Carnal Christian?

I gave up on Blogspot (it wouldn’t let me post comments…only initial posts: see http://fredlybrand.blogspot.com/), so I’m reloading my last question.  I will be in the mountains with my sons until Thursday, so have at it!

My bottom line is that one can walk according to the flesh (2 Cor 10:2; Gal 5), and though one is a  true brother in Christ, can live as mere men (1 Cor 3:1-4).  ‘Can’ does not me ‘will or should’—so, I say carnality is simply the reality that Christians can sin; and that for extended periods of time.  Some deny even this…but I think most who bray at ‘carnality’ or worried that it gives one freedom to sin / ignore God / assume they are in good standing, etc.  The REAL debate is actually around two things:

1.  Can a Christian resist the Spirit and live ‘according to the flesh’ indefinitely (i.e. doesn’t the Spirit have to change their life)?

2.  How long can a Christian sin before it proves he isn’t really a Christian?

So, there you go…if you don’t like my formulation of the question, then help me out!.  Again, I’ll be gone for a few days…so be kind!!!

Grace and Peace,

Fred Lybrand

110 thoughts on “Carnal Christian?”

  1. I’m cutting and pasting from the now abandoned blogspot site:

    All,

    I give up…I can’t post on my own site on any of my computers…why?

    Discuss carnality with me…Mark and Wayne are saying some curious things about carnality…both seeming to think Christians can and cannot be carnal.

    What is your take? I think 1 Corinthians 3 is overwelmingly clear…am I alone on this one?

    Grace,

    Fred

    P.S. I do think there is no way to avoid Christians sinning…which begs for, “Why would the Holy Spirit let us sin at all?”…and…”If we can sin some by the Holy Spirit’s permission, then why not a lot?”
    Posted by Fred R. Lybrand at 4:57 PM
    1 comments:

    mark pierson said…

    Dr. Lybrand,
    I hope you don’t mind my reposting my comment from the previous post. Here it is –

    Also, the “carnal Christians” in Corinth… What is the standard? Christ Himself? Then wouldn’t we all be “carnal” in comparison? Hodges and Ryrie suggest that one who once professed Christ can even lose faith and become hostile to the things of God for the remainder of their lives. Hmmm. Where in the Bible do they see such a model? Certainly not in Corinth. Even these folk “[came] behind in no gift” and were “waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”. 1 Cor. 1:7. It says that Paul praised them because they remembered him in all things and kept the ordinances as he delivered them to them. 1 Cor. 11:2. What about that great chapter, 2 Cor. 7:7 where mwe read of their earnest desire, their mourning, their fervent mind toward Paul. What about the repentance mentioned in verse 9?

    For the Free Grace Theology proponent’s definition of the “carnal Christian” well, he can’t point to the Corintian Church.
    May 22, 2009 9:08 PM

  2. jazzycat said…

    Fred,
    I guess we all use filters to a certain extent when we read Scripture. I hope we can agree that when the Scriptures use the term “in Christ”, it refers to a characteristic that all saved believers have. IOW all saved and redeemed people are in Christ. Certainly the Bible refers to infants in Christ, but the term “infants” points to a condition that is not permanent.

    When a word search of “in Christ” is done a very long list of passages in many different New Testament books reveal a lot about the attributes of those who are redeemed and in Christ. I will not go through them, as they are clear in their meaning. One theme is repeated over and over and that is those who are in Christ Jesus are changed people that have different attitudes and behaviors. They are certainly not sinless and I think you are mistaken when you say, ” This really does get down to an issue of whether or not a christian can sin…and for how long?” No, the carnal Christian issue really gets down to whether a saved redeemed person can remain unchanged after his regeneration and show no effects of the indwelling Holy Spirit for the rest of his life. Sin is not the issue. Good works are not the issue. A new creation is the issue as 2 Cor. 5:17 points out. The issue is can the Holy Spirit be a total failure in His ministry of regeneration and indwelling believers? If the Holy Spirit can totally fail in making a person a new creation in Christ, then Paul is wrong and some people are saved but remain the same people they were before being saved.

    This view denies the power of God and asserts that a regenerate person can thwart the will of God. It is one thing to assert through free will that God allows some to reject salvation although they have the ability to accept. However, it is quite another to suggest that God is powerless to change a persons’ heart when he clearly states that is exactly his intention in many places in the New Testament.

    Thanks for kindness and willingness to allow a friendly discussion.

    Wayne
    May 20, 2009 6:54 AM

  3. Mark,

    Good questions. Where do we see the model?…however, isn’t exacly quite fair. Why exactly would God hold up ‘failures’ for us to model after?

    On the other hand:

    1. Look at 1 Corinthians 10 (with chapter 9) to see how the OT examples are a warning to us! Why would they be a warning to us (believers clearly in context) if it isn’t possible for us to ‘fall in the wilderness’?

    2 Look at Pauls words in 2 Timothy:

    15 You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. 16 May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains, 17 but when he arrived in Rome the searched for me earnestly and found me— 18 may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on uthat Day!—and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

    The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 2 Ti 1:15-18.

    AND

    9 Do your best to come to me soon. 10 For Demas, in love with this present world, hhas deserted me and gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia,2 Titus to Dalmatia. 11 hLuke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry. 12 Tychicus I have sent to Ephesus. 13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. 14 lAlexander the coppersmith did me great harm; mthe Lord will repay him according to his deeds. 15 Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. 16 At my first defense no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me. May it not be charged against them!
    The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 2 Ti 4:9-17.

    It looks like “All…turned away from him” is a compelling proof to me…not one was a believer? Don’t get hung up on Demas…Paul is commending only ONE believer…and he (for some reason…rewards?) will need mercy in the day of evaluation!

    Grace,

    FRL

  4. Dr. Lybrand,

    Again the very church that Paul called “carnal” showed signs of life. To say that my question is unfair is not answering it. Please hit my points in that question head-on. If one is going to hold to the notion that one can profess Christ and then go on to live a life unresponsive to Christ, only to use 1 Cor. 3:1-4 as a foundation for that notion, then my challenge is that you must be consistent and go on to consider all of the information provided in both Corintian leters. To do that is to allow oneself to do a REAL wordstudy.

    Your brother in Christ,
    Mark

  5. Fred,
    Mark has certainly shown conclusively that the condition Paul spoke of in 1 Cor. 3 was not a permanent condition as 2 Cor. 7:9 As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. points out as well.

    You say that, “Mark and Wayne are saying some curious things about carnality. …both seeming to think Christians can and cannot be carnal.” A quick skimming of my comments will show that the views I have toward carnality are coming directly from Scripture which indicates that all saved men are regenerate, all regenerate men are new creations in Christ, all men who are in Christ are sons of God, all sons of God are led by the Spirit, and so on. The carnal Christian view that I and Scripture takes exception with is the position that a saved Christian can choose not to be a disciple and reject the lordship of Christ Jesus totally. This is a huge difference from a Christian having a battling indwelling sin. It is not a curious position at all. It is a Biblical position that is supported by Scripture.

    To extrapolate and say, “Saved sinners continue to sin. Therefore, a saved sinner can totally reject being a disciple of Christ and sin at will without repentance.” is not a Biblical teaching in anywhere in Scripture. The process of discipleship is called sanctification and the Bible clearly shows sanctification to be a part of grace and all who are saved as shown by Paul in 2 Thess. 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. are indeed sanctified by the Spirit. They are led by the Spirit (Romans 8:14).

    Therefore, I must ask the following question: Is the Bible also saying some curious things about carnality?

    Thanks, for allowing my dissenting view with such grace.

    Wayne

  6. Dr. Lybrand,
    An entire system of thought is in the ballances here. My comments need to be hit head-on. I will not be veered off of my observations on the Corithian church.

  7. Hey All,

    Well I’m back from hiking in West Va. with my boys (3 of them).

    Let me mention two things (I’ll get to the rest later):

    1. I’m pretty sure Ryrie and Hodges actually don’t agree as mentioned above.

    2. I’m not familiar with anyone who says carnality means a permanent state. A permanent state would be more akin to apostasy. I’m arguing that a Christian can be carnal (live like a mere man / resist the Spirit / walk in sin) for an indeterminate amount of time. Is this what you guys believe too?

    Thanks,

    FRL

  8. Dr. Lybrand,

    I’ve been tuning in now and then to your blog, especially now that the dust has settled. Regarding Hodges and Ryrie, both are on record as saying that all Christians will bear fruit of some kind (Hodges: Absolutely Free, 215; JETS, Autumn 1990, 7; Ryrie: So Great Salvation, 45-46). That, however, that doesn’t necessarily negate Mark’s statement about their (Hodges and Ryrie) losing faith and becoming hostile to God.

    Also, both Ryrie and Radmacher quote Calvin approvingly when he says, “But he [Paul] does not mean that they were completely carnal, without even a spark of the Spirit of God, but that they were still much too full of the mind of the flesh, so that the flesh prevailed over the Spirit, and, as it were, extinguished His light” (Ryrie, SGS 61-62, Radmacher, Salvation 165-166).

    It seems like the issues may be little muddled in recent discussions, as you’ve indicated. Maybe it would help to think in terms of (1) degree of carnality, (2) duration of carnality, and (3) apostasy. I’m not sure 1 and 2 Cor say anything about #3 but they seem to shed some light on #1 and #2. Just some thoughts:

    Degree of carnality: In 1 Cor they were quarrelsome, arrogant, and jealous. There was gross immorality and widespread acceptance of it. They were taking each other to court and exhibited drunkenness and selfishness at the Lords Supper. They abused their gifts and some denied the resurrection. By the time of 2 Cor there were signs of repentance and obedience. But they were gullible to false doctrine and doubted Paul’s apostolic authority. Further, in chapter 12 Paul fears there may still be strife, jealousy disputes, and immorality among them.

    Duration of carnality: From what I’ve read, Paul’s first epistle came three to five years after his 1-1/2 year stay at Corinth. The second epistle came a year or so later. So here we have at least a four or five year period in which Paul lays the possibility of unrepentant hearts. Also, it appears that some were judged by God for their carnality even to the point of physical death (1 Cor 11).

    While there were some bright spots in the church, the Corinthian letters seem to indicate that prolonged carnality at some fairly serious levels is possible for at least a few years and that some may die in defeat.

    David

  9. Dr. Lybrand,
    1 Cor. 3:1 seems to equate carnalality with being babes in Christ, a state they should have grown from by now, as seen in verse 2. They were showing signs of life as noted in chapter 1:7; but were yet babes. That they took giant leeps toward maturity later on is seen in 2 Cor.7:7-9. I don’t see from the Corithian church that one lapses into carnality after having “grown” from the baby state. More on Ryrie later, after I get home from church.

  10. Fred,
    I don’t know if you agree with Hodges assertion that a person who professed faith can not only become carnal for the remainder of his entire life, but can also become an atheist, mock God for the rest of his life and be a saved Christian. Historic Christianity would view such a person as hypocrite that was never a true believer.

    We must remember that even a babe in Christ shows some signs of Spiritual life as small and immature as they may be. My definition of a supposed carnal Christian would be a person who shows no obedience or discipleship at all. Thus, a true Christian may go into seasons of very little obedience and discipleship for extended periods, but I do not believe a true Christian can totally reject obedience and discipleship for very long without the power of the Holy Spirit convicting him of sin and repentance. Scripture teaches that a Christian is a new creation in Christ with new desires.

    Wayne

  11. On page 53 of his book “So Great Salvation” Ryrie states that all believers will bear fruit, some thirty, some sixty, some one-hundred. Otherwise, they do not possesss eternal life. So far so good…still searching.

  12. Dr. Lybrand,
    You ask how long a backslide can last – Matthew 18:15-20 – church discipline. If after the steps taken there that one does not repent then he is to be considered like a heathen and a tax collector; meaning he should be evangelized.

  13. I was listening to a message from Pastor Zeller on Blood Atonement yesterday. It’s interesting that under the Law a pigeon is a clean animal, yet it is disease ridden!

    I think those who question the possible carnality of the Christian don’t heed the Lord’s words for us to abide in Him. It is only by walking in the Spirit that we manage to live with Christ’s Character.

    I truly desire for Christians to have their eyes on Christ and not themselves.. how am “I” performing? Am “I” really living like Christ? Am “I” giving enough money? Am “I” serving enough? Have “I” submitted enough?

    How about we focus on Christ, and depend on Him and be surprised by the amazing things that flow out of that instead of trying to earn our way?

    For those who are performance minded, I defy your ability to keep up withsomeone with that mindset. They will truly be doing the works of God while you are working for God.

    Kev

  14. Hey Mark,

    Thanks for the point on Ryrie…what you are finding is what I understand. You guys may not know this but I have a 300 page (I think) book coming out on faith/salvation and works…should be available in a few weeks.

    So, on this topic, let me get back to understanding a few more things. I’m not sure if we are far off from each other, though I do think the issue is sin (living like mere men…not following the Spirit’s lead).

    Mostly I wrestle with people who say there is no such thing as a carnal christian…which if it means, as mentioned above, that the folks are immature…then LOTS of folks are carnal! The notion of no such thing & no difference between a disciple and a believer (no possibility of a difference)is pretty indefensible biblically.

    ………………………
    Wayne says:

    Historic Christianity would view such a person as hypocrite that was never a true believer.

    We must remember that even a babe in Christ shows some signs of Spiritual life as small and immature as they may be. My definition of a supposed carnal Christian would be a person who shows no obedience or discipleship at all. Thus, a true Christian may go into seasons of very little obedience and discipleship for extended periods, but I do not believe a true Christian can totally reject obedience and discipleship for very long without the power of the Holy Spirit convicting him of sin and repentance. Scripture teaches that a Christian is a new creation in Christ with new desires.
    ……………………..

    I’m pretty sure Historic Christianity would have view them as unsaved because they didn’t keep working for their salvation…or…as having lost their salvation from bailing out.

    I guess the “shows no sign” standard is fine…except that is my exact point—Who is to be the judge over these matters? How do you know what is a dead work and what is a live work? God is the one who gets to judge…hence, we can agree in theory, but how do you prove anything (including a pattern).

    I know a true believer can walk in sin…but not without the chastening of God (Hebrews 12)…

    My real burden is how we all think we’ve been appointed to stand in judgment & invite people to doubt their faith by looking at (trusting in) their works.

    Carnal simply means living like a ‘mere man’ (whether new in Christ or not).

    Thoughts?

    FRL

  15. David,

    Your point:

    While there were some bright spots in the church, the Corinthian letters seem to indicate that prolonged carnality at some fairly serious levels is possible for at least a few years and that some may die in defeat.

    Is right on target.

    FRL

  16. Mark,

    You offered:

    You ask how long a backslide can last – Matthew 18:15-20 – church discipline. If after the steps taken there that one does not repent then he is to be considered like a heathen and a tax collector; meaning he should be evangelized.

    ……………..

    It seem to me that he is to be considered “like” a heathen is a big issue. It isn’t that he is a heathen, but to be treated (interacted with) as though he is one (i.e. stay clear).

    Moreover, he is called a BROTHER all the way through…doesn’t this create a problem…since this same person, if he repents, is a brother gained (back)?

    FRL

  17. Kevin says, “I think those who question the possible carnality of the Christian don’t heed the Lord’s words for us to abide in Him. It is only by walking in the Spirit that we manage to live with Christ’s Character.”

    Mark says – Kevin, that’s quite a judgement. I don’t heed the Lord’s words to abide in Him, eh? Cool.

    Kevin says – “I truly desire for Christians to have their eyes on Christ and not themselves.. how am “I” performing? Am “I” really living like Christ? Am “I” giving enough money? Am “I” serving enough? Have “I” submitted enough?”

    Mark says – I guess some Puritans taught such things. However, if you’d been following my comments across both of Dr. Lybrand’s blogs you would have known that I distance myself from such. You’re preaching to the choir here.

    Kevin says – “How about we focus on Christ, and depend on Him and be surprised by the amazing things that flow out of that instead of trying to earn our way?”

    Mark says – Interesting knowledge of L/S Calvinism displayed here. But we’ve been down this trail before. Earn my way? Well, I suppose that misrepresenting your theological opponent’s positions is legal. May the Lord bless you.

    Kevin says – “For those who are performance minded, I defy your ability to keep up withsomeone with that mindset. They will truly be doing the works of God while you are working for God.”

    Thanks for the interaction, Kevil

  18. David Bell,
    Can we rightly assume that those that died in Corinth did so while unrepentent? There is not enough data to draw that kind of conclusion. How do we know that they did not repent and confess their sins before death. That they died served as a sign to those who remain.

  19. Dr. Lybrand,
    My point is that, with Christ as the standard, yes, we are all carnal.

    Also, in John 8:30-32 we see that believing in Christ and discipleship are all one thing. See also Matthew 11:28-30. And again, the Great Commission. The Bible is clear that Christ never presented the call to salvation as different from the call to discipleship.

  20. Dr. Lybrand, you say – “It seem to me that he is to be considered “like” a heathen is a big issue. It isn’t that he is a heathen, but to be treated (interacted with) as though he is one (i.e. stay clear).”

    Are we not to evangelize the heathen? Stay “clear” from them? Is that how we should treat a heathen? Also, a wayward person, if he were a true believer would have to deal with the Spirit’s convicting, The Father’s chastening, both the Son’s and the Spirit’s intercession – all would be evident in that wayward person’s life. My point was that great leeps in maturity had taken place between the Corinthian letters. It is not a static position.

    Dr. Lybrand, in your earlier comments to me you brought up names of folk in the NT who supposedly did not finish well. It is those comments of yours that I drew my conclussions of where you were coming from as far as your definition of the carnal Christian.

    Now, concerning those that you mentioned in 2 Timothy 1:15 that did not finish well: Are we to assume that they also left the church? Are we to assume that they left the Lord? Are we to assume that they never repented? John Mark obviously repented. Can we rightly assume that these did not as well? No. There is simply no biblical data here. Perhaps they did, perhaps not. We just don’t know for sure. So they do not serve well as examples of those who do not finish well, unless we depend on assumptions for our doctrinal positions.

    “Moreover, he is called a BROTHER all the way through…doesn’t this create a problem…since this same person, if he repents, is a brother gained (back)?”

    I see a transition here, and that in verse 18:17 – from brother to heathen. The true brother will repent. Non-repentance is a sign that there is no spiritual life.

  21. Further more, if we look at our concordances under chastening and related words, do we see where the Lord used death as a chastening? Chastening and its affects always takes place on this side of the grave.

    1. “…do we see where the Lord used death as a chatening? Chastening and its affects always takes place on this side of the grave.”

      Then chastening is chastening and death is death. Both are in the realm of temporal judgement. Apparently chastening has its purpose, and also death.

      Sincerely,
      Bill

  22. Fred,
    You asked the question who is to be the judge of a person’s discipleship and obedience in reference to my definition of a carnal Christian. When I defined a carnal Christian as one who shows no obedience or discipleship, I certainly did not mean that men are the judge! This is something men do not have the ability to do.

    God knows the heart and knows the wheat from the chaff. It is interesting in Mt. 25 when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, that he judges by actions and not by mere talk. Is this a passage that asserts works salvation? Absolutely not. This is a passage that reveals the hearts of born again spirit led believers. Such hearts show obedience and discipleship that Jesus can 100% accurately assess. It does not mean perfection as the beatitudes reveal such as these hunger and thirst for righteousness they do not have. Many will claim to be disciples by false works and impure motives, and Jesus will say, “depart from me I never knew you.” (Mt. 7)

    I do not see Jesus giving any encouragement for someone who claims to be a believer, but is not a disciple! When Jesus says that belief alone saves, that is certainly true, but it does not even hint that such a person will be unchanged by the power of God. As a matter of fact many passages affirm directly that a person that believes is a new creation in Christ……

  23. Mark,

    You said: Can we rightly assume that those that died in Corinth did so while unrepentent? There is not enough data to draw that kind of conclusion. How do we know that they did not repent and confess their sins before death. That they died served as a sign to those who remain.

    Me: To be honest, I never considered that possibility before (interesting how others bring out different perspectives). As I consider it, however, the following thoughts come to mind.

    I doubt the same could be said for Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. It doesn’t seem that there was much time to repent and confess.

    Also, it appears from James 5:19-20 that if a brother is about to be judged unto death, he can avoid such judgment by turning from his error.

    I also think of 1 Cor 10:1-14 where Paul states that the things in the OT happened as examples for us. The immediate context is the first generation out of Egypt, who did not end well. But the OT has several other examples of believers who did not end well, including Saul, Solomon, and Asa.

    David Bell

  24. David,
    Not all are in agreement about whether or not Ananias and Sapphira were saved. They consider that possibly these were of those who who joined without actually believing in Christ. They point to Acts 5:13 “Yet none of the rest dared join them…”, and compare that to verse 14 where “believers were increasingly added to the Lord”. It would seem that there was a distinction here, Ananias and Sapphira being of the former group. I don’t know that either of us can be sure of their spiritual state going into this situation.

