So there are four verses here,
1 Corinthians 3, 1 through 4. Paul says to them, 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, not
with meat, for hitherto you were not able to bear it, neither
yet now are you able. For ye are yet carnal. For where is among you envying
strife, division? Are ye not carnal, and walk as
men? For one saith, I am of Paul,
another, I am of Apollos. Are ye not carnal? I guess that, like Lucy, I best
do some explaining here in the beginning of our message of the
evening and define the subject that we want to bring before
us here this afternoon, lest any get the wrong idea or take
away the wrong message from it, or, God forbid, that any misunderstand
where exactly the point of emphasis will lay this evening. So the
question, what is a carnal Christian? If there be such a thing, what
is a carnal Christian? Now, we notice here that Paul
called the Corinthians carnal. And notice something else, that
he called them carnal after He had greeted them in this way,
them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be saints. 1 Corinthians chapter 1 and verse
2. Now let me point out something
else. Not only did Paul refer to these as sanctified in Christ
and yet later say that they were carnal, but Paul also referred
to himself as, quote, carnal and sold under sin. And you'll find that in Romans
chapter 7 and verse 14. In that great and wonderful chapter,
you'll find Paul saying that he is carnal and sold under sin. So what is the point here of
contention, you might ask? Why do we refer to the carnal
Christian doctrine as a theory and call it a perversion? Some have even called it a myth. The carnal Christian theory,
which we wish to consider this afternoon, is a teaching popularized
in the sixties by a group that you might have known as Campus
Crusade. If you ever heard of them in
that day. And this carnal Christian doctrine
was developed and pushed and largely disseminated by them. And first of all, it was fed
to a generation of mushy-headed college kids. Then it was espoused
by many adults along the way. The teaching was embodied then
in a set of books published under the name, or by the name, of
a man, Watchman Nee, N-E-E. Now, their premise is this, that
there are two kinds of Christian. There are some Christians who
are spiritual. They understand the things of
God. They have grown in grace and
such like. They have found the secret to
grow and to make progress in the Christian life. They've yielded
themselves up to the will of the Lord and life in the Spirit. They have passed out of the soulish
life, as they like to call it, into the life of the Spirit. In other words, you might see
this way of defining it as you consider this and make a study
of it, that they have, quote, let God mature them to become
obedient to the Spirit and to the Word of God, unquote. That is, they have yielded themselves
up. Then secondly, there are other
Christians, they say, that are carnal and are still soulish,
as they like to use that word. still live under the power and
the influence of sin. Mind you, they are Christians
all right, they have accepted the Lord as their personal Savior,
but they have not grown, they have not dropped off the old
way of life, and been made free from the old sin. They have not
made progress in the Christian life, and this can last for decades,
we are told, by those that teach it, some even, that it can last
all the days of their life, that they are a Christian, but a carnal
Christian, and remain so. Now here are some quotes. Word
for word, line for line, out of the book by Watchman Nee that
I just referenced. There are three volumes, and
this is something out of volume one. Quote, a carnal Christian
is one who has been born again and has God's life, but instead
of overcoming his flesh, he is overcome by the flesh. Unquote. That's on page 68. From the same page, quote, a
carnal Christian, therefore, is one whose spirit has been
quickened, but who still follows his soul and his body into sin,
unquote. Then on page 79, he speaks of
some that are, quote, have saved," in that their sins have been
forgiven but they lack the strength and the spirituality and the
strength to cease from sinning constantly. On page 85, quote,
how lamentable to find a modern-day Christian achieving no progress
in their spiritual walk after several years yea, even after
decades." Now, this is enough to let us understand what we're
up against and where we are going. And it is enough to see that
the carnal Christian theory teaches that a person, a man or a woman,
can be regenerate, therefore they are justified, they have
their sins forgiven, they are sure for heaven when they die,
but they never become a spiritual, a mature or a grown Christian. Or at least they don't become
so for years and perhaps even decades as they say. And so being
carnal and not spiritual as a Christian, they continue to live in sin. They live without any outward
manifestation of the saving grace of God. They live without the
practice of sanctification, and they are not persevering in the
things of God. Now, if you've ever been exposed
to this or been around it, here is a typical testimony of a carnal
Christian, and I've heard them a long time. It will go something
like this. When I was 8 years old in Bible
school, I accepted Jesus as my personal Savior. Or another might
say, when I was 13 in a revival meeting, I went forward at the
invitation and the altar call and I made a public profession
