Are carnal Christian’s saved?

[AdHoc]

21 minutes ago, Stewardofthemystery said:

Peter was actually following “the letter of the law” that the Jews were not to have fellowship with the uncircumcised Gentiles. But Peter was not following “the spirit of the law”as Paul explained below…

Galatians 2:11-16

King James Version

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.”

I think Peter was more worried about what the Jews thought of him hanging around the uncircumcised Gentiles because of “the letter of the law.”
 

Paul understood what the “sign” of circumcision meant by the Holy Spirit, not so sure if Peter fully understood this or not at the time.  
 

But even we today are warned not to have fellowship with the “uncircumcised in heart and mind,”that is to say with “unbelievers.”
So even though Peter was actually following the letter of law, he perhaps did not fully understand or follow the spirit of the law concerning what it truly meant to be “circumcised” by the Holy Spirit.

 

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate the time you took.

The reason I went there was to show that even experienced and long-term Christians can, and do, sin. Peter had seriously damaged the gospel. In John 17:21-23 our Lord Jesus prays thus;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Breaking the unity by not fellowshipping with the ex-Gentile believers did the following;
- It took away the testimony to the world that God had sent Jesus (v.21)
- It hindered the "perfecting" of the saints (v.23)
- It removed the catalyst that would provoke the world to "believe" and "know" that the Father it was Who had sent Jesus (vs.21 & 23)
- It removed the catalyst that would show that the Father "loved" Christians as much as He loved Jesus.

Ephesians 4 shows TWO UNITIES, one in verse 3 and one in verse 13. These two unities are so that the saints stay together because the way God builds His House is by the Head supplying each member and then the members pass on this supply to other members. Peter broke both unities. If this precedent was set by the leading Apostle the Church faced ruin.

Sin is an ever-present threat. WE are free from its power, but only by applying another Law.

[Solus Christus]

3 hours ago, JimmyB said:

Higher English?  You're joking.  Read my previous post.

As in Old English. 

[JimmyB]

41 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

 

For those who are "sensitive" to the language used by the Holy Spirit and for those who refuse other good translations because they are not modern enough, here is Vine of "carnal",

1. sarkikos (σαρκικός, 4559), from sarx, “flesh,” signifies (a) “having the nature of flesh,” i.e., sensual, controlled by animal appetites, governed by human nature, instead of by the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 3:3 (for v. 1, see below; same mss. have it in v. 4); having its seat in the animal nature, or excited by it, 1 Pet. 2:11, “fleshly”; or as the equivalent of “human,” with the added idea of weakness, figuratively of the weapons of spiritual warfare, “of the flesh” (KJV, “carnal”), 2 Cor. 10:4; or with the idea of unspirituality, of human wisdom,“fleshly,” 2 Cor. 1:12; (b) “pertaining to the flesh” (i.e., the body), Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11.¶

Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. (1996). Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Vol. 2, p. 89). Nashville, TN: T. Nelson.

Old English, new English - I guess we'll have to accept "derogatory" descriptions from our God. Consider this; The Holy Spirit says that squabbling among ourselves is a sign that we are carnal. Shall we squabble over Old English today?

Okay, stop squabbling! 

BTW, if 0lde Englyshe is so superior why don't you write in that language in your posts?  God never communicated in Olde Englyshe -- or any English.  The Bible -- God's word -- was originally written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek.

If you need Vine's you're using the wrong translation.

[JimmyB]

7 minutes ago, Solus Christus said:

As in Old English. 

What makes old English higher English?

[Solus Christus]

54 minutes ago, JimmyB said:

What makes old English higher English?

Vocabulary wise. 

Instead of saying “I am annoyed,” you say “I am sorely vexed.” 

Instead of “come from or sent from” you say “begotten” 

Instead of “passion” there is “vehemence.” 

Instead of “hit” you say “smite.” 

Instead of just forgiveness there is the words “atonement” and “propitiation” which are greater in detail about that Jesus not only forgave our sins but bore the wrath for them. 

It is said most people can barely read the dumbed down agrarian version of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, not to mention the original in its Old English. 

From 16th to 19th centuries people knew Latin, and Greek. Queen Elizabeth I Tudor knew Greek so well she read The New Testament in the original Koine Greek! 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stewardofthemystery]

3 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Sin is an ever-present threat. WE are free from its power, but only by applying another Law.

We are “made free” from the power of sin and death when we are “made” a new creature in Christ by being born again of the Holy Spirit.

[JimmyB]

2 hours ago, Solus Christus said:

Vocabulary wise. 

Instead of saying “I am annoyed,” you say “I am sorely vexed.” 

Instead of “come from or sent from” you say “begotten” 

Instead of “passion” there is “vehemence.” 

Instead of “hit” you say “smite.” 

Instead of just forgiveness there is the words “atonement” and “propitiation” which are greater in detail about that Jesus not only forgave our sins but bore the wrath for them. 

It is said most people can barely read the dumbed down agrarian version of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, not to mention the original in its Old English. 

From 16th to 19th centuries people knew Latin, and Greek. Queen Elizabeth I Tudor knew Greek so well she read The New Testament in the original Koine Greek! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is entirely subjective.  

If you say "I am sorely vexed" when you are annoyed, people will lo0ok at ya kinda funny.

I "am begotten from St. Louis" and people will think you're nuts.  If you say "I came from St. Louis, they won't.

If you say "I have a passion for football", people will nod and smile.  If you say "I have a vehemence for football" they will look at you kinda funny and walk away.

If, when playing golf, you say "I hit that ball well" people will applaud.  If you say "I smite that ball well" you will be laughed at.

"Atonement" and "propitiation" are not synonyms for forgiveness.  They mean something entirely different.  Atonement accomplishes forgiveness; propitiation means appeasement.

"It is said most people can barely read the dumbed down agrarian version of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, not to mention the original in its Old English" sounds pompous and is bragging.

"From 16th to 19th centuries people knew Latin, and Greek."  Some people, but many were illiterate.

"Queen Elizabeth I Tudor knew Greek so well she read The New Testament in the original Koine Greek! "  So what!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I detect a certain amount of implied superiority in your post.  If you have mastered olde Englyshe, that doesn't mean that your comprehension is any better than someone who hasn't.  There are many people, including myself, read and understand olde Englyshe but prefer modern translations a) based on better sources and b) translated into the language most of us (including yourself!) use every day.  Perhaps you don't realize that your "exalted" Englyshe was the common tongue of the people in the 16th and 17th centuries.  Tyndale intended for mere ploughboys to understand his translation!

Jesus, when He came to Earth, was a commoner.  There is a reason for that!  Being the Son of God, he did not exalt Himself.

Philippians 5:2-7a, "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,

who, though he existed in the form of God,
    did not regard equality with God
    as something to be grasped,
but emptied himself,
    taking the form of a slave,
    assuming human likeness."

And when He spoke to people -- from the Samaritan woman to Nicodemus -- he did not speak in a lofty language.  In fact, He spoke Aramaic, the dialect of the common people.  If you want to be like Him, don't boast and exalt yourself.
 

[The_Patriot21]

There is no such thing as a "carnal" Christian. Your either a Christian or you ain't.

[AdHoc]

2 hours ago, Stewardofthemystery said:

We are “made free” from the power of sin and death when we are “made” a new creature in Christ by being born again of the Holy Spirit.

I won't dispute that. But the thread is about another matter. The title of the thread FORESEES carnal Christians and asks if they will be still saved. The trend of the answers then went in the direction of

"... is there such a thing as a carnal Christian"?

Well, to this we answer that the Holy Spirit called the Church at Corinth "carnal" - three time in Chapter 3. This ends all arguments because ALL were divided - even the members who were correct. Apollos was wrong and Paul was correct but those who followed Paul were equally "carnal" - not for following Paul, but for DIVIDING themselves into camps.

With the fact that even the correct Christians can be found carnal establsihed, let us examine the inspired record of Romans 7 into 8.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit

Now, there is some dispute among scholars whether Paul was speaking as a man under Law or whether as a Christian. But that does not affect the lesson learned, for Paul CONTRASTS attempting to live under the law of Moses with attempting to live by direct commands from the human spirit. Neither will work EXCEPT if you add the "LIFE" of Christ. The man under the Law of Moses is lost. He cannot keep the Law, even though he might be zealous and love the Lord. And the same man is equally lost if he tries to keep the Laws that Christ gave us (e.g. the Sermon on the Mount) The position of the man trying with all his might to keep the Law finds this;

1. He is unable
2. He discovers that sin dwells in him
3. He discovers that "NO good thing dwells in his flesh" (yes - not one - Gen.6:5)
4. he discovers that a LAW dwells in him
5. Though alive he finds his body provoking death

Continuing to Chapter 8 verse 1 does not say, "there is no sin in them which are in Christ Jesus. It says there is no condemnation ... and then proceeds to imply that BOTH WALKS ARE POSSIBLE. The Christian IS ABLE to walk after the flesh, AND he is ABLE TO walk after the spirit. This said again in 8:4. The righteousness of the Law is ONLY fulfilled in those who walk after the spirit. It is conditional. The rest of the Chapter outlines the advantages of walking after the spirit as opposed to not walking after the spirit.

The bottom line is said in plain language. The Law of LIFE IN Christ Jesus sets me free. But I must take my freedom. Judah are taken captive by Babylon for 70 years. Cyrus of Persia defeats the Babylonians and FREES Judah. But only 2.5% TAKE THEIR FREEDOM and return to Canaan. But this FREEDOM cost them. In regard to the title of the thread, Judah's refusal to take their freedom also cost them. In the Book of Esther they are never called Israel, and God is never mentioned. BUT THEY ARE STILL ISRAELITES. So also the carnal Christian. Christ might stop identifying Himself with them, but their rebirth and partaking of the divine nature was a work of Christ's and cannot be undone.

[Strict Machine]

On 7/23/2023 at 3:59 PM, JimmyB said:

Matthew 13:24-30 (NRSVue), " He [Jesus] put before them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field, but while everybody was asleep an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?’ 28 He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he replied, ‘No, for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’ ”

I very strongly doubt that the weeds (tares) represent "carnal" Christians, since those seeds were sown by an enemy.  BTW, what is your definition of a "carnal Christian"?  I really think that you are stretching the point by that definition.  If a person is a Christian that means that s/he has accepted Jesus as their Savior, and justification is not dependent on works.  Attending church is not a requirement.

As far  as being saved goes, Paul wrote this: Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast."

the weeds in this parable are counterfeit christians, not carnal ones.  someone can be saved without knowing how to renew their mind, i think this is the case for most of us