  25. David,
    Concerning James 5:19-20 – note that such is called a “sinner”. The NT does not consider saints to be called “sinner[s]”. Paul calls himself one because of how he persecuted the saints in his former days. That is the closest of such a thing. Many an unconverted in our midst at church can wander from the truth while yet to come to Christ. The exhortation here is for the saints to expend energy in going after them, reminding them of the experience awaiting that one who finally comes to Christ.

  26. David,
    Concerning 1 Cor. 10:1-14, note verse 10:6 “these things become our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted.” We should learn from this passage what displeaes the Lord, and how deeply these things displease Him; but the thought of all out apostacy happening to the Corinthian church is not in view here. Note the lessons here: don’t become idolaters, commit sexual immorality, tempt Christ, complain… Remember, all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for reproof, rebuke and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equiped for every good work. That is what is going on in 1 Cor. 10:1-14.

  27. David,
    That that generation that left Egypt were not believers is seen in Hebrews 3:7-19. Unbelief was their characteristic. Hebrews 11 shows us the definition of faith. It is marked by obedience and perseverance.

  28. David,
    Concerning Saul – do we know for sure that we can count him as a believer? Why did not God forgive his sin upon his confession to such in front of Samuel? Why did not God forgive his sin as He did when David confessed his sin in front of Nathan? Why did God reject him from being king when David did much more terrible things than he?

  29. David (sorry for the multiple comments. I’ve seen lengthy comments get swallowed up, never to appear after great periods of time spent writing them),
    Concerning Solomon – I see Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 as a turn around for him.

  30. Mark,

    Wow, I’m not used to participating in these blog discussions. These can grow huge real fast, can they?–as each point keeps expanding. For example, I could explain why I think the Israelites in Heb 3 were indeed saved and then we’d get into our different approaches to Hebrews and the warning passages, etc.

    So for now, at least, let me just respond to your point about James, in which you said “The NT does not consider saints to be called ‘sinner[s].'”

    That’s only true if it is also true of James 5.

    My understanding is that hamartolos simply means “a person who customarily sins” (Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon) and, in the Gospels, may often have described the person who did not abide by the law or at least the Pharisaic interpretation of it.

    I sometimes feel uncomfortable making a case against the guaranteed perseverance of the saints (or whatever you want to call it) because it can come across that I’m promoting it as normal or acceptable–and God forbid that I should ever communicate that! Rather, the “normal” (i.e. not deviating from the norm or standard) Christian life is one of increasing conformance to the image of Christ. So in the few times hamartolos is used in the epistles, it is not surprising if it is rare to find it used of Christians.

    But I think James 5 is indeed an exception for these reasons: (1) James says “BROTHERS, if any among YOU strays…” These brothers had “faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1). IMO, the only exception to James’ addressing Christians exclusively is 5:1-6.(2)They were ones who had STRAYED and could be turned BACK, implying that they were to return to where they once were. (3) The context of this final passage (v 7ff) is to exhort the BELIEVERS to persevere and encourage one another. If “sinner” denotes one who customarily sins, then this would be a likely context for it to be an exception to the rule and denote a Christian.

    Sorry for all the caps, I’m don’t know how to format here.

    David B

  31. Hi All,

    As I read through this discussion (which I find rather healthy) I want to reiterate something I mentioned on my previous blogspot…

    I believe the ‘guaranteed perseverence of the saints in good works’ is a theoretical or hypothetical construct which is used to hold one’s theology together.

    What I meant by this is that it actually can’t be proved in real life that any particular work is proof of one’s salvation; in this regard, I’d say that it is hypothetically true, but pragmatically invalid (I’ll have my doctoral dissertation available in book form in a few weeks and cover this at length— It is titled: Back to Faith).

    We all agree that simply looking at someone doing a good work does not actually tell us that the person is going to heaven (since he may be trying to earn his way to heaven). However, we must then start to ponder the next level of the issue— If works don’t prove one is saved, why am I so sure a lack of works proves one is not saved?

    The truth is that people can ‘walk in the flesh’…at least for some period of time, though saved. This is what I certainly mean by ‘carnal’ or ‘not abiding’ or ‘not walking in the Spirit’—all of which might also be called ‘sinning’.

    The idea that we are ‘all carnal’ really isn’t what is in view in 1 Cor 3, especially since Paul contrasts himself with the Corinthians (i.e. Paul is NOT carnal).

    It is simply unavoidable that a true believer may or may not walk with the Lord (follow the Spirit, be obedience, etc.) at any given moment or sequence of moments.

    That a believer ‘must eventually’ show fruit, etc., is again a theory that cannot be demonstrated in fact.

    Personally, I see a lot of the discussion we all tend to have on this topic as rather convoluted…often putting ourselves in the place of Judge. Frankly, if God knows and I don’t…what is the problem? I still need to be faithful…and given the doctrine of election…won’t it all work out! 🙂

    FRL

  32. David,
    The Greek word for sinners in James 5:20 is number 268 in the Strong’s Concordance. I would invite all readers to pick up their Strong’s Concordance to see that it is never used of Christians in the New Testament – not once. I will invite the readers to take note in their concordances of just how it IS used in the New Testament.

    You are a gracious brother. I’m just trying to show you how a Lordshiper see’s things. May the Lord bless you.

    Mark Pierson

  33. Dr. Lybrand,
    Let me throw something out here for thought: The carnal Christian exists only in theory, and the concept is the result of cobbling together scriptures that do not apply to new creations in Christ.

    Think about it, the carnal Christian always exists “out there”, meaning theoretically. At this point I wish for us to look only at ourselves for just one moment. Right this very moment we are walking with Christ, yes? But why is that so? Some of us have gone through deep spiritual valleys, been caught up in or over-come by sin for some periods of time, only to be chastened by the Father, convicted by the Spirit through the Word, and, during those dark times, have longed for the lost sweetness of walking with the Savior. After the convicting and the chastening the sweetness is returned. Other valleys and mountains will come and go; but our walks with Christ continue on. Why? It is result of the preservation work of our Triune God in our lives.

    In short, OUR very experiences with Christ refute this idea of a Christian not finishing well…unless we are somehow different than “they”.

  34. Question: Why does an athlete discipline his body and bring it into subjection? Because it is his nature to do so. So it is in Romans 12:3, there we see that God has dealt to every man a measure of faith. In this case Paul is talking about Christians being given spiritual power to do that within the Body of Christ that He has called them to individually. Faithfulness to God is also part of the picture in Galatians 5 as we consider the fruit of the Spirit.

  35. Hey Mark,

    Thanks for the compliment about being gracious. I will return it and say you are not as intimidating as your avatar. 🙂

    You said “I’m just trying to show you how a Lordshiper see’s things.” Thanks; I appreciate that. I’m not sure real dialog can happen if we don’t try to understand the reasoning of the other side, and I’m trying. I think if we’d all heed James 1 and be quicker to hear and slower to speak and slower to anger, we’d all be better off for it, even if we don’t change our views.

    Bless you, brother.

    David B

  36. Fred,
    You said……

    If works don’t prove one is saved, why am I so sure a lack of works proves one is not saved?

    That is interesting and we probably agree that works have no value in justification and that works cannot prove salvation to other men. Also, God knows those whom he has saved and regenerated and does not need works as proof. However, Scripture says some interesting things about works that show they are part of the description of a Christian. Here are a few that I will not comment on except to say they must be considered and interpreted by everyone who relies on Scripture……….

    John 14:12 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.

    John 15:8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.

    Eph. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

    Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

    James 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

    wayne

  37. Mark,

    Thanks for your wrestling. I’m a little confused by YOUR two comments:

    1. My point is that, with Christ as the standard, yes, we are all carnal.

    2. Let me throw something out here for thought: The carnal Christian exists only in theory, and the concept is the result of cobbling together scriptures that do not apply to new creations in Christ.

    ……

    Obviously given that we are all carnal, how is it that carnal Christians only exist in theory.

    I understand carnality to equal ‘walking in the flesh’. Apostasy is bailing out on the faith and never returning in this life.

    What is your definition of a ‘carnal Christian’— actual or theoretical? If I can understand your view I can find out if I even disagree with you or not.

    Many thanks,

    FRL

  38. Mark,

    On another thought, you said:

    Question: Why does an athlete discipline his body and bring it into subjection? Because it is his nature to do so. So it is in Romans 12:3, there we see that God has dealt to every man a measure of faith.

    ……

    Actually, don’t you think the athlete disciplines his body for the sake of the prize? Discipline, by its nature, is unnatural. Discipline is when we ‘itch but we don’t scratch’. It is natural in the picture for people to not buffet their bodies…but given the prize of reward (not salvation / justification) we WORK hard for it.

    As to the ‘measure of faith’…it doesn’t appear to have anything to do with salvation/sanctification…but rather, it is concerned with the spiritual gifts given to the members of the body of Christ. The measure of faith, in the context, is a measure regarding the gifting one receives.

    Thanks,

    FRL

  39. Wayne,

    I’d be glad to address each of the verses that you mention…and I do feel they are pretty readily answered as to why they don’t support the notion that works prove faith.

    You said,

    That is interesting and we probably agree that works have no value in justification and that works cannot prove salvation to other men.

    ……

    I do agree, except I’m not sure about the phrase, “to other men.” That could leave room for it proving something to us…but aren’t we just ‘another man’? It seems to me that when we look at our works for proof of our salvation, our faith is off of Christ and on to ourselves.

    ……

    Here is a curiosity:

    14 And let our people learn to devote themselves to good works, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not be UNFRUITFUL.
    The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Tit 3:14). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

    In this same book of Titus you mention, Paul opens the possibility that ‘our people’ can actually be unfruitful (without fruit, Greek, akarpos).

    Strongs:

    175 ἄκαρπος [akarpos /ak·ar·pos/] adj. From 1 (as a negative particle) and 2590; TDNT 3:616; TDNTA 416; GK 182; Seven occurrences; AV translates as “unfruitful” six times, and “without fruit” once. 1 metaph. without fruit, barren, not yielding what it ought to yield.

    Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible

    Many thanks,

    FRL

  40. Fred,
    I don’t think Paul is referring to a permanent condition but is giving more of an exhortation to not be slothful in doing good works. Earlier in this same chapter he said the following:

    For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

    Paul is talking about the change in going from unsaved to saved. He then goes on in v. 8 to insist that believers are careful to devote themselves to good works.

    The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

    Are we to do any less or are we to teach the concept of believers, who have been washed by regeneration and renewed by the Holy Spirit, continuing in their sin? Shouldn’t we affirm the Biblical princple of sanctification instead of seeking to find novel interpretations for every verse affirms discipleship and works for believers?

  41. Last sentence should have read……

    Shouldn’t we affirm the Biblical princple of sanctification instead of seeking to find novel interpretations for every verse that affirms discipleship and works for believers?

  42. Dr. Lybrand,
    I hope you don’t mind my multiple postings to your questions. After years of blogging I have discovered that the more time and effort I put into a single comment the more likly it is to fly out into the “ethersphere”.

    You say, “Obviously given that we are all carnal, how is it that carnal Christians only exist in theory.

    I understand carnality to equal ‘walking in the flesh’. Apostasy is bailing out on the faith and never returning in this life.

    What is your definition of a ‘carnal Christian’— actual or theoretical? If I can understand your view I can find out if I even disagree with you or not.”
    ———
    I do not hold that there is a class of carnal Christians. My question is, if there IS such a class, what is the standard? Is it Christ Himself? Paul? Just what exactly is the cut off point? At what point do we draw the line of who is carnal or spiritual? I believe that among those who hold to carnal Christianity as a class of Christians there would be as many differences in opinion as there are people asked. The standard would move all over the place.

    I, on the other hand, see Paul in Phippians 3 as having the answer – it is Christ. And our energies (strainings) are to be spent going after Him. If there is no forward motion towards Christ, then, as Paul says, God will reveal even that to us.

  43. Dr. Lybrand,
    You say to me, “As to the ‘measure of faith’…it doesn’t appear to have anything to do with salvation/sanctification…but rather, it is concerned with the spiritual gifts given to the members of the body of Christ. The measure of faith, in the context, is a measure regarding the gifting one receives.”
    ———-
    Please note what I said to you in my earlier comment…>So it is in Romans 12:3, there we see that God has dealt to every man a measure of faith. In this case Paul is talking about Christians being given spiritual power to do that within the Body of Christ that He has called them to individually<… I do not see where what I said needed correction. What was the difference between what I said there and your response to me above?

    At any rate what is the experience of one so "gifted" for service? Is there not an enabling to persevere on in trials while one is ministering to his brothers and sisters in Christ? Don't those gifted (the whole body is, for the whole body ministers to itself) have a special enabling of God to press on even though loved ones abandon, financial problems pop up, even the difficulties that arise within the Body of Christ itself – else why would God deal a measure of faith in the first place – Again, the enabling of God here, why can't it go toward the sanctification of the saint? Without this enabling no saint could go on to minister to his brethren. With this enabling, coupled together with his sense of the calling of God in his life (I'm speaking of each member within the Body, not just those called to full-time ministry), he has the sense of urgency to press on.

  44. Dr. Lybrand,
    You say to me, “As to the ‘measure of faith’…it doesn’t appear to have anything to do with salvation/sanctification…but rather, it is concerned with the spiritual gifts given to the members of the body of Christ. The measure of faith, in the context, is a measure regarding the gifting one receives.”
    ———-
    Please note what I said to you in my earlier comment…So it is in Romans 12:3, there we see that God has dealt to every man a measure of faith. In this case Paul is talking about Christians being given spiritual power to do that within the Body of Christ that He has called them to individually… I do not see where what I said needed correction. What was the difference between what I said there and your response to me above?

    At any rate what is the experience of one so “gifted” for service? Is there not an enabling to persevere on in trials while one is ministering to his brothers and sisters in Christ? Don’t those gifted (the whole body is, for the whole body ministers to itself) have a special enabling of God to press on even though loved ones abandon, financial problems pop up, even the difficulties that arise within the Body of Christ itself – else why would God deal a measure of faith in the first place – Again, the enabling of God here, why can’t it go toward the sanctification of the saint? Without this enabling no saint could go on to minister to his brethren. With this enabling, coupled together with his sense of the calling of God in his life (I’m speaking of each member within the Body, not just those called to full-time ministry), he has the sense of urgency to press on.

  45. Dr. Lybrand,
    You say, “but given the prize of reward (not salvation / justification) we WORK hard for it.”
    —–
    For the record, no L/S teacher holds that the prize of reward is salvation / justification. Can we please be clear on that?!?

    Now, when I offered this comment…Think about it, the carnal Christian always exists “out there”, meaning theoretically. At this point I wish for us to look only at ourselves for just one moment. Right this very moment we are walking with Christ, yes? But why is that so? Some of us have gone through deep spiritual valleys, been caught up in or over-come by sin for some periods of time, only to be chastened by the Father, convicted by the Spirit through the Word, and, during those dark times, have longed for the lost sweetness of walking with the Savior. After the convicting and the chastening the sweetness is returned. Other valleys and mountains will come and go; but our walks with Christ continue on. Why? It is result of the preservation work of our Triune God in our lives.

    In short, OUR very experiences with Christ refute this idea of a Christian not finishing well…unless we are somehow different than “they”… I was trying to view things from within your Free Grace Theology perspective. I, unlike you, do not view carnal Christianity as a class of Christians. I was trying to illustrate that the class only exists in theory, if at all. Our own respective walks with Christ refute that there IS such a class. We ALL have periods where we go through vallies; but the Father chastens, the Son rebukes and chastens, the Spirit convicts, the Son and the Spirit intercede; and in the end, all of these preservation things go towards the saint not remaining static in a state of carnality.

  46. Mark,

    You said:

    For the record, no L/S teacher holds that the prize of reward is salvation / justification. Can we please be clear on that?!?

    ……..

    Woe! Of course they do! Jonathan Edwards in particular saw “Eternal Reward” as getting into heaven…Piper and Sproul both mimic the same notions…AND…

    Schreiner, Thomas R. and Ardel B. Caneday. The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of
    Perseverance & Assurance. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

    Is a complete discussion on 1 Cor 9 being ONLY about gaining entrance into heaven.

    Lots of L/S teachers hold that the reward is justification.

    FRL

  47. Wayne,

    The crux of this conversation is in your saying:

    “I don’t think Paul is referring to a permanent condition but is giving more of an exhortation to not be slothful in doing good works.”

    It seems you an mark have different definition of ‘carnality’ and I don’t know how to get you define the terms. Both of you keep talking about a PERMANENT CONDITION as some apparent part of the idea that believers can live ‘carnal’ lives.

    The idea of PERMANENT CARNALITY would actually be an issue of APOSTASY (can a true believer become and apostate?).

    If you guy agree that a true believer (born again) can follow the flesh and not follow the Spirit…even for a short while…you are agreeing with us (me, at least) about what it means to be “carnal” as a Christian.

    Mark adds:

    I do not hold that there is a class of carnal Christians.

    ……

    Which, again, tells me I don’t know your definition…unless you (Mark) thinks that it is impossible for a believer to follow the flesh.

    If you guys can’t share your definition of ‘Carnal’…then at least tell me what you think my/our definition is.

    So far I don’t see a real conversation, but rather a series of questions…How can Paul…etc.

    I hope I don’t sound grumpy…but I really want to first understand, then be understood.

    Thanks,

    FRL

  48. Wayne,

    You said:

    Shouldn’t we affirm the Biblical princple of sanctification instead of seeking to find novel interpretations for every verse that affirms discipleship and works for believers?

    ………

    AWESOME! (first part)

    Yes, we should affirm (and encourage) sanctification for all believers. Moreover, we should NEVER EVER seek to find novel interpretations. We should only seek the true meaning of the text…even if it happens to agree with the historical view too!

    Grace,

    FRL

  49. Dr.Lybrand,
    Your response to me here..
    “Mark,

    You said:

    For the record, no L/S teacher holds that the prize of reward is salvation / justification. Can we please be clear on that?!?

    ……..

    Woe! Of course they do! Jonathan Edwards in particular saw “Eternal Reward” as getting into heaven…Piper and Sproul both mimic the same notions…AND…

    Schreiner, Thomas R. and Ardel B. Caneday. The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of
    Perseverance & Assurance. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

    Is a complete discussion on 1 Cor 9 being ONLY about gaining entrance into heaven.

    Lots of L/S teachers hold that the reward is justification.”
    ———
    Are you interpreting Edwards, Piper and Sproul (I do not know of the others you mentioned) as saying that salvation is earned?!? That would be a huge misinterpretation on your part.
    ———-
    Then you said in the response to Wayne,
    “Mark adds:

    I do not hold that there is a class of carnal Christians.

    ……

    Which, again, tells me I don’t know your definition…unless you (Mark) thinks that it is impossible for a believer to follow the flesh.

    If you guys can’t share your definition of ‘Carnal’…then at least tell me what you think my/our definition is.

    So far I don’t see a real conversation, but rather a series of questions…How can Paul…etc.

    I hope I don’t sound grumpy…but I really want to first understand, then be understood.”
    ——–
    My definition of the carnal Christian is found in 1 Cor. 3:1-3 – Babes in Christ, who can only drink milk, not able to take solid food, STILL acting like mere men, not having grown past this stage. I do not see one returning to this stage after having gone on to being able to receive solid food. Some of these same sins mentioned in 3:3-4 can reoccure, and must be dealt with, but that does not mean that they are carnal Christians. No, they are just ordinary Christians who must learn to be consistent in keeping under their bodies and bring them into subjection to obey Christ and walk in His ways. We all stumble into those sins mentioned in 3:3-4 from time to time.

    Then you say to me,
    “unless you (Mark) thinks that it is impossible for a believer to follow the flesh.”

    Remember early on I brought up Galatians 5:17 way back in the earlier post? The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. There is a war going on within each Christian. Sometimes the flesh wins the battle; but it will not win the war. Why? Because of the chastening of the Father, the rebuke and chastening of the Son, the intercession of both the Son and the Spirit, the longings of the new nature to come back to sweet felowship with the Savior.

  50. Dr. Lybrand,
    What Wayne and I offer here is just SOME of what will go on in the minds of those “Lordshipers” who pick up your book. You have a tremendous up-hill climb to change their thinking, especially if they perceive that you are willing to play fast with what it is that they actually believe, and are willing to misrepresent what it is that “Lordshipers” hold dear doctrinally.

  51. Hey Guys,

    Thanks for your help on all of this! Of course, I have absolutely no thoughts that I will change their thinking…though, in my experience I’ve seen it happen many a time!

    I don’t in the least think these guys believe that works save…I have never even intimated it (though they do go through some amazing gyrations to explain plain why 1 Cor 9 is about getting justified and not earning rewards…Edwards,especially, is quite convoluted on this point; I wrote an article published in Chafer Journal a few years back on this point).

    What I do offer is that there is an inherent incongruence in the extreme Puritan-Reform view (the current popular version of dozens of types of Covenant Calvinism). So, on the one hand they affirm Faith Alone in Christ Alone, but at other times they deny it. Piper and Sproul in particular think works are necessary for final (entrance into heaven) salvation…though they believe one is only saved by faith.

    As to the definition of Carnal…I’m now confused how you guys are affirming that ALL are carnal if it only refers to the baby-stage. Did you mean that we all are carnal at one time…but,if matured, we are no longer carnal?

    Thanks,

    Fred

  52. Dr. Lybrand,
    Some believe that in 1 Cor. 9, Paul mentioning the bringing his body under subjection in order to not be disqualified, well they see it there that if one DOES NOT do so that that is proof they were never regenerate in the first place.

    Others see it as talking about ending up being put on a shelf, no longer useful.

    Still others see that Paul is longing for reward for faithfull service. This is my view here, along with him not wanting to be put on the shelf.

    R.C. Sproul Jr. is regarded by many Calvinists as a heretic for preaching double imputation – salvation by faith plus works. No main-line Calvinist is with him there.

    I am saying that the carnal state is the baby state. It is grown out of by all Christians, meaning the truely regenerate. I am saying that all are carnal in comparison to Christ. If one holds to the idea that carnal Christianity is a state, which I do not, well then we are all carnal. I was trying to show that any who hold to this concept of the carnal Christian that it just doesn’t hold water, because there is no standard outside of Christ. Just what IS the standard? I do not believe that the carnal Christian is a static state. The one who walks in love, is current in confession of all known sin, that he is walking in the light. That is Christianity in a nutshell.

  53. Fred,
    Are you referring to 1 Cor. 9:24-27 in particular? I don’t see justification in view here or anywhere in Chapter 9.

    CARNAL CHRISTIAN:Mark’s definition of a true carnal Christian seems good. In the free grace context, I consider the person that James describes in James 2:14-26 as being a false Christian [hypocrite] that some claim is a true carnal Christian. IOW, James calls the person he describes a false unsaved professor of faith and not a true Christian, but some people describe this person as a true saved carnal Christian. I agree with James.

    I hope that defines my view of the term “carnal Christian” sufficiently.

    It does get confusing I guess…..

    wayne

  54. OK…so let me address the ‘baby state’ idea…

    If 1 Cor 3 is refering to a Baby State…how long does it last? In my estimation it looks like the letter was received at least 4 years after Paul had been with them. These folks are living like mere men…but are just ‘babies’ after 4 years?

    This is really where the problem is…they are childish and immature (and keep it up for another 40 years according to Clement of Rome…so he wrote of the church).

    We just have a theory about how the Spirit MUST make people grow…but there is not practical / useful real measure. It is really just a theory to hold our theology together isn’t it?

    What would you need to see in the Bible to prove a believer could be carnal / no works for extended times? I know of one who took at least 25 years before his works showed anything.

    Thanks,

    Fred

  55. Dr. Lybrand,
    You ask,
    “OK…so let me address the ‘baby state’ idea…

    If 1 Cor 3 is refering to a Baby State…how long does it last? In my estimation it looks like the letter was received at least 4 years after Paul had been with them. These folks are living like mere men…but are just ‘babies’ after 4 years?”
    ————-
    Yes, as Paul noted, he could only speak to babes in Christ…those still unable to receive solid food…still carnal – it all sounds like a transitory and not a static state to me. Clearly Paul’s language here does not suggest that he held to the idea that one can continue in a state of indifference to the claims of Christ for the rest of one’s life.
    ————–
    “This is really where the problem is…they are childish and immature (and keep it up for another 40 years according to Clement of Rome…so he wrote of the church).”
    ———
    Here is where you seem to ignore 2 Cor.7:7 where we see Paul speak of their “earnest desire”, their “mourning”, their “zeal” for him, causing Paul to rejoice even more. And what of verse 9 where their sorrow led to repentance? There it is noted that they were made sorry in a “godly manner”. Please, don’t take away from the force of these verses here.

    Question: What makes the “carnal Christian” to differ from you? Have you not had to be chastened of the Lord? Have you not lived in accordance to His word at various points in your life – meaning, have you always loved Him with all your heart, mind, soul and strength? If you do so now, and it is because of His workings through chastenings, conviction of the Spirit, and so forth, then why does all that prove effectual in YOUR life, and NOT somebody else’s? What makes YOU to differ from them? Therefore carnal Chritianity as a static state is merely a theory. In other words, God’s workings on you are effectual, but not on them – can you know for sure they are truely regenerate? Plus, as I see in Hebrews 12:5-11, God’s chastening is ALWAYS effectual.
    ———————-
    “We just have a theory about how the Spirit MUST make people grow…but there is not practical / useful real measure. It is really just a theory to hold our theology together isn’t it?”
    ———–
    As I stated above, the only place for theory here is the belief that carnal Christianity can be a static state.
    ————-
    “What would you need to see in the Bible to prove a believer could be carnal / no works for extended times? I know of one who took at least 25 years before his works showed anything.”
    ———–
    Again, what is the standard you use to judge by? The Lord? If not, then whom?

  56. Fred,
    I think James is clearly warning that it is hypocrits who say they have faith but do not have works. I will let James’ words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit speak for themselves. How could you say this passage is just a theory?

    James 2:14-26 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good [2] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

    18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

  57. Hey,

    Thanks for the thoughts…My new book (weeks away) has one entire chapter on James 2. The unique thing is that I walk through the three views line by line (Catholic, Reform, Free Grace).

    The reform view is (IMO) the one that least considers the text, since if it is about getting saved from hell to heaven…then faith alone is dead.

    Notice:

    if a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them,

    Why would he talk about someone serving a brother or sister if they aren’t saved?

    The truth is that the passage is about sanctification & I think I can fully demonstrated it!

    James 2 only convinces me to be a Roman Catholic if it is about justification!

    FRL

    My book title: BACK TO FAITH: Reclaiming Gospel Clarity in an Age of Incongruence.

  58. BTW—

    The time between Abraham’s faith and Abraham’s works is 25 years (so Calvin)…can we at least give someone 25 years before we judge them as unsaved?

    🙂

    FRL

  59. Mark,

    Thanks for your thoughts on Carnality…

    You said:

    Here is where you seem to ignore 2 Cor.7:7 where we see Paul speak of their “earnest desire”, their “mourning”, their “zeal” for him, causing Paul to rejoice even more. Of course, I was speaking about the 4 years (not Clement…it isn’t scripture.

    You also said:

    it all sounds like a transitory and not a static state to me. Clearly Paul’s language here does not suggest that he held to the idea that one can continue in a state of indifference to the claims of Christ for the rest of one’s life.

    ……….

    This really isn’t the discussion because you guys are (were?) saying that there is no such thing as a carnal christian…except, as babies…and, now, as a “transitory state”.

    Paul was not addressing the question you claim he was not addressing because he wanted their state to be transitory (i.e. GROW UP!)

    The fact is that they could “be” carnal for some time…to say it is a permanent state is an issue of apostasy and not of carnality.

    If you admit that a believer can live for an indefinite period of time ‘not walking in the Spirit’—then you mean by that exactly what most all of us mean by ‘carnality’.

    So, where are are you on this? Can a person be carnal, though saved…for some period of time? If so, we agree on this!

    Grace,

    FRL

    …..

    But, I can’t ignored 2 Corinthians when I’m discussing 1 Corinthians. When you take a later statement in the Bible and apply it to an earlier one, it is called “reading the old into the new” (usually around the Testaments).

  60. Dr. Lybrand,
    Yes, the carnal Christian is a transitory state. It is the place of the babes, and is to be grown out of. Note the language in 1 Cor.3:1-3. There is no hint here that Paul see’s this as a static state; and obviously it was not as seen in 2 Cor.7:7-9. My earliest point is that if you want to define a carnal Christian while looking at 1 Cor.3:1-4 then you MUST consider ALL of the information available across the two Corinthian letters. My earliest point was that it is not a static state, and I have proven that here.

    As to your other comments to me, again, I’ll ask what is your standard? Wouldn’t a Christian suffering for his faith on the other side of the world look at ALL western Christians as “carnal” with our television sets, gulf clubs, gym equipment, savings accounts, pets, etc, etc. Again, if not Christ, then what or whom is your standard? Please answer that question.

    Mark Pierson

  61. And, please don’t forget that I mentioned that ALL Christians have a war going on within, and that is seen in Galatians 5:17. Please don’t misrepresent my position as saying that all the Christian experience is without struggle, without straining forward to Christ-likeness. And what of my point that the Father’s chastenings are ALWAYS effectual. See Hebrews 12:5-11.

    Mark Pierson

  62. Dr. Lybrand,
    if you could provide me with a concrete standard by which an individual can be determined to be spiritual or carnal – a standard that ALL Christians, including missionaries who have sold all to go to other parts of the world only to languish in prison for their faith, would agree to then our conversation can continue.

  63. Fred,
    Thanks. You said……
    The reform view is (IMO) the one that least considers the text, since if it is about getting saved from hell to heaven…then faith alone is dead.

    No, that is not the reform view as I have heard it from Dr. Sproul and others. Faith alone is not dead. Faith alone saves. The reformed view takes James at his word, which I have heard many free grace advocates assert about other passages. James is talking about a claimed false faith and not a true faith. Verse 14 “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?”

    The comparison is between the false dead claimed faith of a hypocrit verses the true faith of a regenerated believer.

  64. BTW,
    This view of James 2 is not just a reformed view. It is also the view of many if not most including Dr. David Jeremiah, the pastor of one of the internet’s leading free grace apologists Antonio Da Rosa….

  65. Well…when you guys see the book you’ll understand why I call it the ‘reformed view’— it think it is the most popular explanation at DTS as well as Westminster as well as Wheaton…just pick!

    It is a view that says, “We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone.”

    My book spends 300 pages and 600 footnotes trying to clarify the mistake in this cliche.

    I really don’t think the Reformed view (dead faith = not real faith) is very difficult to make fit with the text…we just haven’t studied it!

    ……

    As to taking 2 Cor with 1 Cor…not a legitimate approach (except in the same way we would take all of Paul’s letters together)…it still sounds like you guys do admit to carnality; you just don’t want it to be permanent.

    …..

    Here’s my real question (now)— “Why is it such a bid deal to you? Why isn’t it OK to admit a believe can fail to walk with God for some period of time?”

    This would be a huge help…and sayin, “Well the Bible says…” is not what I’m really asking. There is something emotive in the discussion…maybe something scary (or exciting)…???

    Thanks,

    Fred

  66. Dr. Lybrand,
    Many believe that Dr. Ryrie is the main-line Free Grace Theology figure. Have you considered his notes on James 2:14-26, found on pages 1876-1877 of his RYRIE STUDY BIBLE? There he speaks of faith in such a way that is closer to the Reformed than yours or Wilkin’s.

