Beacon dictionary of theology

For Further Reading: Colson, Life Sentence; Lewis,
God in the Dock, 287-300; Geisler, Ethics: Alternatives
and Issues, 240-49. GERARD REED

CARDINAL VIRTUES. See seven cardinal

virtues.

CARNAL CHRISTIANS. "Carnal Christians" involves a contradiction. Christians serve Christ. Carnal persons serve self. Divided loyalty is an unstable and untenable position (Matt. 6:24). It is deadly (Rom. 8:6). But, in some measure, for a time, "babes in Christ" do exist in this perilous condition. Paul addresses "brethren" who are "carnal" (1 Cor. 3:1-4).

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

case, we can hope to correct them through growth in grace.

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.

See law, legalism, christian ethics, ethical relativism, relativism.

For Further Reading: Encyclopaedia Britannica; Ford
and Kelly, s.J., Contemporary Moral Theology, vol. 1
(1960). Alvin Harold Kauffman

CATASTROPHISM. This is the theory that the earth has been affected by one or more cataclysmic events which have modified rocks, landscape, and life. Catastrophism was developed to relate the natural world to the Genesis account of Creation. There are five stages in the historical development of the theory of catastrophism:

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.
   

Christians should carefully weigh the arguments of the proponents of catastrophism. Many attempts have been made to relate the Genesis creation account to the natural world. Many Christians are comfortable with the uniformi-tarian approach advocated by James Hutton, which sees the earth developing over millions of years by processes similar to those we see at work today. Evangelical biblical scholars are divided over questions relating to catastrophism, uniformitarianism, theistic evolution, progressive creation, fiat creation, etc. Easy correlations between the observations of science and simple interpretations of the Scriptures may lead to serious problems. Scientists have a way of unearthing new data which forces a revision of comprehensive theories. The problem is acute when a Christian rests his faith on a particular theory and then has the theory and his faith


knocked down because a new fossil or fact is discovered. The better approach is to keep one's faith solidly anchored in God as Creator and not to place too much confidence in any particular theory which correlates science and theology.

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

For Further Reading: Bube, ed., The Encounter Between Christianity and Science, 135-70; Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, 171-249; Whit-comb, Jr., and Morris, The Genesis Flood; Wonderly, God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments.

Max W. Reams

CATECHISM. A catechism summarizes the principal doctrines of the Christian faith, commonly in question and answer form, and is used for the instruction especially of children. It grew out of the instruction used by the Early Church to lead converts to a desired level of understanding and conduct before baptism. After the nominal conversion of the pagan world, instruction was reoriented to leading children to a personal understanding of and commitment to the faith. The Reformers developed catechisms for this purpose, beginning with the Smaller and Larger Catechisms published by Martin Luther (1529). The use of such books spread throughout Protestantism and was later taken up by Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.

See creed, doctrine, teach, discipling. For Further Reading: NIDNTT, 199-201; ERE, 3:251-56; Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom.

Lee M. Haines

CATHOLIC. The word catholic derives from the Greek term katholikos, which means universal. In historical as well as linguistic usage, the term sustains a richer significance than it has in its common use, reflecting what is universally shared by all Christians, in grace, sacraments, and practices.

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).

See church, body of Christ koinonia, Catholicism, apostles' creed.

For Further Reading: NIDCC

Mel-Thomas Rothwell

CATHOLICISM. An averment by Etienne Gilson, eminent Catholic scholar, suggests the prime meaning of Catholicism—"In the conviction that there is nothing in the world above universal truth lies the very root of intellectual and social liberty" (The Wisdom of Catholicism, 983). However, from that valid, high-minded viewpoint two spheres of Catholicism have evolved. First, a politico-religious order with the See of Rome as its center, and, second, a focus of power and worship at Constantinople known as the Eastern Orthodox church. The East axis accepts the hierarchy, apostolic succession, the episcopate, and the priesthood, but it rules our infallibility of the pope.

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

For Further Reading: Pegis, The Wisdom of Catholicism; Dye, Religions of the World; Wiley, CT, 3:111-16.

Mel-Thomas Rothwell
CATHOLICISM, GREEK—CATHOLICISM, ROMAN

97

CATHOLICISM, GREEK. See eastern orthodoxy.

CATHOLICISM, ROMAN. While the word catholic means "general" or "universal," the words Roman Catholicism refer to the body of Christendom ruled from Rome by the pope, and the teachings, organization, and practices of this body.

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.

Yet the differences are considerable, and they relate to a number of significant matters.

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.
   

See catholicism, church, sacraments, purgatory, justification.