of my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but then as time went
by, quote, I got away from the Lord as many of us do, unquote. Or maybe you'll hear a college
student say, I prayed the sinner's prayer on a certain occasion. A friend shared Jesus with me. He led me down the Roman road. and I accepted Jesus. Now many of these have been baptized,
they have become church member, but then quickly go on their
way again and are never seen. But they are considered as a
Christian, how be it a carnal one. They have accepted Jesus
as their personal Savior. They have not made Him Lord of
their life. And this is a great distinction
in the carnal Christian doctrine and teaching. That you can make
Jesus your personal Savior, but you do not have to make Him your
Lord of your life. And so to use the phrase, these
are half-saved as they refer to them. Now, pardon an illustration,
but I was personally present when what I'm about to tell you
occurred. I was in a meeting one night
when this actually happened. It was probably in the 70s, perhaps
late 60s, but the pastor brought in this man. He brought in the
spiritual whiz to give his testimony that night in the service. His
testimony was this. When I was a young child, I accepted
Jesus as my personal Savior. But these are the words that
I remember from that man. He said, and I quote, for 39
years, I was my own Lord, unquote. That is, Jesus was his Savior. He had accepted Him. He was saved.
but he had not made Jesus the Lord of his life. He had not
let Jesus become enthroned in his heart, so to speak, to be
Lord of his life. He had not handed the reins to
Jesus. Now what about this kind of teaching? that one can accept Jesus as
a personal Savior and not take Him as Lord, and that may last
years and years. How does this square up with
the Scripture, is our question. Does the Scripture justify such
a distinction? Is this a distinction that we
can find anywhere set forth in the Scripture that there is such
a thing as a carnal Christian in this life. Can one be a Christian
rise no higher than being a carnal one all the days of his life? where there is no difference
between the carnal Christian and the natural unregenerate
worldling. No changes, no fruit, no sanctification
in one that is a Christian. Now, if you're interested, you
can go to Google, and go to Google and Google in just the carnal
Christian or the carnal Christian doctrine, and you can access
thousands of articles there concerning the idea or the subject. I lifted this quote from one
teacher of this doctrine there. Quote, after you become a Christian,
you have another choice, either grow in grace or live like a
natural man." Now it's word for word the carnal Christian idea. Now, suffice it to say, this
cursed teaching of theirs is the bastard child of Arminianism. It is an illegitimate offspring
of that system that has made an idol out of the teaching of
free will, and whose idea or theology of salvation is therefore
seriously flawed and deficient. And I believe that Paul said,
preach another Jesus, as he mentions in 2 Corinthians chapter 11 and
verse 4. And they preach another gospel,
which is a different sort from that gospel that Paul preached
in Galatians 1 verse 6 and verse 7. How be it many there are who
have swallowed this lie and this doctrine. They have drank the
poison portion of Kool-Aid and yet they take comfort in it that
though they're carnal, yet are they're a Christian. This covers
a multitude of sin. It lets them be counted as a
Christian who otherwise would not at all qualify except for
the establishing of this special category that has been created
so that more can be regarded as Christians than would otherwise. In other words, what has happened
is that the bar has been lowered so that Any or most can now be
referred to as a Christian. But here is a special category,
if you will. Let me illustrate, if I might. Consider the sorry state of public
education in the country today since being seized by the liberals
and the progressive who have used it for social engineering
and promoting diversity and homosexuality rather than educating the children. Now, as a result of that, many
students who cannot even read and write, and they can't spell
cat, and they don't know where to locate Canada on the world
map, are given a diploma at the end of the year, putting them
in the same class and the same category with those who did study,
who did do the work, who did learn, and who did make the good
and the passing great. Put them both in the same category. Even so, Many who don't live
up to Christian principles are regarded as a Christian by this
category of carnal Christian. As a result, I think we could
say the designation Christian is more or less become meaningless
today. Say a prayer, accept Jesus as
a personal Savior, go down during the invitation, ask Jesus to
get you out of some tight spot, get baptized, attend a Bible
study group here or there, buy you a new Bible, and presto,
you have attained the rank of carnal Christian immediately. Even though the carnal Christian
theory teaching flourished in the Campus Crusade movement in
the 60s and in the 70s. It was not a new teaching by
any means. I wonder if you remember that
statement, God has a wonderful plan for your life. No, God loves
you and has a wonderful plan for your life, but you can fold
it up if you do not fall in with the Lord. I said it's not a new
teaching, by any mean. It might have been given a new
name. It might have been dressed up in some different clothes.
