Why the “Carnal Christian Doctrine is Heresy” view,
is the real Heresy.
©2009 (revised 2020)
Earl Jackson ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
This article is being sent forth because of a false teaching that has risen it’s head of late in reformed circles. It is the new and popular teaching that the “Carnal Christian Doctrine is a Heresy”. What you are going to read here is first of all an article written by a man whom I respect, Dr. Stan Murrell, a man whose shoes I am not worthy to unlatch. The article appeared on his website, and it espouses the view that to teach any kind of doctrine of “carnal Christians” is a heresy. Well, I was around when this notion was first presented by some very good men back in the 1970’s, and I did not agree with it then, and I do not agree with it now.
The second part of this article is my letter to Dr. Murrell, explaining the Biblical position as I see it. Dr. Murrell, being very sincere and honest, did modify his position on his website, and he did apologize to his readers for stating that the Bible knows nothing of the doctrine of a carnal Christian. He issued an apology and a clarification on the issue. I have great respect for any man who is willing to change his thinking and try to stay true to what the scriptures teach.
I think you will best benefit from this article by reading it with special attention first of all to Dr. Murrell’s original article. Many reformed teachers are teaching the very same things, it has in fact become quite popular. They do not do it with malice, they do it because they rightly have a strong desire to promote holiness among the people of God. This desire to promote godliness is admirable and needed, but their conclusions are erroneous, because they ignore some of Paul’s plain teachings. I point all this out in my response to Dr. Murrell.
Please realize that I send this forth with the idea of blessing those who may be confused on this subject. I mean no animosity or judgmentalism toward anyone who holds the opposite view. If you hold the view expressed by Dr. Murrell and others, please write to me and give me the verses which prove that I am wrong. I need this information if you have it, and I will include it in this discussion as a way of improving everyone’s knowledge.
Oct. 1, 2009
Dear Doctor Murrell,
You Wrote on your Blog:
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
The Doctrine of the Carnal Christian“One of the great crises of our day is the ever-growing popularity of the teaching known as the carnal Christian. This doctrine sets forth the proposition that after a person becomes a Christian there is a choice to grow in grace, follow the Lord and become a spiritual Christian, or to remain a babe in Christ and live in a fleshly manner like a natural man. Supporters of this teaching point to 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 which reads,
“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?”
Many look to this passage to teach there are three categories of men. That is, there is the natural man who is unconverted, there is the spiritual man who has received Christ as savior and is growing in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, and there is the carnal man. The latter is described as a born again Christian but one who persists in acting like the unconverted.
Perhaps one major reason for the widespread popularity of the doctrine of the carnal Christian can be contributed in part to the teaching of C. I. Scofield and his reference Bible. According to Scofield, Paul divides men into three classes: "Natural" i.e. the Adamic Man, unrenewed through the new birth; "Spiritual" i.e. the renewed man as Spirit-filled and walking in the Spirit in full communion with God; "Carnal," "fleshly," i.e. the renewed man who, walking "after the flesh," and so remains a babe in Christ. But I would suggest that Christians should be concerned with the doctrine of the carnal Christian for several reasons.
First, the teaching adds a new concept to the historic faith of the Christian church. I would exhort God’s people to study the teaching of the church prior to the publication of the modern day theory of the carnal Christian (c. 1909) and see what conservative commentators have said in the past when examining 1 Corinthians 3:1ff. Read for example, The Carnal Professor by Robert Bolton (1572-1631), the complete works of Matthew Henry, Luther, Calvin, Edwards or any Puritan divine and you will notice this teaching is conspicuously absent.
While the church has always acknowledged that individuals do succumb to fleshly interests and are too much swayed by selfish affections even after conversion, there is no warrant for a third distinct category. Consider, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Rom 8:13). Galatians 5:19-21 teaches the same. “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Notice the warning. Those who live a fleshly life–such as that of a “carnal Christian”–will not inherit the kingdom of God. Individuals may profess faith in God but the root of righteousness must produce the fruit of the same. The fruit of righteousness does not delight in carnality but is expressed in “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” (Gal 5:22-24).
Second, the doctrine of the carnal Christian dismisses the two distinct categories of individuals consistently found elsewhere in the Bible.
There are the just and the unjust. Matthew 5:45
There are the wheat and the tares. Matthew 13:24-30
There are the sheep and the goats Matthew 25:31-46
There are those who are saved and those who perish. 2 Corinthians 2:15
There are those who have done good and those who have done evil. John 5:28-29
Third, the doctrine of the carnal Christian does not promote holiness as much as it gives comfort to those who are willfully sinning. The conclusion of the doctrine could easily be that while a person may not get many rewards because of the way they have lived after conversion at least they are secure in their salvation regardless of how they live.
Of course that is not in the intent of the doctrine, but, be that as it may, it is a natural or fleshly response. Someone familiar with this doctrine once confessed to me, “I do not care about others. I know I am going to heaven. I don’t care where others go.” This was from the lips of a man who was unchurched and full of selfish interest. But at least he knew the doctrine of the carnal Christian–which is on the same level as trying to teach a doctrine of the heavenly Devil. If only the man properly understood the biblical teaching of regeneration, then he would have realized that “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor 5:17). The Bible knows of no such thing as a carnal Christian–there are only those who seek to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever over against those who continue to revel in their wicked ways.
POSTED BY: Stanford Murrell AT 06:37 pm
I Strongly Disagree!
I have been a Reformed Baptist for over 40 years, and I became one before it was a popular trend. I have witnessed first hand the development of the doctrinal position which you are espousing, and which has been popularly termed “The Carnal Christian Heresy”. Your position is nothing new. It was first annunciated by Albert N Martin, and was popularized by John Reisinger, Wayne Mack and others. You are simply parroting their mistakes, which should not be presented as Historic Baptist or Reformed principles at all. The idea that the notion of a Carnal Christian is heresy, is itself heresy, and here’s why:
1. It presents a caricature of the true Biblical position.
By quoting C.I.Scofield’s references to three classes of men, you are quoting a very doubtful source. Every Reformed scholar knows that Scofield’s notes are a joke. The correct Biblical view of the Carnal Christian does not create a third kind of man…an in between...who is neither just nor unjust, wheat nor tare, sheep nor goat, saved nor lost. To present the Biblical view this way, is simply a misrepresentation, a straw man, a caricature. And to misrepresent the true Biblical teaching by turning it into some sort of imaginary Scofieldism is unfair and dangerous, because it only presents two views…yours and the imaginary “third class of people” view which you have set up based on a spurious references from Scofield. There is also the true Biblical view, which you did not present. It is Paul’s view that Christians can indeed be Carnal.
2. The notion assumes that the flesh is eradicated in believers. It is not.
You referred to Gal. 5: 22-24 which mentions that they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh. The tense of the verb is aorist, not the completed tense as you suggest. Aorist means that the action of the verb is in progress. “I am crucified with Christ…NEVERTHELESS I LIVE!” (Gal. 2: 20). Crucifixion of the flesh does not imply eradication of the flesh. We still live. We are being crucified. That’s why Paul says:
“Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Rom. 6: 11-13).
There is an ongoing “reckoning” of our death to sin, which occurs in the life of the true believer. Just because he still struggles with the flesh, does not mean that he is a third class of human being. He can indeed be a Christian and be a “carnal babe in Christ” as Paul clearly teaches. “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ” (1Cor. 3: 1). Paul was not speaking here to an imaginary third kind of human being, as you suggest. He is speaking here to people who are “in Christ”. This means that they are sheep, just, saved, wheat and have a desire to do good and bring forth the fruit of righteousness. But they are still “Carnal” just the same.
Your discussion did not deal with Paul’s use of the word “Carnal…Babes in Christ”, but only with Scofield’s imaginary third class of human being. I suggest that you explain how a person can be a Carnal Christian as Paul indicates, rather than pursue a straw man discussion about why there is not three classes of human beings. Please exegete 1Cor. 3: 1 for us, so we can see how Paul is wrong in describing these people as “Carnal Babes in Christ”. You are saying that Carnal Christians do not exist. To quote you “The Bible knows of no such thing as a carnal Christian.” Prove it!
3. When you have exegeted 1Cor 3: 1 and have shown us that Paul is wrong for calling Christians Carnal, then you need to exegete Rom. 7: 14-25 where Paul says: “I am carnal”.
Was Paul a Christian or not? If he was, He says that he was carnal at the time that he wrote Romans as an Apostle of Jesus Christ. Was Paul a Carnal Christian? It definitely appears so. Why didn’t you treat this important passage? You not only didn’t treat it, you didn’t even mention it. Does it not exist in your Bible? It is the clearest Biblical expression of the struggle that Christians have between the spirit and the flesh. To ignore Paul’s statements about himself and about the Corinthian Babes in Christ, is no way to teach the Biblical truths about the doctrine of Carnal Christians. Quite simply, by failing to exegete the appropriate passages, you are the one teaching a heresy, because you have eliminated part of the revealed truth. You are teaching heresy by silence. We must explain what is said, not ignore it, when we are discussing whether something is Biblical or not. It matters not what Matthew Henry, Luther, Calvin, Bolton or any one else said, if we have not heard what Paul said!
What verses or passages instruct you that Paul was teaching a doctrine of which the Bible knows nothing? “The Bible knows of no such thing as a carnal Christian”. If what you say is true, and if this was unknown in the Bible, then it must have been unknown to Paul also? So, then Paul did not know what he was talking about. Right? That’s a serious accusation, implied in your statement. If it is unknown in the Bible, then Paul did not know it either. So prove this! You need to prove it, if you are going to substantiate your statement that the Bible knows nothing of this doctrine. The fact is that the Bible clearly mentions this doctrine, but you have elected to ignore it, so that you can make the false statements you have chosen to make.
I am not judging you. I know that your heart is right, and that you did not present your view maliciously, or with any intention at all to deceive. I understand that you are trying to promote holiness and true Christian living. These things we must do. But in our zeal, we must be careful of how we are representing the Apostles, and the Bible.
The doctrine of carnal believers is not a heresy. It is what Paul taught. The Bible does know of this doctrine. We should quit listening to the opinions of human teachers, even if they are well respected and well meaning, and listen to Paul first…Listen to the Bible first, and then after we have heard God, then if we still want to site human authors ok. But God’s word comes first, not last.
You did not expound any of the relevant verses. I recognized this because I used to do the same thing you have done, before God showed me that I was misrepresenting Paul and the Bible. I used to teach the same heresy that you are teaching i.e. that the doctrine of Carnal Christians is a heresy. Like you, I had a genuine concern for promoting godliness and maturity among believers. There is a great need for this. This is quite admirable. Holiness is needed among God’s people, especially in our age of shallow doctrine and shallow Christians. But if in my zeal to promote holiness, I threw out another important truth. I tossed out the baby with the bathwater. I disregarded Paul’s plain words, and imagined that they were foreign to the Bible. Then I have done a great disservice to the cause of God and truth. That is what you have done by denying Paul’s teaching that there are indeed Carnal Christians. The reason that the puritans and writers before 1906 did not teach the three kinds of people view, is because it is not in the Bible. It has nothing to do with the true Biblical Carnal Christian doctrine taught by Paul. I am not suggesting that we adopt any views that are not in the Bible. Paul discussed himself as a Carnal Christian, and he discussed the Corinthians in the same way. It’s in the Bible. The Bible does know of it! By failing to discuss Paul’s teachings, and by discussing puritans in contrast to Scofield, you have neglected the Bible truths on this point.
Until you exegete the pertinent passages, you should remove your article and apologize to your readers, who may have been confused by your erroneous viewpoint, which is not based upon anything in the Bible. If it is based upon the Scriptures, then quote that blessed book and not Scofield or the puritans. It’s simple. Your readers deserve exposition, not opinions.
I mean no disrespect. I value and appreciate your ministry. I just don’t agree with you on this point, and I hope that you will retract your erroneous misrepresentation of Paul’s doctrine, or at least print this rebuttal on your blog.
Sincerely,Earl Jackson
is the real Heresy.
©2009 (revised 2020)
Earl Jackson ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
This article is being sent forth because of a false teaching that has risen it’s head of late in reformed circles. It is the new and popular teaching that the “Carnal Christian Doctrine is a Heresy”. What you are going to read here is first of all an article written by a man whom I respect, Dr. Stan Murrell, a man whose shoes I am not worthy to unlatch. The article appeared on his website, and it espouses the view that to teach any kind of doctrine of “carnal Christians” is a heresy. Well, I was around when this notion was first presented by some very good men back in the 1970’s, and I did not agree with it then, and I do not agree with it now.
The second part of this article is my letter to Dr. Murrell, explaining the Biblical position as I see it. Dr. Murrell, being very sincere and honest, did modify his position on his website, and he did apologize to his readers for stating that the Bible knows nothing of the doctrine of a carnal Christian. He issued an apology and a clarification on the issue. I have great respect for any man who is willing to change his thinking and try to stay true to what the scriptures teach.
I think you will best benefit from this article by reading it with special attention first of all to Dr. Murrell’s original article. Many reformed teachers are teaching the very same things, it has in fact become quite popular. They do not do it with malice, they do it because they rightly have a strong desire to promote holiness among the people of God. This desire to promote godliness is admirable and needed, but their conclusions are erroneous, because they ignore some of Paul’s plain teachings. I point all this out in my response to Dr. Murrell.
Please realize that I send this forth with the idea of blessing those who may be confused on this subject. I mean no animosity or judgmentalism toward anyone who holds the opposite view. If you hold the view expressed by Dr. Murrell and others, please write to me and give me the verses which prove that I am wrong. I need this information if you have it, and I will include it in this discussion as a way of improving everyone’s knowledge.
Oct. 1, 2009
Dear Doctor Murrell,
You Wrote on your Blog:
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
The Doctrine of the Carnal Christian“One of the great crises of our day is the ever-growing popularity of the teaching known as the carnal Christian. This doctrine sets forth the proposition that after a person becomes a Christian there is a choice to grow in grace, follow the Lord and become a spiritual Christian, or to remain a babe in Christ and live in a fleshly manner like a natural man. Supporters of this teaching point to 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 which reads,
“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?”
Many look to this passage to teach there are three categories of men. That is, there is the natural man who is unconverted, there is the spiritual man who has received Christ as savior and is growing in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, and there is the carnal man. The latter is described as a born again Christian but one who persists in acting like the unconverted.
Perhaps one major reason for the widespread popularity of the doctrine of the carnal Christian can be contributed in part to the teaching of C. I. Scofield and his reference Bible. According to Scofield, Paul divides men into three classes: "Natural" i.e. the Adamic Man, unrenewed through the new birth; "Spiritual" i.e. the renewed man as Spirit-filled and walking in the Spirit in full communion with God; "Carnal," "fleshly," i.e. the renewed man who, walking "after the flesh," and so remains a babe in Christ. But I would suggest that Christians should be concerned with the doctrine of the carnal Christian for several reasons.
First, the teaching adds a new concept to the historic faith of the Christian church. I would exhort God’s people to study the teaching of the church prior to the publication of the modern day theory of the carnal Christian (c. 1909) and see what conservative commentators have said in the past when examining 1 Corinthians 3:1ff. Read for example, The Carnal Professor by Robert Bolton (1572-1631), the complete works of Matthew Henry, Luther, Calvin, Edwards or any Puritan divine and you will notice this teaching is conspicuously absent.
While the church has always acknowledged that individuals do succumb to fleshly interests and are too much swayed by selfish affections even after conversion, there is no warrant for a third distinct category. Consider, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Rom 8:13). Galatians 5:19-21 teaches the same. “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Notice the warning. Those who live a fleshly life–such as that of a “carnal Christian”–will not inherit the kingdom of God. Individuals may profess faith in God but the root of righteousness must produce the fruit of the same. The fruit of righteousness does not delight in carnality but is expressed in “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” (Gal 5:22-24).
Second, the doctrine of the carnal Christian dismisses the two distinct categories of individuals consistently found elsewhere in the Bible.
There are the just and the unjust. Matthew 5:45
There are the wheat and the tares. Matthew 13:24-30
There are the sheep and the goats Matthew 25:31-46
There are those who are saved and those who perish. 2 Corinthians 2:15
There are those who have done good and those who have done evil. John 5:28-29
Third, the doctrine of the carnal Christian does not promote holiness as much as it gives comfort to those who are willfully sinning. The conclusion of the doctrine could easily be that while a person may not get many rewards because of the way they have lived after conversion at least they are secure in their salvation regardless of how they live.
Of course that is not in the intent of the doctrine, but, be that as it may, it is a natural or fleshly response. Someone familiar with this doctrine once confessed to me, “I do not care about others. I know I am going to heaven. I don’t care where others go.” This was from the lips of a man who was unchurched and full of selfish interest. But at least he knew the doctrine of the carnal Christian–which is on the same level as trying to teach a doctrine of the heavenly Devil. If only the man properly understood the biblical teaching of regeneration, then he would have realized that “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor 5:17). The Bible knows of no such thing as a carnal Christian–there are only those who seek to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever over against those who continue to revel in their wicked ways.
POSTED BY: Stanford Murrell AT 06:37 pm
I Strongly Disagree!
I have been a Reformed Baptist for over 40 years, and I became one before it was a popular trend. I have witnessed first hand the development of the doctrinal position which you are espousing, and which has been popularly termed “The Carnal Christian Heresy”. Your position is nothing new. It was first annunciated by Albert N Martin, and was popularized by John Reisinger, Wayne Mack and others. You are simply parroting their mistakes, which should not be presented as Historic Baptist or Reformed principles at all. The idea that the notion of a Carnal Christian is heresy, is itself heresy, and here’s why:
1. It presents a caricature of the true Biblical position.
By quoting C.I.Scofield’s references to three classes of men, you are quoting a very doubtful source. Every Reformed scholar knows that Scofield’s notes are a joke. The correct Biblical view of the Carnal Christian does not create a third kind of man…an in between...who is neither just nor unjust, wheat nor tare, sheep nor goat, saved nor lost. To present the Biblical view this way, is simply a misrepresentation, a straw man, a caricature. And to misrepresent the true Biblical teaching by turning it into some sort of imaginary Scofieldism is unfair and dangerous, because it only presents two views…yours and the imaginary “third class of people” view which you have set up based on a spurious references from Scofield. There is also the true Biblical view, which you did not present. It is Paul’s view that Christians can indeed be Carnal.
2. The notion assumes that the flesh is eradicated in believers. It is not.
You referred to Gal. 5: 22-24 which mentions that they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh. The tense of the verb is aorist, not the completed tense as you suggest. Aorist means that the action of the verb is in progress. “I am crucified with Christ…NEVERTHELESS I LIVE!” (Gal. 2: 20). Crucifixion of the flesh does not imply eradication of the flesh. We still live. We are being crucified. That’s why Paul says:
“Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Rom. 6: 11-13).
There is an ongoing “reckoning” of our death to sin, which occurs in the life of the true believer. Just because he still struggles with the flesh, does not mean that he is a third class of human being. He can indeed be a Christian and be a “carnal babe in Christ” as Paul clearly teaches. “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ” (1Cor. 3: 1). Paul was not speaking here to an imaginary third kind of human being, as you suggest. He is speaking here to people who are “in Christ”. This means that they are sheep, just, saved, wheat and have a desire to do good and bring forth the fruit of righteousness. But they are still “Carnal” just the same.
Your discussion did not deal with Paul’s use of the word “Carnal…Babes in Christ”, but only with Scofield’s imaginary third class of human being. I suggest that you explain how a person can be a Carnal Christian as Paul indicates, rather than pursue a straw man discussion about why there is not three classes of human beings. Please exegete 1Cor. 3: 1 for us, so we can see how Paul is wrong in describing these people as “Carnal Babes in Christ”. You are saying that Carnal Christians do not exist. To quote you “The Bible knows of no such thing as a carnal Christian.” Prove it!
3. When you have exegeted 1Cor 3: 1 and have shown us that Paul is wrong for calling Christians Carnal, then you need to exegete Rom. 7: 14-25 where Paul says: “I am carnal”.
Was Paul a Christian or not? If he was, He says that he was carnal at the time that he wrote Romans as an Apostle of Jesus Christ. Was Paul a Carnal Christian? It definitely appears so. Why didn’t you treat this important passage? You not only didn’t treat it, you didn’t even mention it. Does it not exist in your Bible? It is the clearest Biblical expression of the struggle that Christians have between the spirit and the flesh. To ignore Paul’s statements about himself and about the Corinthian Babes in Christ, is no way to teach the Biblical truths about the doctrine of Carnal Christians. Quite simply, by failing to exegete the appropriate passages, you are the one teaching a heresy, because you have eliminated part of the revealed truth. You are teaching heresy by silence. We must explain what is said, not ignore it, when we are discussing whether something is Biblical or not. It matters not what Matthew Henry, Luther, Calvin, Bolton or any one else said, if we have not heard what Paul said!
What verses or passages instruct you that Paul was teaching a doctrine of which the Bible knows nothing? “The Bible knows of no such thing as a carnal Christian”. If what you say is true, and if this was unknown in the Bible, then it must have been unknown to Paul also? So, then Paul did not know what he was talking about. Right? That’s a serious accusation, implied in your statement. If it is unknown in the Bible, then Paul did not know it either. So prove this! You need to prove it, if you are going to substantiate your statement that the Bible knows nothing of this doctrine. The fact is that the Bible clearly mentions this doctrine, but you have elected to ignore it, so that you can make the false statements you have chosen to make.
I am not judging you. I know that your heart is right, and that you did not present your view maliciously, or with any intention at all to deceive. I understand that you are trying to promote holiness and true Christian living. These things we must do. But in our zeal, we must be careful of how we are representing the Apostles, and the Bible.
The doctrine of carnal believers is not a heresy. It is what Paul taught. The Bible does know of this doctrine. We should quit listening to the opinions of human teachers, even if they are well respected and well meaning, and listen to Paul first…Listen to the Bible first, and then after we have heard God, then if we still want to site human authors ok. But God’s word comes first, not last.
You did not expound any of the relevant verses. I recognized this because I used to do the same thing you have done, before God showed me that I was misrepresenting Paul and the Bible. I used to teach the same heresy that you are teaching i.e. that the doctrine of Carnal Christians is a heresy. Like you, I had a genuine concern for promoting godliness and maturity among believers. There is a great need for this. This is quite admirable. Holiness is needed among God’s people, especially in our age of shallow doctrine and shallow Christians. But if in my zeal to promote holiness, I threw out another important truth. I tossed out the baby with the bathwater. I disregarded Paul’s plain words, and imagined that they were foreign to the Bible. Then I have done a great disservice to the cause of God and truth. That is what you have done by denying Paul’s teaching that there are indeed Carnal Christians. The reason that the puritans and writers before 1906 did not teach the three kinds of people view, is because it is not in the Bible. It has nothing to do with the true Biblical Carnal Christian doctrine taught by Paul. I am not suggesting that we adopt any views that are not in the Bible. Paul discussed himself as a Carnal Christian, and he discussed the Corinthians in the same way. It’s in the Bible. The Bible does know of it! By failing to discuss Paul’s teachings, and by discussing puritans in contrast to Scofield, you have neglected the Bible truths on this point.
Until you exegete the pertinent passages, you should remove your article and apologize to your readers, who may have been confused by your erroneous viewpoint, which is not based upon anything in the Bible. If it is based upon the Scriptures, then quote that blessed book and not Scofield or the puritans. It’s simple. Your readers deserve exposition, not opinions.
I mean no disrespect. I value and appreciate your ministry. I just don’t agree with you on this point, and I hope that you will retract your erroneous misrepresentation of Paul’s doctrine, or at least print this rebuttal on your blog.
Sincerely,Earl Jackson
©2009 E H Jackson
This article may be reproduced on webites and blogs with a direct link from the article back to this website. it may not be republished in any other form without written permission.
This article may be reproduced on webites and blogs with a direct link from the article back to this website. it may not be republished in any other form without written permission.
