye may know . . . ” (assurance).  (3) How are they to know?  By “these things” that he has written.  Not by going back to the Gospel; he wrote that for a different reason, namely, that men might believe and have life through Christ . . . Well, what are these things that he has written in his little Epistle?  We might call “these things” the birth marks of the second birth, or tests of eternal life.  And they all have to do with Christian character and conduct, and are evidences of being born again.[57]

In his book, Saved Without a Doubt, John MacArthur lists eleven tests from the book of I John which refers to the “these things” of I John 5:13.[58]  According to the Apostle John, if one passes these tests {tauta}, he can be sure of his salvation.[59]

    Another biblical book that was written to destroy carnal security and to prevent apostasy is the book of Hebrews.  This book has been seen by some scholars as a single sermon with the application being the six strong-warning passages.  These warnings are designed to remove all carnal security from those who have stopped short of saving faith and to warn believers of the seriousness and the consequences of sin.    

    The Bible has been designed by the Holy Spirit to be able to function as a medicine chest.  A student of the Bible can take a weak and struggling Christian to Romans 8 to view his eternal security and to John 10 to see that his perseverance is a sure thing because of God’s presence in the equation.  Likewise, this student can take another individual who is being controlled by a sinful practice to the warnings of Hebrews and 1 John.[60]  Furthermore, one who may be trapped in performance Christianity and is legalistically seeking to earn God’s love can be guided to Romans 4 and Galatians 1-3.  These passages that the free grace teachers emphasize provide a wonderful balm for those ensnared in legalism.  However, to seek to give assurance to a person setting his heart on deep rebellion against God and His law is like giving a mega dose of sugar pills to a diabetic.  Medicine it may be, but it is applied to the wrong patient and to the wrong disease.        
 

Conclusion

    The truth lies between these the two extremes of legalism and antinomianism.  It is true that one does not need to seek to earn his salvation or to be in constant fear of losing it.  God will complete what He truly begins.  However, only time will tell which trees were truly planted by Him and which trees belong to the enemy. It is also true that real believers produce fruit and grow in Christ’s likeness.  To deny either of these truths is a serious error.  Like Judas and Demas of old, make-believers over time will display themselves.  The show cannot go on forever.[61]  Moreover, the Bible teaches that genuine repentance[62] and a real faith are divine gifts exercised by a sinner before he is justified.  The biblical assurance that follows an authentic conversion has as its basis: the promises of God made alive by the Holy Spirit, the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit to the believer’s spirit, and the current possession of attitudes and actions that are corresponding to the fruits of the Spirit and the commands of God.

The So-called ‘Carnal Christian’ and the Bible

      The Bible uses many different terms for the two classes of people found in the world.  Some examples are: saved vs. lost, elect vs. depraved, righteous vs. unrighteous, covenant keepers vs. lawless, sheep vs. goats, people of the kingdom of heaven vs. people outside the kingdom, good trees vs. bad trees, spiritually resurrected and alive vs. dead in trespasses and sins, seeing vs. blind, hearing vs. deaf, believer vs. unbeliever, kingdom of light vs. kingdom of darkness, wheat vs. tares, branches that bear fruit vs. branches that are cast out and burned, wheat vs. chaff, faithful servant vs. evil servant, repentant vs. unrepentant, one who denies himself vs. one who loses his soul, people on the narrow road vs. people on the broad, and spiritual people vs. natural people, to name a few.  Just a simple reading of the four Gospels in a good English translation will make it abundantly clear that Jesus constantly and consistently divided people into two groups.  He does not leave room for another category.  Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other”  (Mat. 6:24 NIV). 

    Theologically these two groups are called the elect and the reprobate, but Baptists often prefer the terms, the saved vs. the lost, or the converted vs. the unconverted.  Historically the Holy Spirit has confirmed the teaching of the two classes of humanity in the church among the gifted men Christ has given to His Church.  No orthodox believer ever challenged this truth for the first 1,840 years of the New Covenant church’s existence.  Among all the gifted scholars and Bible students that were full of the Holy Spirit, not one ever believed anything different from this until sometime between 1840 and 1909.  Why would the Holy Spirit allow so many highly gifted men who studied the Bible in the original languages to be confused about the nature of the believer and the classes of men, as well as the proper interpretation of first Corinthians chapter three?  If you read the writings of the believers that lived in this period, you will find that their gifts, skills, and godliness far exceeds what is common among most believers of our own day.  This is one of the reasons why seminaries require Bible teachers not only to learn both church history and theology, but how to exegete the inspired Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament as well.  If a Bible student’s exegesis (drawing out the truth) of the Bible produces a doctrine no orthodox believer has ever seen, this person better have many texts and lots of evidence to back up this new position.  Otherwise, the safest assumption is that this new teaching is wrong.  The fruit of the Spirit of meekness alone would demand such a position.

    Sometime after 1840 a new teaching arose in the church in regards to the classes of people in the world.  This new teaching came from the Plymouth Brethren Movement in Great Britain and the United States of America.  The major proponents of this new view of dividing mankind into three groups are now being propagated by the Brethren system of dispensationalism now popular in America.  Many of the supporters of the extremes of Plymouth Brethrenism are associated with Dallas Seminary; however, other believers, who call themselves progressive dispensationalists, teach against this system regardless of their connection with Dallas Seminary.  Regardless of one’s loyalty to Scofieldism, Darbyism, or hyper-dispensationalism, the real question is, “Does the Bible divide Christians into two classes, carnal and spiritual?”  The simple answer is, “No, it does not.” 

    Furthermore, the carnal Christian teaching violates many principles of Bible interpretation (hermeneutics), and the proper exegesis of the book of first Corinthians, as well as contradicting orthodox and Baptist theology, church history, biblical evangelism, Christian experience, church discipline, Christian unity and humility, self-discipline for godliness, and sanctified common sense.

    What is the Carnal Christian theory?  This theory was popularized by the man C.I. Scofield.  He began working on his study Bible in 1879 and completed the first edition in 1909. Most of his unique views were taught him by Dr. James H. Brooks who received them from the Plymouth Brethren leader, John Nelson Darby.  It is not clear if this is just another one of Darby’s theories that Scofield popularized with his Bible-in-text notes, or if Scofield came up with this as a logical extension of dispensationalism’s tendency to divide everything and their views of the believer’s personality.  Nevertheless, the carnal Christian theory arose after 1840 somewhere in the Darby-Scofield connection. [In 1918 Scofield’s friend Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, included this teaching in his book, He That Is Spiritual].  Thus, it would be wise to begin with the definition of the man who first exposed American Christianity to this theory. The Scofield Study Bible says:

    Paul divides men into three classes: (1) <psuchikos,> meaning <of the senses, sensuous,> (James 3:15; Jude 19), <natural,> i.e. the Adamic man, unrenewed through the new birth (John 3:3,5); (2) <pneumatikos,> meaning <spiritual,> i.e. the renewed man as Spirit-filled and walking in the Spirit in full communion with God (Eph 5:18 - 20); and (3) <sarkikos,> meaning <worldly,> <fleshly,> i.e. the renewed man who, walking "after the flesh" (Rom 8:4), remains a babe in Christ (1 Cor 3:1 - 4). The natural man may be learned, gentle, eloquent, fascinating, but the spiritual content of Scripture is absolutely hidden from him; and the worldly [carnal] Christian is able to comprehend only its simplest truths, "milk" (1 Cor 3:2).[1]

    Carnal  . . . This is Paul's description of the Adamic nature and of the believer who lives under the power of it (compare 1 Cor 3:1,3; 2 Cor 10:4). "Natural" is the apostle's characteristic word for the unrenewed man (1 Cor 15:44,46), as "spiritual" designates the renewed man who lives in the Spirit (1 Cor 3:1; Gal 6:1).[2]

{For more information on the Darby-Brooks-Scofield connection see William Cox, Why I left Scofieldism,  Dave MacPherson, The Incredible Cover-up and The Great Rapture Hoax, Joseph M. Canfield, The Incredible Scofield and His Book, and John Gerstner, A Primer on Dispensationalism}[3]
               
Next, consider this teaching in the Ryrie Study Bible:

    V.s. 2:15  he who is spiritual. The mature Christian, who is led and taught by the Spirit,  appraises all things; i.e., he can scrutinize, sift, and thereby understand all things; but unbelievers and even carnally-minded Christians cannot appraise (understand) him.

    V.s.. 3:1  men of flesh. The Greek word sarkinos means "fleshly" or "of the flesh," with the idea of weakness; in verse 3 fleshly has the overtone of willfulness. Fleshly Christians (brethren) are babes in Christ (i.e., undeveloped) who cannot understand the deeper truths of the Word of God (v. 2) and who are characterized by strife (v. 3).

    V.s.. 3:3  still. Their condition was inexcusable, for they had been saved long enough to have grown up. walking like mere men. Carnal Christians are scarcely distinguishable from natural or unsaved men. [4]

To view a contrast to these two dispensational works, compare these words with The Believer’s Study Bible or The New Geneva Study Bible.  Ryrie expands his view in his book, So Great a Salvation, written to refute John MacArthur’s work, The Gospel According to Jesus [5].

    Another work, that is not dispensational at heart, but embraces this view is MasterLife by Avery T. Willis, Jr.  He writes:   

    The carnal Christian’s big mistake was that he left the door of the flesh open.  Satan still has access to him, and the flesh dominates his thoughts, his will, and his emotions.  The word carnal means fleshly, and he is more likely to follow his physical senses and fallen nature than the spiritual nature he received at his conversion . . . If, as a Christian, you do not allow Christ continually to be Master of your life through his Spirit, you will be a carnal Christian.  That means that although you have allowed Christ to come into your life, you still are struggling to control your life.  The big “I” of the old, natural man is still dominating you . . . How can you have victory in this kind of situation?  Do not despair.  Christ wants to be your Lord and give you daily victory . . . When you are willing to let Christ master your life, his death on the cross and resurrection give you a life of victory . . . As you yield yourself to God fully, the Holy Spirit helps you to master your mind, your will, your emotions, your body, and your soul through the power of Christ . . . Are you a natural man whose spirit is dead?  Are you being controlled by your bodily senses and natural desires?  Are you a carnal Christian who has allowed Christ to come into your life but is still being mastered by the desires of the flesh?  Is the big “I” still in control?  Are you a spiritual Christian who has been crucified with Christ and is being controlled by the Spirit?[6]

    These three works teach certain things about this so-called third category of humanity, carnal Christians.  This person is both worldly and fleshly (two very different things[7]).  They are in control of their lives, the flesh is their master, Christ is not their Lord, they are dominated by sin and Satan, their fruit is barely distinguishable from lost men, yet part of Christ is in their lives (not His Lordship), and they are saved, secure, and on their way to heaven.  Their problem lies in their will.  They have nothing else to do or to be changed for them to enter heaven.  But, If they ever, for some reason desire (their desires are controlled by the flesh and Satan) to move up to the Spiritual Christian class, they do so ‘by yielding’ fully (also called repentance).  Christ then becomes their Lord and Master, and they now are crucified with Christ and controlled by the Holy Spirit.  Their benefit for doing so is to obtain more rewards and possibly a greater position in heaven  (Is this not an appeal to their flesh?).  The most they can lose according to Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges (see Absolutely Free[8]) are some heavenly prizes, however, Oliver Greene taught, that the carnal Christian would be kept out of hell, but not allowed to enter heaven.  They would be weeping and gnashing their teeth outside of heavens gate, but by acknowledging their Jesus as Savior, they could not be sent to hell (see The Revelation Verse by Verse, Oliver B. Greene[9]). Either way, they get to escape hell, but remain under sins dominion and enjoy the fleeting pleasure sin brings, with the sole loss of rewards in exchange.  Why even the Rich Young ruler would have accepted these terms.  Now, if you accepted the writings above, don’t start changing your carnal Christian definition now.  Honestly admit that the definitions quoted above is the popular view.  It is time to see why Jesus did not offer this man He loved this lower level of Christianity, and allowed him to go to hell as a covetous man rather than changing His terms for admission into eternal life.  If the carnal Christian teaching is true, and you are a Christian, then you have a bigger problem.  You have a Savior who deliberately allows this Jewish man to enter Hell rather than offer this easier entrance that Paul offers to the Gentiles.  However, if  “narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it,”[10] is true, then you have a loving Lord offering this man the only way, which this one chooses not to take because the cost is too great.  The Rich Young Ruler would have accepted Zane Hodges or Charles Ryrie’s conditions for heaven on the spot.  However, it would have done him no good, as Jesus alone sets the terms of the gospel.[11]  Thus, it is important to search out this topic and see if the carnal Christian theory has the support of Holy Scripture and is consistent with the gospel preached by both Christ and His Apostles to both Jews and Gentiles.

    What type of word is “carnal?”  It is an adjective in English.  Adjectives’ modify nouns. The word “Christian” is a noun.  So when one says, “she is a joyful Christian,” he is saying that this person’s chief characteristic or main attribute is being joyful.  Joy permeates their Christian experience.  Now it may come as a surprise to learn that the two words carnal and Christian are NEVER used together in the Bible.  Even in the NIV’s poor interpretive translation of ‘sarkinios’ [sar-kin-noise] or ‘sarkikoi’ [sar-kick-koe] as “worldly” for “fleshly,” they do not dare to insert the word “Christian” in first Corinthians chapter three.  To say one is a carnal Christian is to say that their most predominate attribute, the main description of their Christianity, is carnality.  Think about those two words together.  A Christian is a follower of the holy second person of the trinity, the LORD Jesus Christ [Christ + ian].  How do you respond to the following combinations?  An unsaved Christian, a spiritually dead Christian, an un-Christ-like Christian, carnal saints, or a devilish Christian?  Now, it is true that every real Christian is un-Christ-like in one or more areas of their life on any given day. Nevertheless, to be a Christian means that one has to have a bent toward following Christ in most areas of ones life on that same day.  If that is not true, then the term Christian should not be applied to them.  It is a contradiction in terms to say someone is a sin-loving Christian, a lost Christian, or a carnal Christian.  That makes as much sense as  an underwater bird or burning fireplace ice.  This is clearly a violation of sanctified common sense.

    How does the Carnal Christian theory measure up to the use of proper methods of interpreting the Bible or the discipline of hermeneutics?  This Plymouth Brethren hypothesis violates the following rules of interpretation:   


1.  In understanding a passage, the context of the verses determines the interpretation.  The context of the previous verses and following verses must be explored and studied. The carnal Christian theory violates this rule.  The whole of Chapter 2 teaches that there are two categories of mankind when it comes to how men relate to preaching and hearing the truth, i.e., the natural man and the spiritual man (esp. V.s.. 13-14).  After Paul describes these two classes, he changes the subject to further describe the spiritual man.  It is totally unnatural to insert another class of men.  This is why the older commentaries omit this new theory.  What has changed?  Maybe our evangelism is less than Biblical and we are producing millions of make-believers that need a separate category in order to explain how they can love sin and still have assurance of heaven.

2.  Each Scripture passage must be interpreted in light of other Scripture passages.  The Bible never contradicts itself.  Thus, any interpretation that makes one passage contradict another is therefore wrong.  Always interpret the difficult verses in light of other clear texts on the same subjects. The carnal Christian theory violates this rule.  Every other passage in the New Testament that describes the two classes of people omits this new teaching (Romans 8:4-17, Galatians 5:16-26, Romans 6:1-23, 7:1-25, Ephesians 2:1-13).  The two places where Paul would most likely teach it, if it were true, are Romans and Ephesians {study the plan, outline and purposes of these two letters}, and it would be strange to omit it from Galatians 5 considering this epistles background and purpose.  If a teaching cannot be found in seed form in the Old Testament or in the gospels, and is only supported by one text in a historical section of an epistle, it probably has resulted from a misinterpretation of the text.  But the carnality view has a greater problem than being omitted from every other text that teaches on the two classes of men.  It flatly contradicts Romans 8:5-10 (NKJV) which states:   
    For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. {6} For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. {7} Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. {8} So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. {9} But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. {10} And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

These verses teach that those who truly have the Holy Spirit indwelling them are not in the flesh.  Can a person be a Christian who does not have the Holy Spirit indwelling in them?  Can a follower of Christ be an enemy of the God who chose him in love before time began?  Do Christians have to taste the second death in hell?  If the answers to these questions are no, then Paul teaches in these verses in Romans that it is impossible for a Christian’s mind, will, and emotions to be carnal and the chief characteristic of his spiritual life to be carnality.  According to Paul, carnal people will experience the second death.  Thus, any interpretation of I Cor. 3 that creates this third class of people who are saved yet mastered by sin and Satan and best described as fleshly in all areas of their life has to be incorrect.  The Bible does not contradict itself.  This theory also contradicts numerous other passages, including I Cor. 6:9-11, Hebrews 4:6, 5:9, 10:19-30, 12:14, Galatians 5:18-21, Eph. 5:1-7, Matt. 7:21-27, Col. 3:1-17, I Thes. 1:2-10, Titus 2:11-14, Rom. 8:28-30, I  John 3:9-10, James 2:14-26, Rev. 22:14-15, etc.  Read these passages and ask yourself, can there be carnal Christians if these texts are true?  Actually, the entire book of Hebrews and I John teaches against this view {see appendix #2}.

3.  One needs more than one verse to present a new teaching of the once delivered to the saints’ faith.  Teaching passages carry greater authority for Christian doctrine than historical passages, as Scripture is compared with Scripture.  A text that describes one church’s situation may not be applied to all believers in every era and every context as authoritative without first discerning the principle being conveyed in that historical situation, if this teaching is not clearly represented elsewhere in the Bible (i.e., women’s hair lengths, wearing of veils in worship, baptism for the dead, Peter’s walking on the water, Paul’s snake bite, etc.).  There is a difference between what the Bible describes and what it prescribes (see Gen. 4:19, I Tim. 3:2[12]).  

The point here is that if all mankind in every era and every locality are properly divided into three classes, why is it only at the Greek city of Corinth (just west of Athens in  Greece) do we find these people?  Why are the carnal Christians missing from Rome, Ephesus, Phillipi, or Thessalonica?  Why do all the other teaching epistles omit this doctrine?  If this troublesome group were in every church, they would need to be addressed in every epistle to challenge them to become spiritual people.

Is Paul not describing one particular local situation at Corinth in chapter three?  Is not the principle in the passage that when followers of the Lord Jesus divide up over ministers’ of the gospel, that such division is fleshly and not godly?  Where do we find in the text that Christ is not the Lord of these folks, note that everyone in the church fellowship is charged with improper behavior in this One area, not a small group of carnal holy ones (pastors, deacons, elders too)?  Compare 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 with Romans 5:1-21.  Notice the careful, logical teaching Paul is giving in Romans 5.  Can you see the difference in describing a historical problem and a clear teaching passage?  If Darby and Scofield are correct, why don’t we find this teaching in Romans, or Ephesians, or Galatians?  The problem can be illustrated like this: a person reads in Acts 12 that Peter was released from prison by an angel, and he takes this one historical event and make it into a doctrine, namely, whenever a believer is put in prison God will send His angels to free him.  If  he is put in jail while witnessing in India, should he claim this doctrine as a promise from God?  And what about John the Baptist and Paul?  Neither of these men were delivered from prison.  You see, this interpretation of one historical situation ignored the teaching of the rest of the Bible and the rest of the church.[13]  Historical situations do contain doctrines, but they must be carefully drawn out and compared with the teaching of the Bible as a whole and the orthodox churches understanding of this text for the last 2,000 years.  Furthermore, if one comes up with a new view that is supposedly found only one time in the Bible, and none of the other Spirit-filled scholars and Bible students have understood this text to teach this position before them, and this persons view is based on a text describing a historical situation in one locality, and this view contradicts whole books of the Bible (Hebrews, I John) and numerous passages (i.e., Mat. 7:21-27, Acts 17:30) their safest assumption is that they  have misunderstood the text.   


4.  Interpret each passage in relation to the author’s purpose, plan, and structure of the book.
The text in I Corinthians 3:1-3 has been lifted out of a context of a singular problem in the church.  Paul will address other problems later, but in I Corinthians chapters one through four, he is dealing with the one problem of divisiveness in the local church (see Believer’s Study Bible Outline[14]).  Therefore, to introduce worldliness into the text is a violation of the author’s plan and purpose for the section where these verses are located.  

A good Bible student will ask himself how do these verses relate to the author’s, purpose, theme, and plan for the book, for the section, for the chapter and for the smaller sections.  To follow this practice will lead one away from the view of Scofield and shows how carelessly he would handle texts at times.  The context reveals that these folks were saints under Christ’s Lordship.  Furthermore, chapter two declares that there are only two types of people in the world, spiritual and natural.  As Paul describes how the spiritual man is and ought to be, he launches into his confrontation to the Corinthian Church for their sectarian spirit.  He spends many verses in chapter three and four dealing with this problem of division at Corinth.  

The purpose, plan, theme, and flow of the sections reveal that these are solid growing believers that need a rebuke in this one area, so with great fatherly concern he addresses this problem.  Paul will deal with other problems in the book that show a corporate failure rather than an individual participation in various click groups.  This is a sin of commission where some of the other failures were sins of omission of the group as a whole.

5.  Interpret each passage according to the historical, geographical, and cultural background available.  The wickedness at Corinth and past sins of the members there would lead one to think that they would struggle with issues not found in the predominately Jewish churches.  However, If one thinks through the majority of the cultural issues occurring at Corinth as he studies these verses he would never come to the conclusion that Paul adds a third class in this text, that is, if he does not read his study Bible footnotes.  The carnal view is part of a larger theological scheme that divides the gospel into four separate gospels and has eight different manifestations of the kingdom of God as well as dividing the Bible into seven distinct time periods. Dispensationalism’s key verse is the King James Version of 1 Tim. 2:15, “rightly dividing the word of truth.”  However, some scholars believe that the artificial divisions of this system are not helpful and like eating potato chips, it’s hard to stop dividing once you start.  If these divisions were clear in Scripture then you would expect each dispensationalist to come up with the same number of gospel messages {some say there is only one, some two, some four} and dispensations {the numbers vary from 4 - 7 - 10 - 14} However, because this system is imposed on the Bible, even the adherents can’t agree on what to divide and on what not to divide or how many divisions there are.  {See William Cox, An Examination of Dispensationalism and Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism[15]}

    What on earth does Paul mean when he writes the following words:   “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. {2} I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; {3} for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?  For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men?”  I Cor. 3:1-3
The proper exegesis of this text includes the reading of what Paul says about these folks in chapter one.  (1 Cor 1:2) “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.”

Our exegesis of chapter one should reveal the following:
1.  These people are part of a called out assembly that belongs to God.       
2.  These people are called ‘agiois [hagios] saints, holy ones.
    3.  These people are described as those “having been made holy” or “having been sanctified.” This  Greek participle shows an action that was done to them by someone else (passive voice) and it happened at one time in the past with the results continuing up to today (perfect mood).  Thus, God has made them holy in the past and they continue to be holy to the present.
4.  These people are just as much under the Lordship of Christ as Paul was himself, “our Lord.’
         Furthermore, consider what Paul reveals in I Cor. 1:10:   
a.  Paul calls the entire group “brethren.”  They are not two classes of Christians, no, just one.
    b.  Paul reaffirms for the sixth time that all the Corinthians are under the Lordship of Christ. {Look at Avery, Ryrie and Scofield above. Both cannot be correct, either Paul is wrong or Scofieldism is wrong.[16]}       
c. Paul launches into his theme for this section (chapters. 1-4) -- Divisiveness in the Corinthian       assembly.  In the remaining verses Paul talks about preaching and how the powerful Gospel effects different kinds of natural men[17] and how it affects the chosen ones.  He continues to talk about the Gospel and preaching, divisiveness and the two classes of people.  Why so many verses about how men respond to preaching?  Because the divisiveness in the church was over who was the best preacher of the gospel and who deserved to be followed.  If you read the rest of this book and 2 Corinthians you will discover that there were men at Corinth who were saying that Paul was a bad leader, a poor preacher, that he did not love them, that he was not a true apostle and that he should not be followed.  In response, Paul proves that the Gospel reaches the elect regardless of the skills and gifts of the preacher, if a man will stick with God’s method, namely, preaching.  In chapter four he tells them it is sinful to compare preachers and to assume the motives of the men God calls into the ministry.  They are to be examined by whether or not they stick with God’s method (preaching the word) and God’s message (the Bible).  It does not matter how skilled a man is, if he abandons the preaching of the Word of God, he is to be rejected.  If  he is faithful to the Word and preaching, he is not to be compared to any other gifted or skilled men of God.  Pastors’ are servants of God and are not to be treated like football teams, car companies, or political parties.  

    There was a Pauline group at Corinth.  Apollos also had his own group at Corinth.  There was even a Peterite group in this church.  Evidently, because Timothy and Titus did not come to Corinth alone until later or because they were not impressive enough speakers, they did not have their own party.  There were also people so head strong in this assembly that they would follow no man, they each had their own separate agenda, but they said, “We only follow Christ.”  

   Thus, with each of these so-called followers of Christ with their own plans for the church, and combined with these three other clicks, there were probably at least 30 different agenda’s for this one local body.  Paul says they all need to ‘speak the same thing.’  So Paul tells these saints, who are under Christ’s Lordship, that they are acting like mere pagan men when they section off into divisive groups.  They are acting FLESHLY IN ONE AREA OF THEIR CHRISTIAN LIVES.  Every Christian who is alive is also guilty of this.  On any given day, every real Christian thinks, speaks, or acts less than Christ like in some area of their lives. [18]

   Likewise, if a brother like Paul came to us and said, You are acting fleshly (sarkikoi), like unsaved men in this area of your life, and we repented, if he was observant, he could find another area to confront us on the following day.  Furthermore, because of the nature of divisiveness, the area the Corinthians were delinquent in, they were spiritually dull and had to be talked to like spiritual babies.  Why?  A sectarian spirit produces a holier-than-you attitude, spiritual pride, and this stunts spiritual growth. 

Thus, because the saints at Corinth were thinking and acting like pagans arguing over the Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins, or over Chevy’s being better than Ford’s, their growth was progressing slowly.  Paul tells the whole church they are acting like mere natural men, yes carnally, in this one area of church life.  Notice he does not exclude the current pastor, or the elders, or deacons, or even the men he commends in I Cor. 16:15-18.  He calls every member of this church carnal in the area of divisiveness.  Think about that . . . the whole church is the same, not two groups.  

   Likewise, when you consider the maturity of their response to the issue in chapter 5 as is recorded in II Cor. 2:1-11, the definitions above of the so-called carnal Christian become unfounded and ridiculous.  Like us, they had areas that needed immediate growth and areas they were acting maturely, at present.  Anyone who truly understands Romans chapter seven’s teaching about the presence and residual power of indwelling sin in every believer’s life can say as Paul did near the end of his life, “I am [not was, am now] the chief of sinners.”  To use 1 Corinthians three to divide Christians into a Spiritual class and a Carnal class produces the very divisive spirit this chapter is calling us to mortify in our lives.  In I Corinthians chapter three there is not a hint of a person being worldly, not a hint that these people accepted Jesus as Savior only and were being controlled by their flesh, and not a phrase declaring two levels of Christianity.  No one can derive this view from a correct exegesis of this text, it must be forced in to support a doctrinal system that one has loyalty to above Scripture.  This is eisegesis (reading into the text) rather than exegesis, (drawing out from the text).  That, unfortunately, is behaving carnally, and should be repented of and forsaken.

    How does the carnal Christian theory square with orthodox theology and Baptist doctrine?  Well, one orthodox believer, who is a progressive dispensationlist, felt so strongly on this issue that he wrote three excellent works.  This person is Dr. John MacArthur, who wrote The Gospel According to Jesus, Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles and Hard to Believe.  In this first work MacArthur proves that both repentance and faith were part of the gospel Jesus preached.  Furthermore, he demonstrates over and again that a follower of Christ, a true believer, a disciple, and a real Christian are all the same thing, according to the New Testament and this has been the position of Orthodox Christianity since the Apostles went to heaven.  Actually, Luke settles the issue with one verse,  “And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch,”  (Acts 11:26).   All the followers of Jesus were FIRST called disciples, then another name for a disciple of Jesus arose in the Gentile world, namely Christian.  Luke was convinced that the terms ‘disciple’ and ‘Christian’ were synonyms.  This has a radical implication for the Southern Baptist discipleship course, MasterLife.  If this is true, almost every verse used in the disciples cross proves there can be no such thing as a carnal Christian.  Only if you make a disciple = a spiritual Christian, and not equal to a carnal Christian can you believe those verses are true.  You need to prove John MacArthur’s three books to be in error to hold this position with any credibility.  Below is a sample of the disciples’ cross verses: (Luke 9:23 NKJV)  Then He said to them all, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.”

    How can a person still be in charge of their lives, refusing to “let” Jesus be Lord of their life; and at the same time be denying themselves and daily following Jesus with their cross?  Both cannot be true.  If a disciple is the same as a Christian, then there can be no Christian’s with the ‘big I’ in control.  This is basic logic that A does not equal non-A.  If I am my own Master, and Jesus said no man can serve two masters, then I cannot be following Jesus and myself  at the same time.  That is two masters and the Lord Christ will not share His throne with any man.  I cannot be exalting myself as master and denying myself at the same time.  Only one can be true at a time.  Thus, if Jesus is my boss (Lord and Master), then I have surrendered to Him and I am one of His sheep.  If I am my own boss, then my sin nature is in control and I do not yet belong to Him.

    Now listen to Jesus evangelize the crowd: (Luke 14:25-30 NKJV)  Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, {26} "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. {27} And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. {28} For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it; {29} lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, {30} saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' . . . {33}  So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.”

    The above definition of a person who is a so-called carnal Christian, according to Jesus, cannot be saved. He cannot be a Christian.  The reason their fruit is indiscernible from natural men is because they are natural men.  Zane Hodges claim that disciples are on a higher level of spirituality than a mere Christian cannot be supported from this text.  Jesus put the two together.  What God has joined together, let not man separate.[19]

    (John 15:5-6 NKJV)  "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. {6} If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. The fruit in this chapter is first, good works, as is common in Jesus’ teaching (see Mat.7).  Second, it is the fruit of the Spirit from Galatians five that is missing in every so-called carnal Christian.  Third, it is reproducing, DISCIPLES, not mere decisions from men longing for fire insurance while still married to their sin.

    The second work by Dr. MacArthur, Faith Works shows the errors in the non-lordship position of Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie and describes the true nature of the faith that will save.  As the Apostle James points out in James Chapter two, a faith without works is a dead faith and a demon’s faith.  Unfortunately, this type of faith will take you to a demon’s hell.  That is why Lordship preachers’ feel so strongly about this topic.  We want to destroy the presumption of the carnal people, because they are heading for hell.  This is serious stuff!  MacArthur writes:

    Almost all no-lordship theology leans heavily on the notion that there are three classes of humanity: unsaved people, spiritual Christians, and carnal Christians . . . In recent years the idea of the carnal Christian has been disseminated through a series of tracts and booklets published by Campus Crusade for Christ.  The Campus Crusade literature features a diagram with three circles representing the three classes of humanity.  At the center of each circle is a throne.  The non-Christian has self on the throne with Christ outside the circle.  The carnal Christian has “invited” Christ into the circle but keeps self enthroned.  The spiritual Christian puts Christ on the throne, with self at the foot of the throne.  The tract challenges carnal Christians to become spiritual.  Millions of these pamphlets have been distributed worldwide over the past thirty years or so.  They are undoubtedly the most widely read single bit of no-lordship literature and have helped influence multitudes to accept the carnal-spiritual Christian dichotomy as biblical.  But the whole idea is based on a misunderstanding of 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3.[20] 

Truth is not determined by who has the largest publishing houses and who can influence the most people.  Truth is based on a correct understanding of God’s word.   

    Baptists’ have not been silent on this issue.  The Reformed Baptists have been sounding a warning against easy-believism and carnal assurance for more than thirty years.  Likewise, many Southern Baptists have risen to defend the faith including Bailey Smith, The Grace Escape: Jesus as Lord and Savior, Richard Belcher,  A Layman’s Guide to the Lordship Controversy, Ernest C. Reisinger, What Should We Think of the Carnal Christian? and Lord and Christ: The Implications of Lordship for Faith and Life.[21]  Others such as Danny Akin, Millard Erickson[22], David Dockery, and Adrian Rodgers have preached clearly and strongly against the modern half gospel offering half of Christ for a half of the commitment.  But more importantly the question is how did our Baptist fathers responded to this system.  Our Baptist roots came from the Puritans in England.  They were men and women of conviction who attempted to purify the Church of England.  In order to keep their consciences pure, they came to the conviction it was necessary to separate and form local assemblies of people who had been Baptized after they demonstrated proof of being regenerate.  Thus, our beginnings as a people came from a deep desire for regenerate church membership made up of those who both professed and possessed saving faith.  It should be no surprise then, that the Baptist confessions of 1644 and 1689 warn against those who may profess Christianity without possessing it.  Both documents call all who are carnal to forsake their sin and embrace Jesus as Lord and Savior.  The Baptist Catechism used by Benjamin Keach and Charles Spurgeon as well as the one that is available today all warn against this mere profession of faith without possession of salvation.  They do not embrace any carnal Christian clause.  The Philadelphia and New Hampshire confessions still in the bylaws of so many Southern Baptist Churches, do not accept this teaching.  The 1933 Baptist Faith and Message was a slight modification of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith.  It likewise stood for the truth.  The 1963 Baptist Faith and Message as well as the 1995 printed version’s sections on salvation and sanctification makes no room for a person to be saved who has not repented or submitted to Christ as Lord.  Our Particular Baptist fathers were not just concerned with those who had been baptized at six days old and showed no signs of regeneration.  They were also concerned about those Baptized at six years old and were still in love with their sin.

    When Alexander Campbell tried to spread these false views our Baptist fathers stood against him.  He had to form the Church of Christ or Disciple’s Church in order to propagate these teaching.  Unfortunately, many Baptists were won over to Campbell’s spreading of the Sademanian heresy and we lost thousands of people and hundreds of church building from Kentucky to Tennessee.  Easy-Christianity or cheap grace sounds good to make-believers and to true believers married to make-believers.  However, no matter how good it sounds, it is not Biblical, it has never been Baptist, and it is simply not true.

    The Church of Christ is not the only group that has formed over errors such as dividing of Christians into two classes.  The Wesleyan’s and Nazarene’s as well as the Keswick Movement all have a method for you to move up from a lower class to a first class Christian.  They too ask people to ask Jesus to now be their Lord and yield and submit to Him to experience the “second blessing.”  Two class Christianity is the mother to all second work of grace and perfectionism teachings.  However, the second blessing advocates do go a little further than the non-lordship teachers in teaching that the spiritual Christians are entirely sanctified, no longer committing willful sins, having removed all vestiges of the flesh.[23] 

    If we close the door to cheap grace, easy-believism, decisionism, and carnal Christianity, we also close the door on these other errors that are the fruit from the two-class Christianity root.  All second blessing teachings (deeper life, perfectionism, higher life, let go and let God) are almost as dangerous to Christians as the carnal security theories are to false believers.  The Plymouth Brethren pastor and writer Harry Ironside had a nervous breakdown trying to experience this second blessing to free him from indwelling sin in this life.  There are other lesser known believers that have endured untold harm by these errors that this writer has either heard of or witnessed firsthand.  A little leaven leavens the whole lump.  A little poison in your cup can do a lot of damage.  As one Puritan pastor told his congregation, “As long as I am your pastor, you will be in Romans chapter seven.”  He preached on other texts, but living Christians will have indwelling sin in their bodies and souls until their deaths.

    How we share the gospel is radically affected by the position we take on the Lordship Debate.  The gospel message of the two camps is very different.  If the carnal Christian view is true, then we should offer either this lower level of Christianity to those who are reluctant to give up the sin they love or we can like Zane Hodges, offer the gospel of intellectual assent to all and then call the more committed to discipleship later.  If the Lordship preachers are right, this easy-believism and decisionism are creating thousands of false believers and adding them to the church roles with the privilege to vote and assurance of heaven.  If the Free-grace teachers are correct, then we Lordship teachers are requiring things for the seeker that God never intended and keeping people who have obstinate wills and a committed love of sin out of heaven, for many of them will assent to the fact that Jesus came to earth and died. 

However, such assent is not saving faith, as the demons believe much more truth than this and are still under the wrath of God.  No, assenting to a few facts in one’s mind about a man named Jesus cannot make anyone  a Christian.  The biblical gospel message includes both a genuine trust and faith in the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ[24] and a turning from the sin we love with all our minds, wills, and emotions (repentance).  And the Christ we embrace by both faith and repentance is both Lord and Messiah.  

If we refuse to surrender to and follow (obey) this Jesus, The God-man who is Lord and Savior, then we have not trusted in the Jesus of the Bible who can deliver us from the love, control, and eternal punishment of sin.  Dear reader, is Jesus your boss and king (Lord)?  Do you obey His commands, do you love and worship Him supremely?  If you will not deny yourself as lord, and take up your cross daily and obey Jesus, then you cannot be a Christian.  You must divorce the sin you love and are married to and cleave to Christ.  If Jesus is asking too much, you can go away like the rich young ruler or the man wishing to bury his father first, but you will go away lost.  There is no other way. There is not a K-Mart blue-light sale salvation available.  You must come to the Lord Christ on His terms of genuine repentance and real faith, or enter the lake of fire on your terms, still married to the sin you love, still following your obstinate will.  Granted the sin you love brings pleasure, but the retirement plan for the non-Christian is a poor one indeed.

    This author was a second generation make-believer.  I used to fit the description of the carnal Christian, and I had asked Jesus to be my Savior close to a hundred times.  But deep down I knew I was a make-believer until God saved me.  It was not until I believed in the Jesus of the Bible, who is both Lord and Christ, that I became a real Christian.  For nine years I played games with God.  My father was what some call a carnal Christian for 32 years, and then God saved him.  Do these stories prove anything?  No, not unless they are based on the teachings of the Bible.  But because so many use personal experience to try to prove the carnal Christian theory, I was compelled to show that there are experiences on both sides of this issue.  (See "Letter to a Friend: Concerning the So-Called ‘Lordship Salvation’" by John Piper.[25])  So this leaves us to ‘go to the Law and the Prophets,’ back to the Word of God.  I used to believe in the carnal Christian theory.  In 1983 I rejected it and started studying this issue on a much deeper level.  I also started the ten-year process of praying for my dad’s salvation.  After 100s of hours of study, I am more convinced that the carnal Christian theory is false, dangerous, and unbiblical.  I have learned the hard way what John MacArthur wrote so well, “A righteous, holy, pure God cannot tolerate evil.  He will not save those who try to come to Him harboring sin.”[26]

    Some Baptist churches have returned to the practice of church discipline.  What are they to do when they come across one acting like or even professing to be a carnal Christian?  They might even reply to the leadership, “hey, this is how I am supposed to act, I have only accepted Jesus as my Savior and I am not ready for the next step yet.”  Can we dare disturb the comfortableness of a man living in sin while claiming to be a believer?  For if he is a carnal Christian and we follow Church discipline to the step of declaring this one a non-believer and a Tax-gatherer (traitor), won’t we damage the assurance of a true child of God?  You cannot have effective church discipline if you embrace this doctrine.  I was confronted by a pastor who has accepted the carnal Christian doctrine.  He claimed that I was part of  a Church that erred in following through on church discipline on one he had labeled a carnal Christian.  You cannot question anyone’s profession of faith if they fit this category.  You must move very slow or not at all.  Jude’s description of “hidden reefs in your love feast” or Jesus’ description of “wolves in sheep clothing” become meaningless as well, as these troublesome folks are also obviously carnal Christians.  You just have to tolerate this sin until they grow up.  They are just 15 year old babes in Christ.  This may sound extreme, but this author has heard these words and seen what this doctrine does to church discipline firsthand.  

    How can we have a unified body if some are spiritual and some are carnal?  Furthermore, who will be humble in this crowd?  The spiritual folks will be tempted to look down on their second class brethren.  Moreover, we can expect the carnal folks to be filled with spiritual pride.  If  you want to see how difficult unity is between first class and second class Christians, between ‘merely saved’ folks and true disciples, visit India and see the cast system in operation.  Whenever you have the ‘have’s’ and the ‘have-not’s,’ you have division of the strongest kind.  Jesus prayed that we would be all one.  The dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has been torn down.  Dare we erect this two-class Christianity distinction and start the division all over again?  God forbid!

    What should we do with the passages that call us to discipline ourselves for godliness?  These appear to be addressed to all Christians.  Can someone who is still lord of their own lives bring their bodies under discipline for godliness sake?  Paul lists the commands in I Tim. 4:7, “But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness”; and in I Cor.9:27 “But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, after I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.”  He states that he brings his body under discipline so that he will not become ‘an apostate’.  He takes his walk seriously as a disciple because he knows that those who are not genuine will drop off  in time.  The true believer will remain with Christ, His truth, and His people.  Why does Paul not specify that these verses are only for spiritual Christians?  What happens to the doctrine of the fear of God, if godliness is optional and is for spiritual Christians only, while carnal Christians can live as they like, and believe as they like, as long as they at one point in the past made a profession of faith?  Think about it.  This theory makes a mockery out of the strong warnings in these texts.

    The carnal Christian teaching is very popular in America today.  Some fear this type of thinking is a symptom of what is wrong with American Christianity.  This view is new, it is supposed to be based on only one text of Scripture, [not by exegesis] it contradicts the rest of Scripture and it produces disastrous results in the church.  Furthermore, the carnal Christian teaching violates many principles of Bible interpretation (hermeneutics), and the proper exegesis of the book of 1 Corinthians, as well as contradicting orthodox and Baptist theology, church history, biblical evangelism, Christian experience, church discipline, Christian unity and humility, self-discipline for godliness, and sanctified common sense.

The So-called ‘Carnal Christian’ and the Bible Link

The So-called 'Carnal Christian' and the Bible on Google Docs

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-wusxRw2s8D77bvMN2GaizQ3zXo7lLOJCvQJ_xN5Mmk/edit?usp=sharing

Sermon On Malachi 3:13-15 Unholy Skeptics by Rev. Ted D. Manby

Sermon on Malachi 3:13-15 Unholy Skeptics

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unholy-skeptics/id418601694?i=1000122858669

 ‎Adamsville Baptist Church: Unholy Skeptics on Apple Podcasts 

Another Sermon on Malachi 2:17 Testing God

Testing God by False Accusations: Malachi 2:17 Sermon by Rev. Ted D. Manby 

https://archive.org/details/podcast_adamsville-baptist-church_testing-god-by-false-accusatio_1000096263834 

Testing God by False Accusations : Rev. Ted Manby : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Sermon on Malachi 2:17 - 3:2 by Rev. Ted D. Manby

 Message on Malachi still available online. The Just God is Coming to Earth, Malachi 2:17-3:2

The Divine Messiah and His messenger are coming to earth to bring justice.

https://archive.org/details/podcast_adamsville-baptist-church_the-just-god-is-coming-to-eart_1000108224183

The Just God is Coming to Earth : Rev. Ted Manby : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

PRACTICAL HELPS ABOUT PRAYER

If you are serious about improving your prayer life, read the following. At first, these helps may seem to be frank and restrictive. Although our prayers will never be perfect, we should be willing to examine them critically and strive to improve them.

It is important to consider some bad habits to avoid in improving your praying. First, a safe rule is to never use the word “just” when praying. This habit has been passed around by evangelicals for years without any careful evaluation. Believers who will substitute just two synonyms for the word “just,” namely, the words “only” or “merely,” in their spoken sentences will discover how inappropriate its use can be. For example, one may pray, “Father, I just pray (I merely or only
pray . . .”). Is that really what you mean? Prayer is one of our strongest spiritual weapons. Please don̓t “just” pray; go ahead and pray! Another example is “. . . just (merely) bless Jane and just (merely) help her at this time.” Therefore, in order to communicate properly, especially in public prayer, try to avoid using “just.”

Second, avoid using trite and meaningless phrases when speaking to God. Nebulous over used phrases like “Bless the gift and the giver” are almost never said with heartfelt meaning. Moreover, when praying in public, pray to God. Do not use prayers to make announcements or to inform everyone of your position on an issue. For instance, a pastor once prayed something like this: “Please help Ruth recover, and Thou knowest she will be in the hospital at least another week.” He was actually informing his congregation to keep sending her cards and flowers. Congregational announcements and prayers are to separate things. Therefore, it is wise to remember that our Triune God is God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit —each a real Person deserving reverence and respect.

Third, do not be afraid to pray with your eyes open, reading from the Scriptures. Our prayers should be full of the words of Scripture, especially the promises of God to His covenant people. Likewise, appropriate the Scripture you read and study. Pray through the commands, promises, attitudes, and truths that you discover in the Scriptures. Understanding truths is never enough; they must be appropriated and applied to your life.

Fourth, think through the parts of a prayer. Start with the address and discover how God is approached in the Scriptures (Dan. 9:4; Matt. 11:25). Likewise, notice how God is worshiped in the Scriptures (Ps. 2:11,12 “worship the Lord with reverence ...;” Heb. 12:28—29; John 4:21-24) and do the same. Therefore, realizing God is both transcendent (above us) and imminent (near us), we can pattern our prayers by Scripture.

Fifth, do not put on a pious voice when praying. Also, do not address the Triune God irreverently. Moreover, do not use the Lord̓s name as a punctuation mark for every sentence. For example, “Father, I pray, Father, that Lord . . . you would . . . Father and Lord . . .  It is not wrong to use the Lord̓s name in a prayer more than once, but don̓t use it to fill up every gap in every sentence. The Scriptures warn us against vain babbling (Matt. 6:7) and using the Lord̓s name without a distinct purpose (Ex. 20:7). Likewise, God the Father is a Person and we do not speak to our friends in that manner “Bill, how are you feeling, Bill, and Bill, will you, Bill. . .     

Sixth, we must realize that spiritual warfare is also part of our praying. Caution must be used when we are involved in this type of praying. We are not to shout at or order around or pray to Satan (Jude , Zech. 3:) [See How to meet the Enemy, by John MacArthur, Jr.] It is not wise to do so. Satan is not omnipresent, he might be in Haiti and never hear your prayer / words to him at all. The Bible never permits us to pray to angelic beings. Men are still lower than the angels and should not be ordering them around. Call out to God when you are confronted with evil spirits.  Ask King Jesus to bind, block, thwart demonic, worldly or fleshly activities and spirits.  The Bible says the Holy Spirit is greater than the enemy, not you in your present state before glorification. A praying Christian should be acknowledging God’s greatness and his own weakness and dependency upon God in his prayers. Ephesians 6 lists the offensive weapon of “all prayer” among our equipment for spiritual battle.  Use this weapon in a way that is God honoring and Scriptural.  Recognize that you are not the sinless God-Man, fully God and fully man, nor are you an Apostle of Christ in the process of writing Scripture. Realize what Martin Luther did, “the prince of darkness grim, we tremble not for him, his rage we can endure, for lo his doom is sure, one single word shall fell him . . .We are not the right Man on our side, the man of God’s own choosing, Dost ask who that may be?  Christ Jesus it is He. Lord Sabaoth, His name, from age to age the same, and He must win the battle.” As a general rule, speak to Jesus about the problem, and also the person who is under the power of a demon.

Seventh, the New Testament prayers recorded for us all have one emphasis that is missing in many prayers today. That emphasis is to pray for the spiritual growth of individuals and churches.  Of course it is proper to pray for those not yet converted (Rom 10:1; Col 4:3) for physical needs (Matt 6:11), forgiveness (Matt 6:12), for healing from sicknesses (Jam 5:13-14). However, we should be primarily praying for the spiritual growth, service, usefulness, and protection and steadfastness of other Christians (2 Cor 13:9; Eph 1:18-20, 3:14-21). If most Christians answered the question, “Do you daily pray that the Christians you know would grow spiritually?” The answer to that question would reveal this has become a lost priority among modern Christians. It is true that many believers are ignoring one of the most emphasized areas of praying for the New Covenant Believer in the Word of God. You can change that in your own life and prayers.

Last, never pray a prayer without realizing and stating that it is a prayer in Jesus̓ name (John 14:3). It is on the basis of the finished work of Christ that we can come into God̓s presence. Try cashing a check with the payee signature missing from the front of the check. The privilege of prayer was bought with the blood of Christ on our behalf (Heb. 10:19-22; 9:14). Because of the cross-work of Jesus we have direct access to the Father by prayer in Jesus’ name. We do not have to go to God through a chain of command. Therefore, remember and state that your prayer is in Jesus name (based on His person and redemptive work). It is good to begin the prayer in Jesus name and authority as well as ending with this reminder.

Prayer is vital to our spiritual life. We are commanded to pray, but we are not asked to pray perfectly. Do not be discouraged or compare your prayers to those of others. Learn from your leaders and from the Scriptures how to pray more biblically as you grow in your walk with our Sovereign Lord (Dan 9, Matt 6). But, remember, He is also our gracious Father and He hears our prayers even though they are less than perfect. So pray, and then pray some more. You do not gave because you do not ask in prayer (Jam 4:2). Relationships require communication. Talk to God. You will be glad you did.