# Calvin on 1 Cor. 3:1-4



## Afterthought (Jul 31, 2010)

Commentary on Corinthians - Volume 1 | Christian Classics Ethereal Library


> He does not mean, however, that they were altogether carnal, so as to have not one spark of the Spirit of God — but that they had still greatly too much of carnal sense, so that the flesh prevailed over the Spirit, and did as it were drown out his light. Hence, although they were not altogether destitute of grace, yet, as they had more of the flesh than of the Spirit, they are on that account termed carnal This sufficiently appears from what he immediately adds — that they were babes in Christ; for they would not have been babes had they not been begotten, and that begetting is from the Spirit of God.


So I was wondering about this. Is Calvin advocating an early form of the carnal Christian doctrine of evangelicalism? If not, what is he talking about? I'm pretty sure I saw a thread somewhere in these forums on this, but I couldn't find it again. I can see the context but am still a bit confused--perhaps because I have not read a whole lot of Calvin.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 1, 2010)

He's maybe just recognising the biblical doctrine that sanctification is progressive.

All else being equal we _should be _less carnal 10 years after regeneration than 2 years after regeneration, shouldn't we?

I know there can be and are backslidings of truly regenerate people.


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 1, 2010)

In the aspect immediately under consideration (envy, strife, division, party spirit) these at Corinth were displaying a carnal attitude. Its being rebuked was calculated to bring about repentance and maturity.


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 2, 2010)

Thank you both! It still seems an odd choice of words for Calvin to say without qualifying his statement to mean "with respect to certain aspects of the Corinthians's growth" that "they had more of the flesh than the Spirit." Obviously the problem is that if these people made no progress in their santification for so long yet are still considered regenerate (the "spark of the Spirit") then it appears Calvin is teaching the carnal Christian doctrine. I'm looking through the commentary again, and it does seem Calvin is talking about backsliding at a glance. However, Calvin also says


> For ye were not yet able to bear it That they may not flatter themselves too much on their own discernment, he first of all tells them what he had found among them at the beginning, and then adds, what is still more severe, that the same faults remain among them to this day. For they ought at least, in putting on Christ, to have put off the flesh; and thus we see that Paul complains that the success which his doctrine ought to have had was impeded. For if the hearer does not occasion delay by his slowness, it is the part of a good teacher to be always going up higher, till perfection has been attained.


 and


> 3. For ye are as yet carnal So long as the flesh, that is to say, natural corruption, prevails in a man, it has so completely possession of the man’s mind, that the wisdom of God finds no admittance. Hence, if we would make proficiency in the Lord’s school, we must first of all renounce our own judgment and our own will. Now, although among the Corinthians some sparks of piety were emitted, they were kept under by being choked.


Perhaps people _can_ stay unsanctified for long periods of time after being regenerated? =/ Calvin also says later "He makes use of the same argument, too, in Galatians 5:25 If ye live in the Spirit, walk also in the Spirit For while they were desirous to be regarded as spiritual, he calls them to look at their works, by which they denied what with their mouth they professed (Titus 1:16.)" which could mean that it was never assumed that they really were regenerate and so this is merely a call to repentance to prove that they weren't? Am I off in my thinking? Does anyone have any thoughts on this?


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 2, 2010)

Raymond, without attempting to parse Calvin or defend in toto all that he has said, I would commend to you John Murray's excellent writings on Definitive Sanctification and Progressive Sanctification in his COLLECTED WRITINGS. The church at Corinth is routinely the "poster child" for Christian immaturity, and not without reason. We can see much of ourselves there if we take an honest look. However our Lord does not cast us off but bears with us patiently.


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 2, 2010)

Thank you for that post!

Also, I've read as much as I could on John Murray's thoughts on those online but could not find what he wrote about Progressive Sanctification except through secondary sources. I guess this means I'll have to buy the book to figure out more precisely what Murray said. It appears though from what I've read that "Definitive Sanctification" is the freeing of a person from sin's power and sincere pledge to follow Christ while "Progressive Sanctification" continues on from that point--the two being inseperably linked. If so, then the Corinthians' dilemma makes sense in that they were "Definitively Sanctified" but made little progress in their "Progressive Sanctification" in the areas of ambition, divisions, etc. Idk, I'm just rambling here because sometimes I think I understand something but find out that I don't unless I am able to restate it in my own words properly.


----------