For example, I read on the Internet, some things that I was surprised
at. Number one, that this teaching was endorsed in the writing of
a man called Louis Sperry Schaefer. I always thought him to be stronger
than that, but he that is spiritual is the name of the work, in case
you ever like to trace it out, published in and 18, and when
it hit the stores, it caused quite a stir because of this
teaching that was included in that book. It said this, quote,
a believer could be a new creature and remain a carnal Christian
without any change in character, that his walk is on the same
level of the natural man, unquote. Lewis Perry Schaefer. Secondly,
boy, was I surprised, when I found this reference to the Schofield
Reference Bible, that it gives respect to the so-called carnal
Christian teaching on page 1213 and 1214 in teaching that there
are the three classes of people. And let me make this disclaimer
or this note. I was not able to actually read
with my own eyes in that one reason is, years ago, I found
something in Louis Perry Schaeffer I didn't like, and I sold that
set of commentary. And secondly, I couldn't find
a Scofield Bible on this place to look it out, but I found that
some said it was so. I just want you to understand
that. Now, if you think about it, Arminian Baptists, who hold
the doctrine once saved, always saved, also have a cover for
the carnal Christian. What is it? They call it backsliding. Here it is covered up, that a
true Christian may lose fellowship with the Lord, go out and live
in sin, drop out of church for years, and yet at his or her
funeral they will be buried as a Christian. I've heard some
folks boast, oh, I'm just an old backslider, I guess. Better
to be that than something else. But even those who teach that
true grace may be lost sometimes hedge when it comes to applying
the doctrine unto themselves. There are those who say, yes,
grace can be lost, yes, one may fall back under the condemnation
of sin, but when it hits right at their doorstep, you'll find
them a lot of time hedging as what sin are they graceless again? At what point are they without
grace and back under sin? Here is a true story. I tell
it because I experienced it. Years ago, there was an assembly
of God, pastor, evangelist, radio and TV preacher, who was probably
one of the biggest in his time. He had the largest crowd He preached
two things, sure and certain. And that is, number one, that
eternal security was a false doctrine. That it's deceitful,
it's dangerous, it's deadly, and it's sent many to hell. Number
two, he preached that the doctrine of grace, or Calvinism, was out
of the very pits of hell itself. Turns out this particular individual
was caught cavorting with a prostitute and he lost a lot of his following
from that day unto this. Now, here's my story. I was talking
to a man I knew. This man I had known, he worked
for this evangelist that I will not name, and he was a singer. He was kind of the song and dance
man for the meetings and in the church and such like in the services. And so the next time I saw him,
after this happened, I asked him, I said to him, Brother so-and-so,
I want to ask you a question. He said, all right. I said, Brother
so-and-so, the evangelist, is he in or out of grace right now? And his answer was, Brother McDaniel,
I cannot say, I cannot tell you. They will hedge when it comes
home to them. Now the carnal Christian perversion
has given rise to easy-believism, pushing what I call bargain-basement
cheap shoddy salvation to the lowest bidder. And it's become
a cancer on the churches in our day and our time. It has filled
the churches with unregenerate upon their role, unconverted
members. But the churches rather than
take a stand, risk offending the hypocrites and the world,
the churches have adopted this new category of Christian, carnal
Christian. Say but never grow in grace,
never grow in the knowledge of God, stunted right where they
were cast out of the womb of God's mercy, Spiritual rants,
I guess we might be able to refer unto them. One of the worst evils
that the church has ever adopted is the invitation system when
it came. Thanks to Charles G. Finney,
who is generally considered the father of the altar call, calling
on sinners to make a decision. You've heard what I had to say.
Then, now, and here, make a decision. And, of course, the system gives
free reign to free will, believing in it with all of their heart. Now, let's weigh this carnal
Christian teaching in the light of the scripture. One of the
main proof texts that is used in support of the carnal Christian
theory is that passage that we read in 1 Corinthians chapter
3, where Paul is chiding the Corinthians for their behavior. for being sectarian concerning
their ministers as well as other things as well. He calls them
in verse 1, carnal, that is fleshly, babes in Christ, that is infants
who must feed on milk rather than on the meat of the Word. Now there is a similar language
in Hebrews chapter 5. Let me turn there and let's read
it. Hebrews chapter 5 and we will
begin with verse 11. Hebrews 5 and verse 11. of whom we have many things to
say." That is about Melchizedek. We have many things to say, hard
to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for
the time you ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you
again, which be the first principles of the oracles of God, and are
become such as have need of milk and not of meat. For every one
that uses milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness,
for he is a babe But strong meat belongeth to them that are of
full age, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised
to discern between good and evil. Now, me thinks that those commentaries
are right who say here that Hebrews 5 and verse 11 is the beginning
of a, quote, planned digression, unquote. A planned digression
on the part of the author. So important was the person Melchizedek,
the high priest of God, to the priesthood of Christ that it
is very, very important. Now in 1 Corinthians 3, Paul
is not calling them unregenerate, but as John Gill put it, they
were, in these matters, acting fleshly. He said, had little
judgment in spiritual things and were unskillful in the word
of righteousness, unquote. Paul called the Corinthians carnal. He also called himself carnal
in Romans 7, And verse 14, does he put himself in the category
of today's carnal Christian? Does Paul put himself in the
category of those that are half-saved? Of a person with no change of
character? Who had made no progress in knowledge
and sanctification? Did Paul put himself in the place
of a man who was regenerated yet stunted? I say, perish the
thought, perish the thought. We say every Christian is fleshly
to some degree and in places. Even the most mature Christian,
like Paul, could say, I am carnal. We will be to the end of our
days fleshly in so many things. But a cardinal sin of the Christian
doctrine theory is this. They divide the Saviorhood and
the Lordship of Christ and make them two separate entities. You'll find them doing this,
dividing the Saviorhood and the Lordship of Christ. They teach
that one may take Jesus as what is called a personal Savior. This will save you from hell,
they say, but you may still live like the unregenerate. You may
still continue to do so for many years. If you die, you go to
heaven. Because you made Jesus your Savior,
this makes him only a far escape from hell by this kind of a doctrine. But scripture says he will save
his people from their sin. Matthew 1 and verse 21. Not save them in their sin, but
save them from their sin. While He is Savior, you are your
own Lord. How could such a thing ever be? Then according to the carnal
Christian theory, such as have made Jesus their Savior, their
personal Savior, then have the option of either making Him Lord
of their life or not making Him the Lord of their life. It's
their choice to make once they are a carnal Christian. Let us
point out, this is not a distinction that is made anywhere in the
scripture, is it? This two-parted salvation, where
is it taught? That you may take Christ now,
make Him Lord later. That Jesus comes in two parts. Salvation is in two installments,
separated by years. phase one, phase two, first Savior,
then Lord? Where would we find such a teaching
in the Scripture? This teaching is a blatant rejection,
an attack, a slight, and an insult upon the Lordship of our Christ. It removes the offense of the
Lordship of Christ. For sovereign Lordship is offensive
to the proud flesh of the natural man. He might tolerate Jesus
yonder upon a cross, but not upon a throne. Oh no, says man,
my soul must have rule over my life. Search the scripture. See who cried out unto the Son
of God during His earthly ministry for Him to have mercy or to help
them or to save them. See how they cried out unto our
Lord. I should like to bring forth
Saul, first of all, in the ninth chapter of the book of Acts,
verse 5. Verse 6, you'll find it again
way over in Acts chapter 22. And verse 10, as Saul fell down
on the ground, he addressed the Savior how Lord, what would Thou
have me to do? Not personal Savior, but Lord,
what would Thou have me to do? I read of that man in Acts 15
and verse 22, crying out by the wayside, Have mercy on me, O
Lord! Thou Son of David. In Matthew 17 and 15, Have mercy
on my son, O Lord. And the word is kurios. Matthew 20 and 30, Have mercy
on us, O Lord, Son of David. Mark 10 and 47, Old blind Bartimaeus
heard that Jesus was coming, set by the side of the road,
and cried out, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me. And was Paul
right? Romans 10 and verse 9. that if
thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus Christ, thou shalt
be saved. One cannot love Jesus as Savior
and despise Him as Lord. One cannot have Him as Savior
and not have Him as Lord. Imagine, as an example, two people
getting married. And one of those persons saying
at their wedding, look, I'll take you as my husband or as
my wife, as the case may be, but don't you expect me to be
true and to be faithful and to forsake all others and to love
you above all others. Someday I might decide to, but
don't expect it out of me now." Well then, neither can a sinner
bargain with Christ to say, I will accept you as my Savior, but
not as my Lord, not at this time in my life. Another failing of
the carnal Christian heresy is their shabby treatment of the
doctrine of regeneration or the new birth. that one can be born
of God, born of the Spirit, born from above, and that new life
stunted and stifled so as to never come to anything, never
brought forth, never produce any fruit. Of course, their first
era concerning regeneration is huge because they think that
one is regenerated or that one is born again through their act
of believing. They're in error here to begin
with. They hold to decisional regeneration. They teach that one can will
to be or not be born again. Decisional regeneration. That they decide to let Jesus
work the new birth in them. This in respect to their darling
idol of free will, which they hold in such high esteem and
they bow down to it, doing obeisance unto it. This Luciferian idol
that they told about called free will. Here's how one defined
free will. Back to that book again by Watchman
Nee. Quote, we should bear in mind
that man exercises a free will. This means that man is sovereign,
that he has a sovereign will. What he disapproves should not
be forced on him. What he opposes should not be
coerced. Free will signifies that a man
can choose what he wants End of, quote, volume three, page
76. Then again, he speaks of, you
listen to this, he actually puts these words on the paper, quote,
the sovereign independent free will of man, unquote. A faulty view of regeneration
leads to other eras in applying the great salvation of the Lord. Now by the carnal Christian view,
you have a born-again person without sanctification. You have
a born-again person without persevering in the faith, without any practical
godliness, without growing in grace or knowledge of God and
the things of God, and still living maybe for years like a
natural man who has no regeneration. This is contrary to the scripture.
Job 17 and 9, the righteous shall hold on his way. Proverbs 24,
16, a just man falls seven times and rises up again, but the wicked
shall fall into mischief. Without holiness, no man shall
see the Lord, Hebrews chapter 12 and verse 14. So we see that it is a practical
impossibility for one to be regenerate, born of God, and go no further. Conclusion. Closing. The carnal
Christian doctrine was invented to cover graceless professors,
and more can be counted as Christians if we have carnal Christians,
to broaden out the narrow way and give false hope and assurance
to many, And let many count their worldly loved ones as Christians,
albeit a carnal one after all. Back yonder, they accepted Jesus
as their personal Savior. Jesus is Lord of all. He is Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And they who are born of God
The evidence is manifested. Now don't say all Christians
grow at the same level, all have the same knowledge, all have
the same problem. No, we don't say that, but we
do say that all bring forth fruit, all do grow, though all be fleshly
in some things and matters.