Category Archives: Topics

Is There a Difference Between a Carnal and Spirit-Filled Christian?

As a young Christian in my college years, I wrestled a lot with what it meant to be a “spirit-filled” Christian. I had a lot of trouble trying to figure out why I was not always living a more “sanctified” life. (SPOILER ALERT: I still struggle with sin and temptation, of course, all these years later. But hopefully now, I have a more theologically sound way of approaching this!)

I read a number of books written by Christian authors who sought to address this topic of living a “spirit-filled” life. Yet the most memorable thing I read was a small tract put out by Campus Crusade for Christ (now CRU), “Have you made the wonderful discovery of the Spirit-filled life?You can still find it, in a more contemporary form, at CRU’s website.

It had something very much like the above diagram on it, showing the difference between a natural man (a non-believer, essentially, who puts the finite self/ego on the throne of their life, and leaves Christ outside), a spiritual man (a “Spirit-filled” Christian who put Christ on the throne, and has everything in order, in their life), and a carnal man (a Christian, who still has the finite self/ego on the throne, with Christ set off to the side, and disorder in their life).

It was a very gripping image. As a Christian, I knew that I was not a natural man, but I really was not sure if I was a spiritual man. I struggled with sinful impulses all of the time. Based on that illustration, I concluded that I must have been a carnal man.

Well, I was not entirely sure, but that seemed like what the tract was teaching.

Nevertheless, I can say that the idea behind it encouraged me to take my walk with Jesus more seriously. God certainly used that little tract in my life, to get my attention, and spur me on towards a greater depth of spiritual maturity. I know of countless other believers who have benefited from this type of teaching, albeit to varying degrees.

However, after reading this several times over, at various times, I was always left with the nagging question: Have I really crossed the threshold from being a carnal Christian to becoming a spirit-filled Christian, from a carnal man to a spiritual man? How would I know when I had successfully made that jump to that next level, in my spiritual journey?

For some reason, that crucial moment, whereby I could have this life-changing experience, that would give ultimate victory over persistent sin in my Christian life, remained elusive. What was wrong? Was it my lack of faith? My failure to properly surrender everything in my life, and hand it over to God? What was the problem?

Well, it turns out that there was a fundamental error in how I was reading my Bible. While this idea of a “carnal vs. spirit-filled” Christian was well-intended, it failed to accurately interpret the Bible passages that address this issue.

The key passage to look at is 1 Corinthians 2:6-3:4. Drilling down on 1 Corinthians 2:14-15, Paul is describing people as being either “natural” or “spiritual.” The “natural” are the non-believers, whereas the “spiritual” are the believers in Christ.

Paul then chastises the Corinthians for not acting like who they are, as taught in 1 Corinthians 3:1-4. As Christians, the Corinthians were supposed to be “spiritual.” Yet Paul finds the Corinthian Christians to be “people of the flesh” or “carnal.” But was Paul really teaching that the “carnal” were of some third category; that is, “carnal Christians?”

In his exceedingly helpful and short book on the topic, No Quick Fix: Where Higher Life Theology Came From, What It Is, and Why It’s Harmful, Andrew Naselli explains what Paul is getting at:

“Based on the way the Corinthians were acting, Paul could not address them as who they actually were. Although they were people who had the Spirit, they were acting ‘as’ … or ‘like’ people not having the Spirit because people having the Spirit characteristically live a certain way. That is why Paul addresses them this way. He is not laying out three categories into which all people fall: natural, carnal, and spiritual.” (Naselli, Kindle location 1031)

Paul is perfectly aware that Christians can sometimes drift back into old ways of thinking, and fall back into lifestyle choices that discredit their Christian witness.  Naselli continues:

“Believers may temporarily live in a fleshly way but believers by definition live in a characteristically righteous way” (Naselli, Kindle location 1031)

Rather, Paul is calling out the Corinthians to remember who they really are, bought with a price, by the Savior’s blood. If someone who calls themself a “Christian” persists in thinking and living carnally, then there is a strong possibility that such a person is no “Christian” at all. There is no room in Paul’s mind for someone to be in some awkward third category, a “carnal” Christian who is somehow “saved,” but who really is not following after God.

All Christians, at various times in their lives, temporarily lose their focus on Christ. This is not unusual. But the answer to this is to recall what it truly means to be Christian, and not settle for some halfway spot as a “carnal” Christian, convincing themselves that they can somehow squeeze their way into God’s heaven, despite a persistent rebellion against the things of God.

Many people who are drawn to call themselves “carnal Christians” may feel a certain anxiety as to whether or not they really are Christians. The convenient label of “carnal Christian” could be a way to avoid such anxiety.

But perhaps that experience of anxiety is the very thing we need: Am I truly a Christian?

Many have called themselves “Christians” for years, only to spiritually wake up years down the road to realize that they knew nothing about what it meant to truly trust in the Lord, for His saving work in our lives. We can be “religious” for a very long time, with all of the outer trappings to convince others of our spiritual acceptability, and still not not truly know Jesus.

Likewise, there are many who are, in fact, genuine Christians, but who have convinced themselves that they have not yet crossed that threshold from being a “carnal” to a “spirit-filled” Christian. God can surely give us remarkable experiences, where we can give testimony to particular “fillings of the Holy Spirit,” that move us towards greater depths in our walk with Jesus. We can indeed be thankful for such gracious interventions in our lives by God, to spur us onward.

However, at the same time, there are both ups and downs to the Christian life. This is to be expected. Paul’s experience with the Corinthians shows that believers can sometimes take two-steps forward, only to then take three-steps back. But if we truly know that the Holy Spirit is within the believer, sanctifying the believer, slowly and gradually, but nevertheless towards that ultimate goal of being glorified, then we can be comforted that temporary lapses in our spiritual walk do not signal ultimate defeat. Rather, these moments are to give us the opportunity to realize that God has not given up on us. We can turn from our sin, accepting God’s forgiveness, and move on. He will give us the Victory, but it will be according to His timing and His purposes.

Leaning upon God, step-by-step, day-by-day, spending time in God’s Word, over the long haul, brings greater long term fruit than always seeking after some crisis-moment experience, when one can fully “surrender unto God,” that always seems somehow elusive.

As Paul wrote to the Colossians:

To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ” (Colossians 1:27-28 ESV)

May we all trust that the Holy Spirit is working in the life of every true believer, that we may all be presented as mature in Christ, as we walk with Him. AMEN!

This tract, published by the then Campus Crusade for Christ, made the rounds in Christian circles for decades, since the mid-1960s. Many have benefited from its simple message. Others have been confused by it. I was one of those in the latter category.

So, Where Did This Idea of a “Carnal vs. Spirit-Filled” Christian Come From?

My purpose for highlighting this problem over a “carnal vs. spirit-filled” Christian is not to throw anyone else under the bus. This type of teaching has been well-intended over the years, but upon closer scrutiny, it does not deliver what is ultimately promised. This type of teaching was a staple of the Holiness movement, that captivated thousands and thousands of Christians, beginning in the late 19th century, and was prominently featured at the then well-known Keswick conferences, large Christian gatherings held at a beautiful lake district in England, beginning in 1875. Over time, the Keswick Convention began to eventually de-emphasize these teachings, and it is no longer associated with such “early Keswick” ideas today. But some ideas do linger on, in the minds of many Christians. While a variety of these insights may still be of benefit for some, they can be debilitating to others.

This teaching that originally came out of those early Keswick conferences emphasized the importance of being “spirit-filled” as the key to living the so-called “higher life,” or “victorious” Christian living. But the Apostle Paul only mentions being “spirit-filled” once in all of his New Testament letters, Ephesians 5:18. So it seems really out-of-balance to make “spirit-filled” THE crucial factor for “Victorious Living,” as a Christian, when other more common themes of the Apostle Paul are minimized by “Higher Life” teachers. As Andrew Naselli points out, before the 19th century Holiness movement, Christians never placed that much emphasis on being “spirit-filled” (Naselli, Kindle location 1086). For example, many Puritan Bible teachers of the 17th and 18th century, such as the English Puritan, John Owen, commonly understood being “spirit-filled” as a life-long process, and not as a result of some definitive, post-conversion crisis experience.

Thankfully, most modern Bible translations have moved away from the language of a carnal Christian. For example, just look at 1 Corinthians 3:1.  The venerable King James Version has:

“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.” 

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this, but it could be confusing. On the other hand, the NIV takes some of the confusion away:

“Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ.” 

That is, the problem with the Corinthians is that they are still thinking in the manner of being non-believers. They have not matured enough in their faith, to fully understand the impact of what it means to be truly spiritual. There is no special category of a carnal Christian, as taught by late 19th century Keswick theology. Rather, this is simply Paul’s way of saying that the Corinthians are still worldly in their thinking, having not fully grasped yet the depths of their faith.

Sometimes, novel ways of reading the Bible are indeed superior to older ways of understanding Scripture. Christians in the past were surely not perfect, and they did get the Bible wrong at times, on certain matters. But the burden of proof should be on those with such novel interpretations, who might challenge the wealth of tried-and-true interpretations of the Bible, that have stood the test of time.

No Quick Fix: Where Higher Life Theology Came From, What It Is, and Why It’s Harmful, by Andy Naselli, examines why the “carnal vs. spirit-filled” Christian idea fails to adequately reflect the teaching of Scripture.

For a helpful, deeper exploration of this topic, particularly for those who might be still confused about this whole “carnal vs. spirit-filled” Christianity stuff, I would highly recommend Andy Naselli’s No Quick Fix. Andy Naselli blogs at his own website. He also wrote a great book on the Christian conscience, another book I highly recommend and that I reviewed last year.

 


Houston, We Have A Problem

Fifty years ago today, the crew of Apollo 13 safely landed in the Pacific ocean. The ordeal was incredibly stressful, but following an oxygen tank explosion, that crippled the space craft, it was truly amazing that they made it back. The New York Times reports that luck played a major role, in the astronauts safe return. If the explosion had happened much later in the mission, there would have been a much greater chance that a successful return would have been impossible.

But I am not so convinced about that “luck” assessment. Theologically, providence had that role to play. What really stands out is the incredible effort, that the astronauts and the ground crew had, in working together, to solve the problem, and get the astronauts safely back home. That, in and of itself, is a lesson we can all learn.

A fascinating website chronicles the journey of Apollo 13, moment by moment.


Stations of the Cross … in Jerusalem

Walking the fourteen Stations of the Cross is a traditional pilgrimage taken by many Christians for centuries, remembering the route that Jesus took towards the Crucifixion, on Good Friday. Those who participate in this devotional practice normally never have the opportunity to go to Jerusalem itself to do it, along the “Via Dolorosa.”

Though the route has been marked out in Jerusalem, in various ways, since the medieval period, we really do not for sure the exact path Jesus took. Nevertheless, walking the Stations of the Cross can still be a very meaningful, memorable experience.

The last few stations are in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the traditional site of Jesus’ Crucifixion, which makes this year, 2020, all the more weird, as the Church closed recently, due to the threat of COVID-19.  In other words, do not expect many people going down the Via Dolorosa today, on this year’s Good Friday (at least for Western Christians).

I do not know anything about Vic Stefanu, other than that he is a popular travel vlogger on YouTube.  But a few years ago, he walked the Via Dolorosa, in Jerusalem. This has helped me in my Good Friday meditation, to virtually walk the Via Dolorosa:


Was the Coronavirus Bio-Engineered in a Chinese Lab?

As it turns out, it is not just anti-vaccine Christians who buy into conspiracy theories.

UPDATE June 4, 2024: Please read all the way through to the end of this post for an important update.  I finally had an opportunity to revise what I wrote here four years ago, in the early stages of the pandemic, but I wanted to keep the original content preserved as much as possible, aside from some grammatical errors I spotted within a few weeks after originally posting this. PLEASE READ ON….

Conspiracy theories have long fascinated people, particularly when there are a large set of unknowns involved. Sadly, many Christians tend to get taken in by such conspiracy theories, and even some popular preachers use their pulpits to promote interest in such talk.

The 2020 coronavirus pandemic, caused by a tiny virus, COVID-19, provides fertile ground for growing conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theory I hear the most these days is the idea that the virus was bioengineered in a Chinese lab, located at Wuhan, where the outbreak started, in late 2019.

As with all conspiracy theories, there is always a grain of truth. Yes, there is a biomedical lab in Wuhan. Yes, the Chinese authorities did not immediately address the crisis, when it first started, thus allowing COVID-19 infections to spread rapidly. But was the virus somehow leaked out of a biomedical lab, either accidentally, or even worse, intentionally?

Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, and an outspoken follower of Jesus Christ, wrote a blog recently, outlining research that demonstrates that COVID-19 was not an intentional product of bioengineering. Rather, COVID-19 arose naturally. Here is a snippet from Collins’ blog, describing some of the results from the research:

“Existing computer models predicted that the new coronavirus would not bind to ACE2 as well as the SARS virus. However, to their surprise, the researchers found that the spike protein of the new coronavirus actually bound far better than computer predictions, likely because of natural selection on ACE2 that enabled the virus to take advantage of a previously unidentified alternate binding site. Researchers said this provides strong evidence that that new virus was not the product of purposeful manipulation in a lab. In fact, any bioengineer trying to design a coronavirus that threatened human health probably would never have chosen this particular conformation for a spike protein……
…..this study leaves little room to refute a natural origin for COVID-19. And that’s a good thing because it helps us keep focused on what really matters: observing good hygiene, practicing social distancing, and supporting the efforts of all the dedicated health-care professionals and researchers who are working so hard to address this major public health challenge.” 

Read the whole blog article for more details.

… and while you are at it, encourage your fellow Christians to show a little more skepticism when it comes to propagating conspiracy theories. In the meantime, wash your hands, continue your “social distancing,” and pray that a safe, reliable vaccine becomes available soon.

UPDATE June 4, 2024:

This is an important update from four years ago. We know a lot more about the origins of the COVID pandemic than we did in the early stages back in April, 2020. Back then, the reigning hypothesis of the COVID origins was that it had a natural origin, not coming from a lab in Wuhan. What has emerged since then is very disconcerting:

  • Unlike the original SARS virus back in the early 2000s, where a positive link to a natural source for SARS was found in relatively short time, we have yet to find a positive link for a natural source for the COVID-19 pandemic. Four years is long enough to go without some clearly identifiable source for COVID.
  • More scientists have come forward believing that the weight of the evidence has shifted to suggest that COVID had its origins in the Wuhan Lab.  If this lab leak hypothesis is correct, then it is most probably a result of an accident, not some on-purpose leak by the Chinese government intent on trying to kill their own people, which was the most common conspiracy theory being promoted back in early April, 2020.
  • Efforts by other scientists to call into question the natural-origins hypothesis in the early days of the pandemic apparently were rather forceful.  This should not have happened. Freedom of scientific inquiry demands that scientific analysis be done without fear of repercussions from others.
  • Since April, 2020, we have learned that the Wuhan lab received funding for research from the U.S government, but that the safeguards to keep that research from morphing into gain-of-function research were not well established.

When I originally wrote this blog post back in April, 2020, I was not aware of the above pieces of information.  Part of this was simply that we were too early in the growth of the pandemic to know much more than what we already knew.  Time needed to pass, with more eyes on the situation, in order to make an adequate judgment.

Unfortunately, we may never be able to determine if the lab leak hypothesis (by accident, NOT intentional) is correct. In order to determine this, we would need cooperation among all parties involved, including the United States and Chinese governments, and trust seems to be very low right now.

My main concern in writing this earlier version of this blog post was to cast doubt on the conspiracy theory about an INTENTIONAL lab leak, which still seems preposterous to me. It makes no sense for the Chinese government to try to purposely kill thousands and thousands of their own people, when they have a population crisis emerging, due to their one-child birth policies of the recent decades, which has severely limited their future growth as a nation.  This is the reason why I linked to the James White video within the body of the post, which suggests an INTENTIONAL lab leak.

But I should have been more direct in bringing this out, as in looking back over what I wrote it might have given the impression that I was somehow ideologically opposed to an ACCIDENTAL lab leak.  I simply was not sure about the accidental lab leak hypothesis, and I believed that what Francis Collins said at the time was a reasonable judgment at that stage of the pandemic, a judgment that could easily change over time. Looking back, it is reasonable to think that Dr. Collins might have been premature in his assessment.

What I will say is that I trusted our leading scientific authorities at the time, when I should have been more cautious myself.  Sometimes, conspiracy theories can indeed be true.  How all of this conspiracy thinking plays out with COVID-19 still remains to be seen.

 


The Last Supper in Lockdown

This is the most profound, humorous, and theologically disturbing thing you will see during this year’s Holy Week: