For Further Reading: Colson

The Corinthian "babes" are born indeed. But, being victims of arrested development, they are problems to themselves and to others (cf. Heb. 5:12-14). They are "called to be saints" and are, to some degree, "sanctified" (1 Cor. 1:2). But they are not established (v. 8). They are not "spiritual" (3:1). Fruit is lacking. They are "carnal" (sarkinos), overcome by selfish interests (vv. 1-3). They walk as men—not after the Spirit, at least not consis­tently.

Such people are in danger of apostasy and perdition (Heb. 6:7-8). The doublemindedness (Jas. 4:8) cannot continue indefinitely. The bal­ance tips. Christ becomes Lord of all or He ceases to be Lord at all. It is not enough to "call upon the name of the Lord" (1 Cor. 1:2) if one yields to the carnal pull of envy, strife, and factions.

There is a remedy. Entire sanctification is an act of God in which by faith the believer is cleansed from all sin and filled with the Holy Spirit (1 Thess. 5:23-24; 1 John 1:7; Acts 2:4). Be­longing wholly to God, he is enabled to live in the Spirit, to walk after the Spirit (Gal. 5:25; Rom. 8:4), and to bear the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23).

See carnality and humanity double-minded-ness, carnal mind.

For Further Reading: Wesley, Sermon on "Sin in Be­lievers"; Taylor, A Right Conception of Sin, 102-20; Gei-ger, comp., The Word and the Doctrine, 89-138.

Wilber T. Dayton

CARNAL MIND. The carnal mind is a mind-set toward the flesh. As such, it is the opposite of the mind of Christ. Though restrained and counter­acted, it is a mind-set of the believer as well as the worldling, until cleansed by the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Until this cleansing, the believer struggles with conflicting sets of psychic com­plexes within himself, the new life in Christ and the old life of self.

The term the carnal mind is a translation of fo phronema tes sarkos, used three times in Rom. 8:6-7. The phrase in v. 7 is translated "carnal mind" by KJV, NIV; "the mind set on the flesh" by NASB (cf. RSV); "worldly-mindedness" by NBV, and "carnal attitude" by Phillips.

"Attitude" does not do justice to the depth and strength of phronema (as also in Phil. 2:5). Ac­cording to Godet, the term includes both "think­ing and willing." Denney understands "mind" to be "their moral interest, their thought and study" (quoted by Earle, WMNT, 3:145). Vincent says that to "mind" (as a verb) is to "direct the mind to something, and so fo seek or strive for" (Word Stud­ies in the New Testament, 3:90; cf. Matt. 16:23; Phil. 3:19; Col. 3:2).

The carnal mind then is a mind-set or striving for the values represented by sarx, "flesh." This is the world of self, including both appetites and aspirations. It is the opposite of spiritual-mindedness, or the mind set on the values of the Spirit. To be carnally minded (totally) is to be spiritually dead; to be spiritually minded is to be alive and inwardly whole and at rest.

The destructiveness of the carnal mind is ex­plained by its essential hostility toward God ("en­mity," Rom. 8:7). The hostility toward God is the consequence, or inevitable obverse, of the carnal mind's attachment to self. For God is the su­preme threat to the autonomy of self; therefore the carnal mind spontaneously resents and re­sists God. As a principle or disposition of self-willfulness, it "does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so" (v. 7, niv). If the phronema submitted to God, it would cease to be carnal.

Telltale marks of the carnal mind therefore in­clude any form or degree of opposition to God's rule, whether mediated by law in the Bible, by the Spirit in personal demands and claims, or by divinely appointed deputies, such as parents or the church. The deputies may have to be resisted when they themselves violate the rule of God; but this is different from that dispositional set against external authority, per se, which is the very essence of the carnal mind.

The carnal mind is not an entity in the sense of a thing in itself, which can exist in abstraction



from personality. Yet it is an entity in the sense of a subsistent (rather than existent) entity, some­what like love, reason, and beauty. It is a psychic organism of traits which impacts the whole of life with its influence, and which is predictable in its attributes or manifestations. Paul spoke of the "law of sin" and the "sin that dwelleth in me" as an "it," yet obviously he was not intending to im­ply a physical substance. As a subsistent entity it is a more pervasive nature than an opinion, be­lief, prejudice, or attitude—though it tends to impregnate all of these with its own character.

The NT concept of carnality is not to be con­fused with sexuality. Within divine law sex itself is not "carnal" in the sense of being sinful (Heb. 13:4), and a person is not "carnal" simply be­cause he has a strong sexual nature. On the other hand, a person with little interest in sex may be carnally minded; for sarkos can take many forms (Gal. 5:19-21).

Neither should carnality be confused with ma­terial things. Paul refers to wages and material goods as "carnal things" without thereby im­plying that they are sinful or illegitimate (Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11). They are the fleshly and earthly side of life (innocent in themselves) in contrast to the spiritual and heavenly.

The discussion in Romans treats carnal-mindedness and spiritual-mindedness as mutu­ally exclusive absolutes. It is in 1 Corinthians that we discover the possibility of a mixed state. Here Paul pits the spiritual person over against the natural man (psuchikos, or "soulish"), then desig­nates the Corinthians as being neither natural (they are "babes in Christ") nor "spiritual"; rather, they are "carnal" (sarkinos [UBS text], "fleshy" or "fleshly," Thayer). In Corinthians phronema, "mind," is not used but its sense is implied. These unspiritual babes in Christ were still plagued by a mind-set which savored more of the world than of Christ. As evidence Paul pinpoints their cliquishness and party spirit, and more especially their jealousy and quarreling.

That it is possible for true believers to still be infected by a carnal spirit, or carnal-mindedness, is seen not only throughout the Corinthian let­ters, but also in a study of the disciples before Pentecost, supplemented by other major NT por­tions, particularly Hebrews and James. While re­generation brought spiritual life and radical changes, the change was not yet complete. There still remained a cluster of unchristlike traits gath­ered around an inner core, as yet uncleansed, of proneness to self-sovereignty.

The problem in postulating the presence of the carnal mind in believers is in supposing that a regenerate heart, reconciled to God, can still be in a state of enmity toward God. This, of course, is contradictory and not implied. Though pres­ent, the carnal mind is no longer dominant; it is suppressed and denied. The Christian opposes the movements of carnal feelings and attitudes which he occasionally feels within. However, even while loving God, he becomes aware that the old hostility is latent, ready to rise in out­bursts of resentment—even against God—when self is thwarted. It is this self-discovery which humbles Christians and enables them to see the awful nature of their remaining corruption and their desperate need for total cleansing from it.

See cleansing, eradication, carnality and hu­manity, entire sanctification, old man.

For Further Reading: CC 6:202; Wiley, CT, 2:473 ff;
Geiger, The Word and the Doctrine, 127-36; Taylor, Holi-
ness the Finished Foundation (unabridged), 28-46; Pur-
kiser, Sanctification and Its Synonyms, 49-62; WMNT,
3:111-47. Richard S. Taylor

CARNALITY AND HUMANITY. This has to do with what is carnal, and what is simply human, in our conduct. It is an issue particularly in the holiness movement, which teaches that carnality is original sin, and that it is expelled or cleansed or eradicated at the time of one's entire sancti­fication—but that one is of course still in his hu­manity. In this movement, much debating has occurred on what is carnal and what is human— and therefore, on what we can and cannot expect to be cleansed from at the time of our entire sanctification.

Some have taught that such aberrations as im­patience, psychological hostilities, and prejudices are instances of carnality; and that we can expect to be delivered from all such when we receive entire sanctification. Others view such matters as stemming from our humanity, and as needing to be worked through, by God's help, in growth in the holiness life. Impatience might stem from a given kind of temperament, and it is felt that our temperament is not basically changed when we are sanctified wholly.

Also, it is felt that psychological hostilities, such as an aversion to an authority figure, arises in us environmentally through, say, poor up­bringing—-and that we might not necessarily be delivered from them at the time of our entire sanctification. The same is so, it is felt, regarding prejudices, such as a racial bias. Since the apostle Peter was still prejudiced against Gentiles well after Pentecost, the time of his entire sanctifica­tion (see Acts 2:4; 15:8-9; 10—11), it is under­stood that we might have racial and other prejudices after our entire sanctification. In this
CASUISTRY—CATASTROPHISM

95

While many earlier holiness leaders, such as J. A. Wood and J. O. McClurkan, taught the more extreme view of the extirpation of such aberra­tions at the time of our entire sanctification, present holiness theologians tend to understand that they are to be corrected through Christian growth. This, because it is the Adamic sin that we are born with that is expelled at entire sancti­fication; and these other aberrations develop during our lifetime.

See carnal nature, purity and maturity, in­firmities, racism, development (theories of).

For Further Reading: Baldwin, Holiness and the Hu-
man Element; Chambers, Holiness and Human Nature;
Grider, Entire Sanctification, 105-13; Taylor, Life in the
Spirit, 149-68. J. KENNETH GRIDER

CASUISTRY. Casuistry is defined as the art of ap­plying general moral principles to particular cases—applied morality. It is not to be confused with law itself but is the attempt to determine in advance how the law is to be applied to specific possible situations.

While morality has tended to move between the extremes of an outwardly legalistic position, on the one hand, and a more inwardly disposi­tional position on the other, each has tended to develop a casuistry of its own. The legalists rely on logic, while the dispositionalists depend on such inner faculties as conscience, common sense, or sentiment. The former group is the older of the two and is the one to whom the term is often exclusively reserved.

Casuistry often involves elaborate rules which specify the expected action and the appropriate penalties for noncompliance. The rabbinic teach­ings of Judaism and later the Penitential Books of Roman Catholicism were examples of casuistry against which the Reformation found itself in vi­olent disagreement. The Roman Catholic was motivated by fear of losing his soul if he thought for himself. The Protestant was certain that he would lose it if he left his thinking to another.

At its best, casuistry is both necessary and in­escapable. Yet because it tends toward rigid and often petty legalism, the term has come to have a largely negative connotation.

1. 
   During the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries many fossils were found, leading to the belief that the Flood was the source of sediments which buried animals and plants.
   
2. 
   In the early 19th century, George Cuvier proposed a series of catastrophic floods which affected parts of the earth. These floods were later followed by the Great Deluge. The modifi­cation was made to explain geological data which presented serious challenges to the earlier explanation of a single flood.
   
3. 
   Louis Agassiz, attempting to retain special creation and also to answer the naturalists' crit­icism of Cuvier's theory, assumed a series of special creations, punctuated by successive catas­trophes. This seemed to better fit the obser­vations of geologists.
   
4. 
   In the latter part of the 19th and early 20th centuries, catastrophism was essentially replaced by theories Christians had developed to relate not only geology but also Darwin's natural selec­tion to Christian theology.
   
5. 
   In the 1920s, a revival of a form of catas­trophism began, known as flood geology. Repu­diating Cuvier and Agassiz, George Price and others sought to overturn more than a century of geologic work and to return to a simple theory of catastrophism. This activity diminished by the middle of the 20th century. In the 1960s several fundamentalist organizations emerged in re­sponse to an interest in teaching flood geology and special creation in the public schools.
   

See evolution, theistic evolution, creation, creationism, days of creation, darwinism.

Popularly, the term catholic directs attention to the Church of Rome. The word is also used of the Christians of Eastern Orthodoxy. However, the Christians everywhere recognize a deep bond of fellowship among God's people—something transdenominational. Consequently, true catho­licity transcends all ecclesiastical bounds to em­brace believers in a bona fide universal union and allegiance. Jesus prayed, "Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, the name which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, even as We are" (John 17:11, nasb).

Polycarp, martyred bishop of Smyrna about a.d. 156, called believers the "holy catholic church." However, in the popular mind Catholi­cism is predominantly associated with the Rome axis. After the Reformation in the 16th century, a crucially developed Protestant theology, with less ritual, forced a congealing of the beliefs and practices focused in Rome, from which the Prot­estant branch separated. The Rome-dominated division appropriated the title Catholic and be­came a closed socio-political-religious state, a stronghold and citadel of authority and tradition.

Protestantism extended its openness to cover eventually a highly diverse world fellowship, including all Christians of like precious faith. Councils at Nicaea and Chalcedon had proposed to speak under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as to creed and power. Are these rules and stan­dards to be received as church absolutes or as logical propositions, open to debate and subject to change? The Roman See avowed the absolute position, but Protestantism defended a broad stance of faith as an attitude rather than a creed or belief. Beliefs can be limited and compressed in group forms, but faith is representative of be­lieving Christians everywhere regardless of clas­sification or group persuasion. Faith, therefore, stands fair to be the only possible universal pos­ture. A revival of the spiritual reality of true Ca­tholicism integral to all true Christians has developed in Protestantism, especially, in the past three decades. Also, the Roman church has been in the birth pangs of its own Reformation, a mark of which has been a more conciliatory atti­tude toward non-Catholics, which in effect is a greater catholicity of spirit.

See catholic, catholicism (roman). church, eastern orthodoxy

97

Roman Catholicism, through medieval times, consisted of the Western, usually Latin-speaking Christians who accepted the authority of the bishop of Rome, the pope—in distinction from the Eastern, Greek-speaking Christians whose main center was Constantinople; and whose patriarch, after a.d. 1054 (or somewhat there­after), was their main authority.

It was from Roman Catholicism that Protes­tantism stemmed out, in the 16th century—led by Martin Luther (1483-1546) and others.

Many important Christian beliefs are held in common by both Roman Catholicism and Prot­estantism: e.g., the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the virgin birth of Christ, Christ's resurrection, miracles, providence, and heaven and hell.

1. 
   Roman Catholicism teaches that, besides the 66 books of Scripture viewed as canonical by Protestantism generally, there are 14 inter-testamental apocryphal books which were made canonical by the Council of Trent just after Lu­ther's death. Furthermore, it teaches that, besides Scripture, church tradition (e.g., ecumenical and other councils) is authoritative; indeed, it is more authoritative, even, than Scripture. This is in part, for Catholics, because the church decided upon the canon.
   
2. 
   Roman Catholicism also teaches that good works are meritorious, whereas Protestantism teaches that we are justified by faith alone and not by works—although, of course, it empha­sizes the importance of good works after salva­tion.
   
3. 
   Another important difference is in the fact that Roman Catholicism teaches the doctrine of purgatory, as a temporal place where fire will punish those who do not go into eternal hell— for their venial (less grave) sins; and for the tem­poral aspect of the punishment accruing to them for their mortal sins (sins that, if not remedied at all, would occasion a person's eternal punish­ment in hell).
   
4. 
   Still another difference has to do with the sacrament of Holy Communion. Roman Catholi­cism teaches as required dogma that, in this sac­rament, the substance of the bread and wine (but not their appearance) becomes transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ—whereas most Protestants teach that the elements are only symbolical of Christ's body and blood, and that Christ is spiritually (and not literally) present.
   

1. 
   And while both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (generally) teach the virgin birth of Christ, Roman Catholicism teaches (as dogma, since 1854) that Mary herself, when she was conceived in her mother's womb, by normal mar­ital relations, was conceived in such a way that, miraculously, original sin was not passed on to her. Protestants also teach (since Scripture makes it clear, e.g., in 2 Cor. 5:21) that Christ was en­tirely sinless—but on different bases: some, be­cause He did not have a human father, and others of us, because He was a new Adam, a new representative for the race, and did not get repre­sented by the first Adam (so, was not born with original sin).
   
2. 
   Roman Catholicism has taught since 1870 that the teachings of the pope, when speaking ex cathedra (in his most official office, as bishop), are infallible. Protestantism (of the evangelical sort) teaches only the infallibility of the inspired Scriptures.
   
3. 
   Roman Catholicism has a lower view of hu­man sexuality, expressed in marriage, than Prot­estantism has; so that its priests, monks, and nuns are not permitted to marry, whereas, for Protestants, sexuality expressed in marriage is entirely consistent with the most devoted kind of Christian life.
   
4. 
   Whereas Protestants direct prayers only to a member of the Trinity, and usually to God the Father, Roman Catholics often pray directly to certain deceased persons—especially to the Vir­gin Mary.
   
5. 
   Roman Catholicism usually teaches that, besides heaven and hell as eternal states, there is another such state, limbo, where unbaptized in­fants go, due to the guilt of Adamic sin; while Calvinistic Protestants are supposed to teach that unelected babies go into hell due to the guilt of Adamic sin. Arminian evangelicals, however, teach that all babies, if they die, will go into eter­nal heaven, because the guilt of Adamic sin has been cleansed in everyone through the death of Christ, and because the depravity is cleansed, in these cases, by an imputation to the infants, of the cleansing benefits of Christ's atonement.