  67. “Why isn’t it OK to admit a believer can fail to walk with God for some period of time?”
    ——-
    God’s chastening. The church’s discipline. The Son’s and Spirit’s intercession, the longings of the new nature (Heart smiting like David in Psalm 32 and 51; and also after he numbered the people)…

  68. Mark,

    You are absolutely right on Ryrie…he does take a “Reform View” on the James 2 passage. Frankly, this is how it goes in theology. I definitely take a Reformed (i.e. a view consistent with the Reformed tradition) view of Romans 9 and Ephesians 1…but I do not take a Reformed view of 2 Corinthians 13.

    I really can’t help it if I agree with Wilkin or Calvin or Oecolampadius…if they agree with the scriptures. Of course, I hope Dr. Ryrie will be persuaded by my chapter on James 2 🙂 !!!

  69. Mark,

    I said:

    “Why isn’t it OK to admit a believer can fail to walk with God for some period of time?”

    You responded:

    God’s chastening. The church’s discipline. The Son’s and Spirit’s intercession, the longings of the new nature (Heart smiting like David in Psalm 32 and 51; and also after he numbered the people)…

    ……..

    I doesn’t seem that you are answering my question. What I’m getting at is what is the harm in the admission itself…that a believer ‘can fail’ to walk with God for some period of time?

    It is obvious that it is BAD to do so…but you seem to be saying it is impossible / unthinkable…. which seems to carry an emotional reason.

    Of course, for example, God chastens. Indeed, He especially chastens as we sin…more clearly…the more sin the more chastening.

    It is the sinning part that we are talking about. An obedient believer will be chastened less (because it is not required) than a rebellious believer.

    Why isn’t it OK to admit a christian can live in sin (not that it is OK to live in sin) for a period of time? This is what it sounds like “anti-carnality” folks are saying. What is the motive / reason for such a stance? It is like there is a double view; you can’t sin, but you can sin.

    Thanks,

    Fred

  70. Dr. Lybrand,
    Those adressed in the book of Hebrews were going through some “unbelievable” struggles. Yet in Hebrews 12 the writer seems to attribute those struggles to chastening. That’s interesting. What type of life-style were they engaged in in order to bring down that chastening? There is no mention that they had sinned in order to bring on this chastening. Yet elsewhere Jesus said that chastens ALL whom He loves. In fact, right in Hebrews 12 it says that “all are partakers”. Could it be that the basis for chastening is primarily Christ-likeness rather than just merely correctiveness? It seems chastening happens to ALL Christians, whether in sin or not. Therefore His program for each Christian to be conformed to Christ is simply too intense for one to go for a long time in sin.

  71. Dr. Lybrand,
    Okay, I’ll give you an “inside out” here. I became adicted to porn 5 years after I was saved. Every time the temptation came my way I headed to the x-rated theaters. Though I fell, and saw the whole movie through; yet afterward my heart smote me. This happend over and over again for the space of a month. Finally one day I sat down and pondered what had happened to my walk with Christ. Where was the sweetness? I longed for it back again. But what of the next time the temptation comes my way. So I cried out to God that, if need be, He brake my legs in order to break this “spell”. One week later I was in traction in a 6 week hospital stay.

  72. Fred,
    You said about the reformed view………..
    It is a view that says, “We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is not alone.”
    My book spends 300 pages and 600 footnotes trying to clarify the mistake in this cliche.

    I think I can show through Biblical teachings why this cliché is true. If sinners were saved apart from God’s intervening grace, regeneration, and the indwelling Spirit, then this statement would be false. However, through regeneration (John 3:3, 2 Cor. 5:17, Eph 2:4-5) and the indwelling Spirit (Romans 8:9) those that are saved by faith alone are led by the Spirit (Rom. 8:14) and are changed to different degrees. While still being far from perfect, these new attitudes, behaviors, inclinations, etc. are present in all saved Christians. Therefore, since saving faith comes with this POWER from God and not man’s effort alone, it is true that faith alone for justification does not exist alone. It comes with God POWER!

  73. Mark,

    Glad to know about 2 Cor 13!

    You said:

    Those adressed in the book of Hebrews were going through some “unbelievable” struggles. Yet in Hebrews 12 the writer seems to attribute those struggles to chastening…

    …Could it be that the basis for chastening is primarily Christ-likeness rather than just merely correctiveness?

    …..

    I really don’t think I would say it that way. Christlikeness (holiness) is the aim of the chastening, but the basis is sin / rebellion / childlikess (not Christlikeness). The Hebrews were actually flirting with bailing out on the Lord and running back to a Judaized Christianity to avoid persecution.

    The chastening is for children… a term of child training…because believer can act really immature (even after they’ve matured…just like humans in adulthood).

    🙂

    FRL

  74. Mark,

    Thanks for sharing from your own experience…sounds like you were saved…but God drew you back to Him in His kindness!

    I’d say you were saved and didn’t walk with Him for a period…but that He dealt with you as a child.

    That’s all I mean by carnal!

    That’s all anyone means…all of which puts you in a gracious and patient position to minister to others.

    PTL,

    FRL

  75. Wayne,

    Perhaps you can prove the cliche to be true…but please read my book first. To my knowledge, no one has really dealt with the logic or text on this subject. I think the Roman Catholic church ignored the argument because they knew it would lead folks back to reconcile with Rome (which we see a lot of these days).

    As to Romans 8…it also says:

    11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
    Heirs with Christ

    12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.

    13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

    ….

    The sequence is that the Spirit is in them (completed), and then, that the Spirit will give life to there (mortal) bodies [future tense].

    Obviously we can (not SHOULD) live according to the flesh or the Spirit. God seem to leave some measure of choice / responsibility in place…hence His legitimate basis for giving out Eternal Rewards.

    There are actually two verses that insist we believers can genuinely be fruitless.

    Titus 3:14

    14 And let our people learn to devote themselves to good works, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not be unfruitful.

    2 Peter 1:8

    For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus

    In both cases the exact word in greek is UN + FRUITFUL.

    Grace,

    FRL

  76. Dr. Lybrand,

    My choice of words was unfortunate. You can tell I merely work in a machine tool shop, and am not much of a communicator. What I meant to say was that chastening is to aim all believers into the direction of Christ-likeness, and is not necessarily the result of being in a state of needing to be chastened for sinfulness. The Hebrews were getting ready to bail BECAUSE of the struggles experienced in the middle of the chastening that came on for unmentioned reasons. Could those unmentioned reasons have been to bring them along to Christ-likeness only?

  77. Mark,

    I think that is fair…it isn’t ‘just sin’ that motivates God to chasten…but, I’m pretty sure, it is ‘especially sin’ that motivates Him.

    The goal is holiness…so the place the chastening begins is ‘unholiness’ (aka ‘sin’).

    This is the picture scripturally for parenting; we are helping get the ‘foolishness’ out of our children’s hearts as we ‘child-train’ them.

    If you look at the warning passages in Hebrews, I think you’ll see that the appeals are about how the WILL BE chastened if they don’t endure…

    Grace,

    FRL

    P.S. You communicate fine…communication was just cursed by God at babel!

  78. Dr. Lybrand,

    It is said that “all are partakers”, and that the Lord chastens all whom He loves. God’s program of bringing all of His saints into Christlikeness begins at the very instant that He saves them. Therefore unholiness is surely an issue as the new saint has plenty of baggage that shall fall away as they are chastened by the Father in order to be partakers of His holiness.

  79. Fred,
    Again, thanks for your kindness in this discussion. On the Romans 8 sequence where you mentioned v. 11-13 and I mentioned v. 9 & 14. I think it is a mistake to consider all of the people described in Romans 8:1-14 as believers. Verse 9 is making a distinction between unbelievers and believers when it basically says: You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit if the Spirit dwells in you, and without this Spirit you are not saved. Verse 4 also gives the characteristics of believers as opposed to non-believers. In v. 4 Jesus’s crosswork is applied to who? To those who walk not according to the flesh, but according To the spirit. Then verse 14 again makes the same point as v. 4 and v. 9. Believers are led by the Spirit of God. Therefore from v. 4,9,14 we learn:

    1) If a person is not led by the Spirit of God, he is not saved.
    2) If a person walks according to the flesh, he is not saved.
    3) If a person is in the flesh, he is not saved.

    When a believer who is in the Spirit and walks according to the Spirit sins, it does not mean he is in the flesh and not being led by Christ. His walk is still in a direction according to the Spirit. However, a person who walks according to the flesh [as described by Paul] is continually pursuing a lifestyle of the flesh. Therefore, he is in the flesh continually and he is not being led by the Spirit in any way. He is not saved and his mind is set on the flesh with a hostility toward God (v. 7).

    These verses in Romans 8 distinguish the characteristics of believers from non-believers. It is about the direction of person’s walk and not his perfection in that walk. It is not about justification, but sanctification.

    v. 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

    v. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

    v. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

  80. Wayne,

    Thanks for hanging in there! Romans Eight really can’t be addressing non-believers since the issue is so clearly settled in Chapters 4 and 5.

    The challenge is our tendencies with out theology…either of us could be accused of coming in with a bias on the text…you NEED it to be unbelievers or your view fails. I NEED it to be believers because…oh wait…my view would still be OK! 🙂

    What do you do about verse 13 in Romans 8? In what way does an already dead person die? God is going to kill him? For sinning? Why doesn’t he kill them all?

    Nope…it is definitely believers in view…but in what sense do they die if they fail to walk in the Spirit?

    FRL

  81. Mark,

    Yes…all are sinners is need of chastening from the beginning; but, we aren’t chastened in the same way—why?

    Don’t you think it is simply that we each need different things…different issues dealt with? In chastening they issue is what ‘brings about’ the chastening…it is our specific sin / rebellion issues…just the same as with our parents (only PERFECT)!

    This is a very unconvincing passage to me on this issue because of the clear nature of the warning for abandoning the faith.

    What would be the most compelling passage you think demands we admit that a believer can’t fall into sin as a pattern of life for a significant period of time (the real issue of carnality)?

    Thanks,

    FRL

    FRL

  82. Dr. Lybrand,

    You ask, “What would be the most compelling passage you think demands we admit that a believer can’t fall into sin as a pattern of life for a significant period of time (the real issue of carnality)?

    Thanks,”
    ———–
    You must assume that my definition of the carnal Christian has changed somewhere during this thread. It has not. If your view of what constitutes a carnal Christian is true then Christ is the standard. That being the case then we all are currently walking sin as a pattern of life for a significant period of time. Then chasteing is from the point of salvation until the grave so that we may be partakers of His holiness – Christ being the standard.

    In my view I acknowledge Galatians 5:17. There IS war going on between the indwelling Spirit and our flesh. That being the case then the Father always has need to chasten us all. Hebrews 12:11 indicates that chastening is ALWAYS effectual.

