He That Is Spiritual

I'm borrowing from Lewis Sperry Chafer's 1918 book He That Is Spiritual to make a point.  It used to be believed that you didn't have to make Christ Lord of your life to get saved, but only trust Him as Savior.   Au contraire, you must submit to Him as Lord as well, and accept Him for all that He is--otherwise, you are rejecting Him!

I recently went to a Bible study that an "Arminian" said that there are three kinds of people: unbelievers, carnal Christians, and spiritual Christians  (I sensed this as an urgent and critical issue to address).  My task is to refute this as erroneous thinking because it can lead to many fallacious deductions.  Let's nip this doctrinal credo in the bud!

 Paul said that he could not address the Corinthians (3:1) as "spiritual" but only as "worldly" or "carnal."  "As mere babies in Christ!" They had the "mind of Christ," but were only immature spiritually.  He wasn't creating a new type of believer but reaching out to where they were because a good teacher knows his listeners.  One of the biggest controversies among evangelicals in the '80s was the so-called "easy-believism." (basically assent or acquiescence and not heartfelt faith and the premise that one can "accept Christ" as Savior and not as Lord, thus dichotomizing His offices--we can distinguish them, but not separate them because we must accept them both or we not accepting Him).

A. W. Tozer said, "The Lord will not save those whom He cannot command. He will not divide His offices.  You cannot believe in half-Christ.  We take Him for what He is...."   This is the assumption that salvation is by believing alone apart from any submission to Christ's Lordship, in other words, that salvation is free but it doesn't cost you anything either--salvation is a free (but not cheap) gift to those who "accept Christ" for who He is and what He did on our behalf--discipleship can cost you everything, even the ultimate sacrifice of martyrdom.  This controversy goes back to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the persecuted and martyred Lutheran pastor in Nazi Germany, who proclaimed the effect of "cheap grace."  Salvation is indeed free, but don't call it cheap or easy!

This made a whole new category of Christian known as the carnal believer.  Any believer can be carnal or spiritual at times and need milk at times to restore to fellowship--you are not a different brand of  believer just because you can't handle solid food yet.  "We are all one in Christ."  Just because one is carnal doesn't mean he is a carnal Christian, but that he is a Christian who is carnal!  What can happen with the false category of "carnal Christian" is that a person can be living in sin and say, "Oh, it's all right, I'm a carnal Christian!"  We should treat said person as an unbeliever when we see no fruit, and not let him get away with sin. One of the church's duties is discipline.  "If anyone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness..."  (Gal. 6:1). 

All Christians have the "mind of Christ" (there is no elite type of believer or privileged class) and all have their spiritual eyes opened to understand the spiritual dimension and doctrines of the Bible.  The illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit is at work in all believers.  There are two kinds of sinners: lost and justified (or unsaved and saved)!  Luther said we are at the same time just and sinners (per Gal. 2:17)! Christians aren't really called sinners, but sin even though they are justified in God's eyes and treated as just.  Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for their lack of spiritual growth, and the fact that they are sinning. The believer doesn't practice sin according to 1 John 3:9.  They are behaving like immature believers that don't know anything and Paul must tell them the basics all over again or start from scratch, as it were because they hadn't progressed on their own--does Paul need to feed them the milk of the Word all over again?

The issue should be what is saving faith, not what is easy-believism since that lends itself to semantic problems.   One must believe in the heart, not just intellectual assent, to be sure, and more than just agree to dogma because it is not a credo that saves us, but a person to know!   We need to get to know Jesus, not just a church dogma.  Doctrine is necessary, but not sufficient; it isn't enough and we must live out our faith and translate our faith and creed into deeds.  I have no beef with some believer who loves the Lord, even if there is disagreement on a doctrine--we must accept him who is weak in faith.  The strong need to increase in love and the weak in knowledge.  The Scripture distinguishes between the natural man and the spiritual man.  Unbelievers are natural men and cannot fathom Scriptural truth, because they are blind and dead spiritually, and not quickened by the Holy Ghost in regeneration.   God quickens faith within us and it is a supernatural work that gives God the glory.

We are not given free rein to live in the flesh and to "continue in sin, that grace may abound," but given power in the Spirit to become slaves of righteousness, instead of sin; for our sinning proves our slavery, it doesn't demonstrate our freedom!  It should be noted that Christianity is the only faith that is based on divine accomplishment, not a human achievement.

Faith and repentance are divine works in us (cf. 2 Tim. 2:25; Acts 11:18; Acts 18:27; John 6:29; Phil. 1:29; et al.); they are not pre-salvation works or preparations for us to merit salvation in any way; salvation is not merited by any work and we are not saved by works (faith and repentance are not human works), but by grace alone (sola gratia), through faith alone (sola fide) and in Christ alone (soli Christo); the only question is what we mean by these terms.  Faith is manifested by obedience only and not be lip service alone; faith must be translated into deeds to be real genuine saving and living faith (true faith is not static).     Soli Deo Gloria!