Carnal Christians: Is There Such a Thing?

[mattfivefour]

Since people seem to be unsure about the believer and the issue of “clothing”, I took the time to review some seminary level commentaries. I stopped after reading five of them on several different websites and a Liberty University hard copy one I have at home.

I stopped because every single one agreed with what I typed above. I think maybe if I’m misunderstood ya’ll would trust the commentaries so feel free to go to Biblehub, Bible Gateway or any of those places and look up the commentary on the letter to Laodicea for yourselves.

This one is from Ellicott’s commentary for English readers showing the Biblical concept of apparel being put on and stripped off both by God or by the believer’s own actions. Pay close attention to the Revelation 16:15 verse. This is our Lord speaking. “Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watches, and KEEPS his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.”:

"White raiment.—The putting on of apparel and the stripping of it off were tokens of honour and humiliation. (See 2Samuel 10:1; Isa. 67:2,3; Hosea 2:3; Hosea 2:9; Zechariah 3:3-5; Revelation 16:15; Luke 15:22.) The wedding-feast was at hand. The unclad would then be put to shame (Matthew 22:11-13). Let them be prepared against this by putting on Christ (Colossians 3:10-14) and His righteousness (Philippians 3:9), that the shame of their nakedness do not appear—or, much better, be not made manifest."

The concept is sound, and the commentaries also agree with the rest of my understanding on the letter to Laodicea. Just wanted to show you guys I wasn’t just making this up. But anyway, this whole question is probably off topic anyway. Take care. Love in Christ.

Two things, brother.

First—and with the greatest respect to the venerable Mr Ellicott—Revelation 16:15 is not speaking to Christians in this age of grace. It is speaking to those who become believers in Christ during the Great Tribulation. Their salvation is not guaranteed by the sealing of the Holy Spirit by their faith in the finished work of Christ; but by their keeping themselves in the love of God by obedience to God's Word. God will help them, but He does not indwell them. They do not have on the wedding clothes that we possess; they are not part of the Bride.

Second, the good brother's words: "The wedding feast was at hand. The unclad would then be put to shame." Put to shame? I suggest it will be a little more than shame, brother! What does Scripture say? Jesus tells us in Matthew 22:11-13.

""And the king having entered in to see those reclining, he beheld a man there not being dressed in wedding clothes. And he says to him, ‘Friend, how did you enter here not having a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Having bound his hands and feet, cast him out into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth.’"​

No, brother, according to our Lord, the one not wearing wedding clothes will not be merely put to shame, he will be cast into Hell. Our wedding clothes are the linen of Christ's righteousness that is put on us at salvation.

 

[joshuaisme]

My friend, I think you are confusing position with condition.

I know you point to the fact that the same word is used for “wretched” in both Romans 7:24 and Revelation 3:17. These are its only two appearances in the Bible. The word is ταλαίπωρος (talaíporos) an adjective that means wretched or miserable, coming from a noun that means misery or distress. But dictionaries are not the correct way to translate and understand God’s Word. Context is the key. So let’s look at the context and each writer’s purpose.

Paul, in Romans 7:24, is speaking of his condition. That is clear from the context. There is no doubt as to his position, for—without having to compose a complete commentary of Romans 5-through 8—it is clear that Paul is saved and therefore speaking in Chapter 7 of his saved experience. I’ll allow Romans 7:5-6 support that (Since we are looking at actual words, throughout this post I am going to use the Berean Literal Bible translation. It is not as readable, but it is extremely accurate):

“For while we were in the flesh, the passions of sins that were through the Law were at work in our members, to the bringing forth of fruit to death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that which we were bound, in order for us to serve in newness of the Spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.”​

So he is saved, but struggling with the flesh. Don ‘t let the word sin and sins confuse you when attempting to understand Romans. If you go to the Greek, you will find that in almost every case —once Paul begins teaching the doctrines of the sin and grace, starting with the 5th chapter of Romans— the word translated sin is preceded by the definite article. In other words, the original is not simply “sin” but “the sin.“ This is not speaking, then of specific sins, but of the sin nature that produces sins in their many forms. We can see this clearly in Romans 5:12 which begins, literally, with the words:

“Because of this, just as through one man the sin into the world entered …”​

So, Paul is speaking of the sin nature. And in these chapters it is against this nature that he is struggling. (Another way of referring to the sin nature is “the flesh” or “the old man”.) The climax of this struggle comes at the moment when he cries out “O wretched man that I am!” (It is even stronger in force in the Greek!) And it is at this point that the solution is found: the same Christ who saved Him by delivering him from the penalty of sin has also delivered Him from the power of sin by providing a way of victory: the life of faith. Therefore, as Romans 8:1 begins:

“Therefore there is now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus. For the Law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the Law of sin and death." For of the Law being powerless in that it was weak through the flesh, God, having sent His Son in likeness of sin of flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteousness of the Law should be fulfilled in us not walking according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."​

My purpose in referencing this here is not to produce a commentary on grace and sin as presented in Romans, but simply to point out that when Paul is speaking of himself as “wretched” he is clearly—from the context in which he speaks—referring to his condition in this life, not his position before God.

But now let’s look at the other occurrence of the word ταλαίπωρος.

In Revelation 3:17, I believe it is clear that Christ is speaking of the position of those in the Laodicean church, not merely their condition. If he were speaking of their condition, their wretchedness would be obvious to them as it was to Paul. But no, they believe themselves to be rich and prospering, having need of nothing. It is a church that believed itself to be spiritually complete when, in fact, God says it is wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked. Since clothing represents the imputed righteousness of Christ, the fact that they are naked speaks volumes. In fact, Christ advises them to “buy pure gold (representing true holiness) … and white garments (representing Christ’s righteousness) from Him. I have no difficulty believing that the Laodiceans represent Christians in name only: they are not truly saved. Otherwise God would not have called on them to obtain true holiness and righteousness from Him. Nor would He state that He was outside the door and knocking. His promise that all who heard Him and opened the door to Him is that they would receive His fellowship. And fellowship with God equates to salvation.

Salvation alone permits koinonía (fellowship, communion) with God. None but a saved child of God can have that communion; yet, the Lord here says to the Laodiceans that he will give it to those who open the door and let Him in. Ipso facto, at the time of the writing of that letter, they were not saved. Their wretchedness was not one of their condition on this earth, as, I have noted, they were quite happy with their lives and their church. No, their wretchedness was in regard to their position before God. (And for those who struggle with that idea, please don’t get sidetracked into a debate over OSAS. I clearly stand on the scriptural truth of OSAS: no-one who has been saved can ever lose their salvation.)

Now I know many commentators and many seminarians believe that the Laodiceans were saved and only experienced the lack of God's favor. I disagree with that for the reasons I have stated. Yet even if you desire to believe they were saved, it makes no difference to my argument in this case as their position before God was a condition of wretchedness— because God said it was!

So the wretchedness of the Laodiceans was in their position before God; the wretchedness of Paul was in his condition in this world.
Why is this differentiation important? Because, if one confuses the two, then the wretchedness of one’s condition can be confused with wretchedness of position. And it is to this latter that I was referring in the post with which you took issue. No Christian is in fact “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” Not at all. We are all recipients of the riches of salvation. Before God we walk in white linen in His sight, regardless of our struggles—and even our defeats—with the flesh. Sanctification is the work of God in progressively bringing our condition into alignment with our position. This has nothing to do with making us fit for Heaven: we were instantaneously made fit by what Christ did on the Cross. But it has everything to do with us being shaped into profitable servants on this earth; it has everything to do with being equipped for service here. So,. In position we can never be wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. And that is true Scripture.

But if we argue that, yes, because Paul said he was wretched, a Christian can be wretched, then we are making this the norm. We are telling the Christian that it is understandable you are feeling wretched because even the great apostle felt that way. My friend, it is fixing a brother or sister’s eyes on their condition and comforting them with that. In so doing, we are removing their eyes from where they should be fixed: on their position in Christ! One’s condition pulls downward; one’s position pulls upward!

We will never walk in victory if misery and wretchedness is accepted as some sort of norm for a believer! Only when our eyes are anchored on the truth of who we are in Christ and the great victory He has won for us, will we begin to not only hunger and thirst for victory but will actually begin to live realizing that victory in all areas of our life is entirely possible … not only possible, but that God will bring them to pass in our lives as we maintain our faith in that fact.

Too many Christians look at the picture of the victorious Christian life painted in the New Testament and think to themselves, “I cannot live up to the standards presented. Look at myself. I am so miserably short of that. I can never win!” They are looking at the NT like one looked at the OT—as standards to achieve and rules to obey. But Paul throughout his epistles teaches us that we are set free from that. Rather, the pictures painted in the New Testament should be viewed as a picture of the One whose portrait they paint: Jesus Christ. And since God desires to conform us to that image of Christ, that representation of His nature, transforming us gradually more and more into His image we need to realize that that is our goal. And thus we need to live in faith that this goal will be produced in us; we do not need to be wretched ... any more than Paul was. And here is how to do that:

We need to honestly tell God every day how we have failed, laying the responsibility for that failure solely on our self. We need to ask God for His forgiveness, knowing that He has promised to forgive us as we confess our known sins (1 John 1:9). But then we need to express our complete faith in His work in us, claiming the victory that exists in seed form in each of us who are Christ’s. We need to believe that no matter how many times we may fail, He is perfect and that He who began the good work in us will perform it until the Day when He takes us home … whether by the undertaker or the Uppertaker. We need to walk in the absolute certainty that there is nothing wretched in us but the condition of our old man. And we need to walk knowing that we have been set free and will see that victory made real in our life. It is the Holy Spirit that produces the change in us and He never fails. We simply need to maintain our faith in what Christ did for us on the Cross. Our new man is designed to be a conqueror through Christ. And when we walk by faith in Christ and truly believe all that He did for us, we are conquerors!

If we ever walk thinking ourselves to be wretched we need to ditch that stinking thinking and realize that there is nothing wretched in who we are. We need to shake off the heavy bands, pick ourselves up, and get back on the Rock of our Salvation and believe all that it promises us is ours.

Too bad the majority of churches today do not preach the life of faith, but the life of performance.

I pray this helps someone.

Oh neat thanx for getting back to me, again double respect to you. I thought a forum was for fellowship and discussion and for a second I thought i was in the twilight zone haha.Further i dont have arguments i have questions and the Holy spirit, Im grateful for your knowledge.

Yes this section you wrote is interesting and you have given me a trove to look into. You can see why i have the question due to the word "wretched" being the same and also the study i did on clothing/nakedness.I will look further into why John said "he who says he has no sin is a liar" . I think i have been understanding this question from the view that yes we are saved and our sin is forgotten ,white as snow etc in a Justification sense but then our sin natures during sanctification are so apparent that we must constantly walk with GOD and confess daily to enjoy "practical righteousness" ( white raiment).Nothing to due with his propitiation covering for eternity.

I may be ineloquent for internet land but i believe i was clear that Paul was saved but lamenting his sin nature that he was currently suffering from (that we all do suffer from) and i had acknowledged he wrote the book on OSAS.
So then if old testament believers could be clothed then unclothed and tribulation believers can be clothed then unclothed that leaves you saying that a believer in the "age of grace" cannot be thus treated.I shall think on this.

I most surely will look into this view tho i haven't found one in the commentaries yet I'm sure it exists.
I also didn't see the letter as a performance based theology but as a rebuke to the laodiceans for not witnessing correctly and JESUS himself says in the letter he "chastens whom he loves"(again nothing to do with OSAS).

I guess I have my info to go look into what you say. The other side of that coin is of course that we wouldn't want to say anti-nomianism should reign in the "age of grace" as that would contradict James and Paul and well everyone lol.

So then : All men are naked and wretched before GOD (including believers) EXCEPT church age believers ,got it, lemme go ponder that one. Tx again

 

[joshuaisme]

Two things, brother.

First—and with the greatest respect to the venerable Mr Ellicott—Revelation 16:15 is not speaking to Christians in this age of grace. It is speaking to those who become believers in Christ during the Great Tribulation. Their salvation is not guaranteed by the sealing of the Holy Spirit by their faith in the finished work of Christ; but by their keeping themselves in the love of God by obedience to God's Word. God will help them, but He does not indwell them. They do not have on the wedding clothes that we possess; they are not part of the Bride.

Second, the good brother's words: "The wedding feast was at hand. The unclad would then be put to shame." Put to shame? I suggest it will be a little more than shame, brother! What does Scripture say? Jesus tells us in Matthew 22:11-13.

""And the king having entered in to see those reclining, he beheld a man there not being dressed in wedding clothes. And he says to him, ‘Friend, how did you enter here not having a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Having bound his hands and feet, cast him out into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth.’"​

No, brother, according to our Lord, the one not wearing wedding clothes will not be merely put to shame, he will be cast into Hell. Our wedding clothes are the linen of Christ's righteousness that is put on us at salvation.

K tx..lemme think on this too- this makes me wonder how non-believers arrived at the wedding feast after the tribulation as I've never heard this one before either. I will go research this as well tx.

Im starting to wonder if there are multiple garments or what? I mean we have linen, white raiment, multiple crowns, armor,robe of righteousness/holiness etc..confusing haha.

k thanx..can you recommend a commentary showing your complete view on revelation?

 

[mattfivefour]

I also didn't see the letter as a performance based theology but as a rebuke to the laodiceans for not witnessing correctly and JESUS himself says in the letter he "chastens whom he loves"(again nothing to do with OSAS).

And whom does He love? John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:9-10; and many others. Of course there is a special love for those who accept Christ; and a special love for those who seek to obey Christ; but God loves every soul He created. That is what Scripture says. And how else can we explain a mass murderer or rapist being saved when they truly repent and call on Christ? They will enjoy the same joyful eternity with God as you and I.

I do not think there will be any pleasure in God's heart when He will send a soul to Hell. He created that soul to live with Him forever, but that soul made a conscious choice to live his own way. The Laodiceans called themselves Christians, ca,e together as a church and worshiped together. Since Christ loved them too, , I am sure He was calling to them to repent and become what they thought they were. But it doesn't mean they were already saved.

 

[joshuaisme]

And whom does He love? John 3:16; Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:9-10; and many others. Of course there is a special love for those who accept Christ; and a special love for those who seek to obey Christ; but God loves every soul He created. That is what Scripture says. And how else can we explain a mass murderer or rapist being saved when they truly repent and call on Christ? They will enjoy the same joyful eternity with God as you and I.

I do not think there will be any pleasure in God's heart when He will send a soul to Hell. He created that soul to live with Him forever, but that soul made a conscious choice to live his own way. The Laodiceans called themselves Christians, ca,e together as a church and worshiped together. Since Christ loved them too, , I am sure He was calling to them to repent and become what they thought they were. But it doesn't mean they were already saved.

hmm....well i can see that.
can you recommend a good revelation commentary. doesn't have to be perfect or nothing like that but i wanna see more viewpoints. tx for your time.

 

[Len]

can you recommend a good revelation commentary. doesn't have to be perfect or nothing like that but i wanna see more viewpoints.

The Revelation Record by Henry M Morris

 

[mattfivefour]

hmm....well i can see that.
can you recommend a good revelation commentary. doesn't have to be perfect or nothing like that but i wanna see more viewpoints. tx for your time.

Brother, I have probably 55 Commentaries in my library and have difficulty selecting any of them as the Bible commentary I would recommend to anybody. You see each has its strengths and each has its weaknesses. After all, like us, they were just men. Godly men, no doubt. But just men. And none of us is infallible. Or even close.

Further, many of those whom I would consider among the great commentators of Christian history were heavily influenced in their exegeses by the beliefs of the denominations to whom they belonged and by whom they were ordained.

Another problem is that many of those who wrote their commentaries prior to the past thirty or forty years have had their interpretations of some parts of Scripture overtaken by better knowledge of the archaeology and history of the Bible as well as by a deeper and more accurate knowledge of the two main languages in which it was written.

But even more than that, their understandings and conclusions have often been shown to be wrong by what occurred in 1948 and by the world events that have followed. What seemed inconceivable even 75 years ago actually occurred when Israel once again became a nation and God's timepiece began ticking down the final years of this age.

And yet one more complicating factor is that many of them commented only on specific Bible books and not on the entire Bible.

That all understood, if I had to pick one modern Bible commentary, it would be Dave Guzik's. He served for many years as a Calvary Chapel pastor in various US locations, was a missionary in Europe, the president of the Calvary Chapel Bible College there, and for many years has been the teaching pastor at Calvary Chapel in Santa Barbara, CA. Many of Dave's teachings can be found in the Blue Letter Bible. But his own website contains more than 11,000 pages of Bible commentary. I may not agree with Dave on every single point, but it is extremely rare that I disagree completely. You can find his commentary at www.enduringword.com.

 

[Jan51]

Here are some online commentaries on Revelation. I don't agree with everything that they say, but they are all good biblical commentators. There are many views on Revelation, so it's good to be exposed to different possibilities, especially if the author explains why he takes the view he does.

Thomas Constable https://www.planobiblechapel.org/tcon/notes/html/nt/revelation/revelation.htm
Andy Woods http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/76.htm
Tony Garland http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Book_of_Revelation/commentary/htm/commentary.html#3

 

[joshuaisme]

I've been away for a while, thanks for all these recommendations! I'm gonna check out the above. I actually have Dave Guzik in and amongst a list within Blue Letter Bible website but for some reason I always skipped over him and never clicked the name so that should be fun.

I understand no commentary is perfect and we're all imperfect . Thank you for those of you who spent time on this, I appreciate you guys. Love in Christ

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Brother, I have probably 55 Commentaries in my library and have difficulty selecting any of them as the Bible commentary I would recommend to anybody. You see each has its strengths and each has its weaknesses. After all, like us, they were just men. Godly men, no doubt. But just men. And none of us is infallible. Or even close.

Further, many of those whom I would consider among the great commentators of Christian history were heavily influenced in their exegeses by the beliefs of the denominations to whom they belonged and by whom they were ordained.

Another problem is that many of those who wrote their commentaries prior to the past thirty or forty years have had their interpretations of some parts of Scripture overtaken by better knowledge of the archaeology and history of the Bible as well as by a deeper and more accurate knowledge of the two main languages in which it was written.

But even more than that, their understandings and conclusions have often been shown to be wrong by what occurred in 1948 and by the world events that have followed. What seemed inconceivable even 75 years ago actually occurred when Israel once again became a nation and God's timepiece began ticking down the final years of this age.

And yet one more complicating factor is that many of them commented only on specific Bible books and not on the entire Bible.

That all understood, if I had to pick one modern Bible commentary, it would be Dave Guzik's. He served for many years as a Calvary Chapel pastor in various US locations, was a missionary in Europe, the president of the Calvary Chapel Bible College there, and for many years has been the teaching pastor at Calvary Chapel in Santa Barbara, CA. Many of Dave's teachings can be found in the Blue Letter Bible. But his own website contains more than 11,000 pages of Bible commentary. I may not agree with Dave on every single point, but it is extremely rare that I disagree completely. You can find his commentary at www.enduringword.com.

This is a good post brother.
Right on