  83. Fred,
    Verse 13 must be taken in context with all of chapter 8 through verse 14. While sanctification is in view, Paul is making distinctions between believers and non-believers. Surely you agree that verse 9 is making a clear distinction between believers and non-believers. Are you going to say there are believers who do not have the Spirit of Christ?

    V. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

  84. Fred,
    IOW, Paul may be addressing believers, but he is making distinctions between and giving characteristics of both believers and non-believers. The whole Epistle of Romans was addressed to believers, but Paul was certainly giving the characteristics of unbelievers in Rom. 1:18-3:20. I have run into this a lot in FG debates where the claim is made that a passage refers to believers since the Epistle was written to believers. I guess this would be asserted in Romans as well if it weren’t so clear in Rom. 1 that Paul was discussing unbelievers.

  85. CARNAL — sensual, worldly, nonspiritual; relating to or given to the crude desires and appetites of the Flesh or body. The apostle Paul contrasts “spiritual people”—that is, those who are under the control of the Holy Spirit—with those who are “carnal”—those under the control of the flesh (1 Cor. 3:1–4; Rom. 8:5–7). The word “carnal” is usually reserved in the New Testament to describe worldly Christians.

    Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Rev. Ed. of: Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary.; Includes Index. (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1995).

    Guys,

    In all honesty, you just simply have a definition that is something you won’t really explain or clarify. Carnal means baby christian…but, carnal means live in sin and never repent. Neither of you have yet to admit the realities of sin except to compare it to the standard of Christ. You confuse apostasy with carnality…and inisist on passages and point that really don’t make the case. I know you aren’t convinced of these things, but it doesn’t change the fact of how unconvincing your arguments really are…

    So, here’s the deal:

    Youngblood, Bruce, and Harrison give a solid definition, but offer a different phrase: WORLDLY CHRISTIANS.

    I’d like to use that to see if we really have common ground. Do you believe Christians can be ‘worldly’? Is there such a thing as a ‘worldly Christian’?

    In my understanding of the scripture, ‘worldly’ means ‘carnal’.

    Thanks,

    FRL

  86. Mark,

    I don’t know what this sentence means / is getting at:

    If your view of what constitutes a carnal Christian is true then Christ is the standard.

    …………………………

    Also you said:

    In my view I acknowledge Galatians 5:17. There IS war going on between the indwelling Spirit and our flesh. That being the case then the Father always has need to chasten us all. Hebrews 12:11 indicates that chastening is ALWAYS effectual.

    …………………………

    Does the ‘war going on’ mean that we are yielding to the flesh the whole time…hence needing ‘chastening’?

    I don’t think we are always yielding to the flesh…we can actually walking in the Spirit and not fulfill those desires.

    We don’t want to but our theology together (I don’t think) by linking a verse from Galatians and a verse from Hebrews. Everything needs to be settled in its own context before we move on.

    Again, Christians can live worldly lives…just the 100s of exhortations prove it alone. Why not warn a believer of the dangers of being worldly…rather than saying it is impossible (or just shows you unsaved)? What an opportunity to encourage people to live by works for their salvation!

    FRL

  87. Wayne,

    Here are your assertions:

    1) If a person is not led by the Spirit of God, he is not saved.
    2) If a person walks according to the flesh, he is not saved.
    3) If a person is in the flesh, he is not saved.

    …………………..

    If I follow your logic, then you are asserting:

    1. Christians are always, and at all times, led by the Spirit.
    2. A Christian can never ever walk according to the flesh.
    3. “in the flesh” is not defined…but does not match being saved.

    I know you don’t believe this…I think…because it equal to saying a Christian can no longer sin / follow sin.

    This is not the flow of Romans 8.

    I wrote a paper on this subject and you may read it here:

    http://www.preciousheart.net/ti/2007/07-1%20Lybrand,%20Fred%20R.%20-%20Romans%208.13%20&%20Security%20of%20the%20Believer.pdf

    Grace,

    FRL

  88. Fred,
    I know we all like to be on offense in these debates. However, you have not answered my question about Rom. 8:9. Paul is either making a distinction between believers and non-believers in verse 9 or there are believers who do not have the indwelling Spirit and do not belong to Christ. Which is it in your view? I would like an answer to that question and I will read your link to the paper.

    Also, your listing of my three assertions must be looked at in context with Rom. 8:1-14. I believe Paul is talking about a person’s basic direction in this passage. He is contrasting whether a person is continually following and being dominated by the flesh or the Spirit. This theme is in play in this passage and is very clear in v. 4, 9, & 14.

    The three conclusions you reach by following my logic are not correct. It is Paul and not me that contrasts a condition he calls being in the flesh and in the Spirit in this passage. I look to that text and try to understand Paul’s point and determine what his definition of the two Spiritual conditions he describes. Clearly he is contrasting believers and non-believers in some if not most of the verses, and some such as v. 13 can be pulled out of context and said to mean that Paul is contrasting two conditions of believers. I agree that v. 13 can be intrepreted this way when considered alone. But, we should consider the whole passage because v. 13 is not a smoking gun that proves the whole passage is speaking of two conditions of believers. VERSE 9 AS WELL AS 4 & 14 MUST BE CONSIDERED AS WELL….

    Thank you,
    Wayne

  89. Dr. Lybrand,

    You ask, “Mark,

    I don’t know what this sentence means / is getting at:

    If your view of what constitutes a carnal Christian is true then Christ is the standard.”
    ——–
    Sorry, I was pressed for time and did not communicate well. That should have read, If your view of what constitutes a carnal Christian is true then I say that none other than Christ can be the standard. My view also has Christ as the standard. I see Paul as being very aware of this in Galatians 4:19.

    What about the late Richard Wurmbrand, who wrote “Tortured For Christ”, who suffered for Christ in prison for many years, coming to judge whether one is worldly or not? What of the late Jim Elliot, who wrote so beautifully of his love for Christ before he suffered martyrdom in South America? What if we had one of the Puritans come to decide who is worldly? They all would look at our cable t.v., our golf clubs, gym equipment, trips to the mountains for hiking, trips to the ball park, trips to the movie theater, ownership of pets and declare us all worldly.

  90. Wayne,

    I’m sorry, but I’m in Vermont just now in a week of training…so my ability to take time with this question is limited.

    I would direct you to the context of Romans 8, which is chapter 7…I, and most of christiandom, take this struggle with ‘indwelling sin’ (note with indwelling Spirit in 8:9) to be one the Christian experiences.

    Verse 9 is simple establishing the fact of the Spirit’s indwelling of the believer so that he may ‘tap into’ the Spirits power. That the Spirit indwells us and that the Spirit controls us are two different issues (though linked by Him).

    Rom 8:11 makes it clear that the “you” being address are saved ones (brothers) and that the giving of ‘life’ is a promise made to those in who the Spirit dwells. So, Romans 7 fits with Romans 8 (and Romans 6 for that matter) to simply say that the believer has divine resources and declarations concerning his freedom through Christ…but, that it still is to be appropriated as we walk in the Spirit.

    All of this nicely fits the fact that we MAY or MAY NOT follow the Spirit’s lead at any given moment. Hence we are to walk in the Spirit (parallels Gal. 5).

    Hope this is a start,

    FRL

    I still find it interesting that you don’t seem willing to admit that we can walk in sin against the leading of the Spirit (if only for a moment). Of course, that would be an admission of carnality the way I understand it. Really, this discussion goes nowhere until you guys admit that Christians can sin…that is the whole point.

    The real word is FREEDOM. Freedom means choice (it must mean this or we are slaves)…God gives us fresh choices by making us new creations and putting His Spirit in us…those who deny carnality as a possibility seem to want to take FREEDOM away…no choice remains be to be faithful to God (hence, in theory, ‘proving’ that one is saved).

  91. Also, Let me add a verse for your consideration:

    Brothers,1 if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Gal 6:1.

    It is noteworthy that this is referencing ‘brothers’ and makes a distinction between those who are spiritual and (at least) one who is not…yet the ‘answer’ is not to question his salvation nor to share the gospel with him…instead it it to gently restore him. The restoration also comes with an exhortation to be careful for oneself, since you too may be tempted (move from spiritual to ‘unspiritual’).

    Thanks,

    FRL

  92. Fred,
    You beat me to the punch in mentioning Rom. 7.

    1) While I agree there is a constant struggle with indwelling sin and you are correct on how most of Christiandom views the wretched man passage of Rom. 7, my view is different. I view the wretched man passage as Paul explaining his pre-conversion attempts at seeking righteousness through law keeping. I differ from my pastor and denomination [PCA] on this point. I have several major differences with covenant theology and reject dispensationalism entirely so it is really hard to place me in a theological box. I even agree with Zane Hodges on his view of Roman 2:6-7.

    2) You seem to be asserting about v. 9 that a person can be saved and not belong to Christ. I find such a view totally unsustainable by Scripture in many places including John 10.

    3) Since Paul is contrasting believers and non-believers in these early verses of Chapt. 8, I have no problem that v. 11 is addressed to believers. Paul does qualify it with, “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you,” which infers that something else results if the Spirit does not dwell in you. Again, Paul is contrasting believers and non-believers with the use of the word IF.

    4) I thought I had affirmed many times in this thread that a regenerated Saint can sin against the Spirit and walk according to the flesh for a while. I admit that.

    Thanks,
    Wayne

  93. Dr. Lybrand,

    Neither Wayne or I myself claim that Christians don’t sin. At various points throughout our discussions I have pointed to Galatians 5:17 and admitted that Christians ALL have a war going on inside. We sometimes lose the battles (we look at the pretty girl on the sidewalk who is wearing almost nothing, we let out with a burst of rage in moments of frustration, we let pride determine how we treat people, we lack patience, we treat our wives like dirt occasionally, we aren’t thankful in all things, we don’t offer up the sacrifice of praise, instead we murmer,…), then other times we do the right things in all these areas.

    It is interesting, though, that you go where Ryrie went in “So Great Salvation”: as though Lordshipers teach that one does not sin if one is a genuine Christian, and that Lordshipers are quick to question the claims of salvation of one overtaken in sin. I can heartily assure you that we Lordshipers affirm the guidelines set down in Galatians 6:1-2. I am a former addict to porn. How can I be anything but desirous to restore a brother overtaken in a trespass, and be gentle in the process?

  94. Dr. Lybrand,

    As far as what you term “resources” available to Christians in Romans chapters 6-8, we Lordshipers instead view those as descriptions of the genuine Christian. Therefore anything mentioned in those passages that seem antithetical to those descriptions is therefore the description of the carnal, or, unregenerate man.

  95. Dr. Lybrand,

    Wayne’s comment didn’t come through so I am posting this for him from email –

    Mark,
    I posted a comment on Fred’s blog that said, “awaiting comment moderation”. I noticed yours went through after mine. Anyway here was my comment FYI:

    Fred,

    You beat me to the punch in mentioning Rom. 7.

    1) While I agree there is a constant struggle with indwelling sin and you are correct on how most of Christiandom views the wretched man passage of Rom. 7, my view is different. I view the wretched man passage as Paul explaining his pre-conversion attempts at seeking righteousness through law keeping. I differ from my pastor and denomination [PCA] on this point. I have several major differences with covenant theology and reject dispensationalism entirely so it is really hard to place me in a theological box. I even agree with Zane Hodges on his view of Roman 2:6-7.

    2) You seem to be asserting about v. 9 that a person can be saved and not belong to Christ. I find such a view totally unsustainable by Scripture in many places including John 10.

    3) Since Paul is contrasting believers and non-believers in these early verses of Chapt. 8, I have no problem that v. 11 is addressed to believers. Paul does qualify it with, “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you,” which infers that something else results if the Spirit does not dwell in you. Again, Paul is contrasting believers and non-believers with the use of the word IF.

    4) I thought I had affirmed many times in this thread that a regenerated Saint can sin against the Spirit and walk according to the flesh for a while. I admit that.

    Thanks,

    Wayne

  96. Wayne,

    Paul is not contrasting, but building his argument. It is common knowledge that the gospel is covered in Romans 4 and 5….with 6 through 8 dealing with sanctification. None of that really interests me compared to your one statement (which I deeply appreciate).

    You said:

    I thought I had affirmed many times in this thread that a regenerated Saint can sin against the Spirit and walk according to the flesh for a while. I admit that.

    ……………….

    I apologize, but I have not heard you so clearly state this…

    All that I, or anyone else means by ‘carnal’ is that a regenerated saint can sin against the Spirit and walk according to the flesh for a while.

    All you and Mike are doing is debating over the length of time…which is of course, the downfall of the no carnality (often Lordship Salvation) view…it is perfectly and indefensibly irrational that one can sin for a while, but not a long while…

    That continuum is simply theoretical / hypothetical…it holds a theology together.

    As soon as you admit one ‘can’ walk in the flesh for ‘a while’ … then, of course, you have no basis to say at which second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year, decade…etc…that one ABSOLUTELY MUST now follow the Spirit…

    This is why i said in another blog that so much of this stuff is simply hypothetical…it cannot be used in realtime / real world…it is basically pragmatically invalid.

    In other words, it is useless to say that one cannot continue in sin, but that one can sin until the point of ‘continuing’ begins!

    Grace,

    FRL

  97. Dr. Lybrand,
    Can you prove from scripture that a saint can go on in sin without his heart smiting him?

    On another note: Your comment above to Wayne here…”Paul is not contrasting, but building his argument. It is common knowledge that the gospel is covered in Romans 4 and 5….with 6 through 8 dealing with sanctification.”
    ———–
    Nowhere is either Wayne or I saying that Paul is contrasting anything. Paul is talking about the WHOLE of the salvation experience in Romans. Justification and Sanctification are indeed different; but are inseparable. Your system separates them, but the Holy Spirit, the Author of the scriptures, does not. You can’t experience Justification without the Holy Spirit coming to dwell within in order to actualize in your life the fact that you are sanctified. It is quite clear that those who are led by the Spirit these are the sons of God. Romans 8:14.

  98. I can only hope that your book doesn’t spend 300 pages trying to tell us that the Bible doesn’t really mean what it plainly says.

    On another note:

    Please consider that Romans 6 does NOT separate the accomplishments of Christ’s crosswork in regards to Justification and Sanctification. Here the accomplishments of Christ’s crosswork are seen – verses 6:1-23 is chalk full of “before” and “after” for the believer. Unless you are willing to create an unbiblical chasm between position and experience. No, sir, the radical divide between Justification and Sanctification is mostly a Chaferian Dispy trait, and is acknowledged only in Free Grace Theology circles. Nowhere is it evident that Paul was thinking of dividing Justification from Sanctification in his leter to the Romans. The burden of proof that he was is on YOUR shoulders. He did not say at the end of chapter 5 ‘well, now that Justification has been covered, now let’s move on to Sanctification’. No sir! Again THAT is your system talking, not the plain exegesis of Romans.

    Mark Pierson

  99. Fred,
    I think our views on regeneration, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and Romans 6-8 are very different and that is what leads us to different views of discipleship and sanctification. You seem to view it as a man centered and self activated process, while I view it as being powered by the Holy Spirit and caused by the Holy Spirit with man willing cooperating. FOR EXAMPLE, you said, then, of course, you have no basis to say at which second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year, decade…etc…that one ABSOLUTELY MUST now follow the Spirit… You interpret my view incorrectly as man “MUST DO”! My real view is different: Sanctification and obedience is NOT something that man MUST DO through his own effort. Sanctification and obedience is something that WILL happen to sinners that have been regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit DUE TO WHAT GOD DOES. Even during the times when a Saint is walking after the flesh, he is convicted of sin and ashamed of his actions. He feels a pressure to repent and get back on track. This is the Holy Spirit at work. As Paul explains in chapters 6-8 he is no longer a slave to sin and the flesh. If so, he would never overcome from his temporary walk in the flesh because there would be no guilt and shame.

    I think Paul very thoroughly contrasts the difference in behavior between believers and non-believers in Romans 8:1-14. Since you appealed to majority opinion on the wretched man passage of Chapter 7 for which I disagree, you should consider the majority opinion on Chapt. 8:1-14 for which I agree.

    Thanks,
    Wayne

  100. Hey Wayne,

    This is a little bit of a ‘come on’ (my dad’s term) when you say I seem, “to view it as a man centered and self activated process”—

    Of course God is the initiator, but man still has responsibility. I suspect we do have different views on Discipleship and Sanctification.

    The key is that we are new creation (hence responsible)…this is what makes me a ‘bad’ Calvinist! I don’t bring my understanding about depravity over to the new creation…we aren’t depraved once regenerated. In this regard we have ‘choice’ (responsibility) because God has given it…and…He’ll hold us accountable for choices we make [even if it is just reckoning / offering our instruments as weapons of righteousness).

    Grace,

    FRL

  101. Dr. Lybrand,

    You say, “Of course God is the initiator, but man still has responsibility. I suspect we do have different views on Discipleship and Sanctification.”
    ——-
    I do not know of a single main-line L/S Calvinist that would deny that the regenerate man still has responsibility. Not MacArthur, not the late J.M. Boice, not Piper.
    ————-
    “The key is that we are new creation (hence responsible)…this is what makes me a ‘bad’ Calvinist! I don’t bring my understanding about depravity over to the new creation…we aren’t depraved once regenerated.”
    ———-
    Can you please show me when and where a main-line L/S Calvinist has said that we ARE depraved once regenerated?!?
    ————-
    “In this regard we have ‘choice’ (responsibility) because God has given it…and…He’ll hold us accountable for choices we make [even if it is just reckoning / offering our instruments as weapons of righteousness).”
    —————-
    MacArthur acknowledges that saints will lose reward at the Judgment Seat of Christ. Piper’s views of rewards at the BEMA have been warmly regarded even by some within the GES, of all places.

    Mark Pierson

  102. Mark,

    I actually was not saying they don’t believe in responsibility…I was dealing with your accusation regarding me (at least it seemed like an accusation).

    I don’t mean to say that they bring their view of depravity over…but their basic assumptions about it. The nature of man is still so dark that God must initiate for any ‘life’ to happen…in truth, God has already placed His life within.

    As to the Judgment Seat of Christ and Piper…I’m a little lost. Everything I’ve read of Piper’s says that he equates the JSOC with the Great White Throne (with the attendant issue of entrance into heaven as all that is in view).

    Of course, GES has a number of curious views (in my opinion)…so I’m not sure what you are referencing.

    Peace,

    FRL

  103. Fred,
    You said… I don’t bring my understanding about depravity over to the new creation…we aren’t depraved once regenerated.

    I agree with this statement. This is one reason of several that I believe the Romans 7 wretched man is unregenerate Paul who is trying to keep the Mosaic Law. I believe the view that the wretched man is a regenerated believer leads to the ‘carnal Christian concept’ and the ‘defeated Christian being perpetually vulnerable to indwelling sin concept’ of many reformers. Ironically the free grace view and these reformers start out on the same road. Both view a regenerated Christian that Paul describes in Romans 7:14-24. While I acknowledge indwelling sin and seasons of giving in to sin, I see the victorious Christian that Paul describes in Romans 8:1-14 as being the true state of a Christian. I think the difference in my view from the other two views is best described by Paul in these Romans 8 verses. Paul is describing regenerated Spirit led Christians here and contrasting their characteristics with the unregenerate. Most reformers commentaries agree with my view of Chapter 8. I don’t see how they can get there considering their Chapter 7 view, but they seem to do it through making it much more complicated than Paul does.

    If anyone brings depravity over to the new creation it would be those who view the wretched man of Romans 7 as a regenerate believe.

    wayne

  104. Dr. Lybrand,

    You say,
    “I actually was not saying they don’t believe in responsibility…I was dealing with your accusation regarding me (at least it seemed like an accusation).”
    ———–
    Brother, I do not remember leveling any accusation against you. This medium (blogs) is not always that good for communication. You can’t see body language and tone of voice with a blog.
    ————
    “I don’t mean to say that they bring their view of depravity over…but their basic assumptions about it. The nature of man is still so dark that God must initiate for any ‘life’ to happen…in truth, God has already placed His life within.”
    ————-
    Going in man is dead in trespasses and sins. He is following the course of this world, the prince of the power of the air… God initiates life within such dead individuals. This life is due to the now indwelling God the Holy Spirit. That individual now goes on to experience the fact that he/she is God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works.
    ——————–
    “As to the Judgment Seat of Christ and Piper…I’m a little lost. Everything I’ve read of Piper’s says that he equates the JSOC with the Great White Throne (with the attendant issue of entrance into heaven as all that is in view).”
    ———–
    It is true that Piper holds to the Judgment Seat of Christ being the Great White Throne Judgment; as do Covenant Theologians and many New Covenant Theologians. The idea that it is distinct from the GWTJ is mostly a dispy trait. My allusion to Piper was because he is very strong on his teachings about Christians living lives that will gain reward at the Judgment Seat of Christ/Great White Thrown Judgment, infront of which we must all stand, saved and unsaved. Here Christians will be rewarded or lose reward. The unsaved as well will be judged, each one according to their works; and finally cast into the Lake of Fire for their names were not found written in the Book of Life.

Leave a Reply to fredlybrand Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *