What the
What?
Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. 1 Cor 9:24-27
Check out Strong's use of castaway (adokimos) here.
I could read some commentaries, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.
I'm interested too in others responses and will ask my hubby tonight. I do know this though-in Ephesians it is said the Holy Spirit is given to us as a guarantee, a deposit, of our salvation. I cling to those words.
ReplyDeleteGood point MamaHen, and I cling, too. I do have trouble also with Jesus saying He never knew some, the wedding garment thing, the parable of the talents, etc....enduring to the end and so on.
DeleteI'm all for eternal security and many passages back that up, but then there's those others...
Great question. The literal sense of the passage is that Paul may be castaway or disqualified if he doesn't keep his body under subjection. The enhanced literal sense is that Paul may not be saved - that he may lose his justification, or turn out never to have been justified - if he unless he is sufficiently holy. In other words, on an even enhanced literal sense, Paul is expressing a strong form of works righteousness. But I don't think that the enhanced literal reading is the plain reading - i.e., the intended, ordinary meaning.
ReplyDeleteThere are many passages in the gospels, Paul's letters, and other NT (and OT) books that, when read literally, seem to preach works righteousness, and that seem to reject assurance. For example, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that whoever does the things He has commanded will find life, and that those who don't won't. I think that the Bible consistently teaches justification by faith through grace alone, and that it teaches assurance. What then are we to make of the passages whose literal senses contradict these teachings? That's a complicated question, and it needs to be answered on a case by case basis, but we need to remember a few things. First, sin does lead to death. Second, justification is normally followed by sanctification. I would say that 1 Cor 9:27 expresses nothing more than these two truths. That is, Paul isn't saying that he will earn salvation through subjecting his body, but that justification is normally followed by santification, and so he should expect to see some real fruit in his life if he has been truly justified. Also, that he will die to sin if he has not been justified. Similarly, when Jesus says do this and live, do that and die, I wouldn't take Him to be preaching works righteousness, but rather that sin leads to death, and holiness is required to stand before God, as Hebrews 12:14. Finally, I would take the Cor passage as an expression of Paul's humility.
Looking forward to the other comments.
There are places where Paul is very grace and then others where he seems very legalistic. It seems like most theologians I have encountered go with one or the other and run with it, explaining the rest away somehow.
DeleteI recently heard a teaching about the differences between Paul and James and how some (including myself) have had a hard time with it. I also understand Martin Luther was none to hip on James or Revelation for the apparent works tone of them.
Anyway, what was pointed out in the lecture was that Paul preached justification without the works of the LAW ie Sabbaths, new moons, rituals, circumcision, but not justifications without GOOD works: love God, love your neighbor, don't be a glutton, drunkard, idolator, fornicator, all the things he mentions in Romans 2 that even the Gentiles without the law knew, deep down, conscience stuff.
Paul taking about keeping his body in subjection puts a lot more of this in our court than some will teach.
I respectfully disagree with the teaching you heard on Paul and James. I think that Paul clearly has all good works - loving one's neighbor included - in passages in Romans etc. where he says that works play no role in justification. However, I actually think that James and Paul are consistent. I think that James expressed himself a bit sloppily - and they will no doubt upset many people - but I think that his point is not really that works save, or even that works and faith save, but that real faith will lead to works, which is precisely what Paul himself argues. Paul distinguishes sharply between justification and sanctification, but he argues that sanctification normally follows justification. In simpler terms, a good tree normally bears good fruit. I think that James was really concerned with the nature of true faith and not justification per se.
DeleteMa, I fully agree that the New Testament - and even the gospels alone, or Paul alone - can seem quite inconsistent on salvation, grace, assurance, etc. I actually think that the Bible is consistent on these points, and I largely agree with the Reformed reading of the Bible. However, you certainly shouldn't take that on faith (excuse the pun) from anyone without some good evidence. I think your questions are great. And, even if I do come down on the side of the Reformed here, I think that Reformed Christians often blow off your questions and don't take them seriously. But the questions are very important, and though they are difficult, they deserve to be taken seriously. Ugh.
I'm sorry for all the typos in my recent posts. I have been running on very little sleep the last few night. "and they will no doubt..." should read "and this will no doubt..."
DeleteAnd the Paul/James debate lives on! I don't have a set opinion on this yet, I thought that that teaching I mentioned was something I hadn't heard before, and I was impressed with how he handled it.
DeleteDispensational teaching, for which I have been mostly studying the last several years, will put Paul and James in two different camps, preaching to two different "churches" so to speak. Paul to the Gentiles all grace and James, Peter and John to the circumcision, with grace+law. They base most of this on Acts 15 and Galatians 2. Therefore, if a Gentile, we don't need to even worry about what James is saying, it's not for us.
That is one way of dealing with it:) As much as I have thought that much dispensational teaching has it right on, there are a few problems which have been niggling at me.
Andy typos aren't a problem for me as long as you'll ignore mine:P
Agreed about the typos! There are some passages in Paul, e.g., in Galatians, where he seems to focus on ritual laws etc. when he uses the term "law". However, I'm not sure that we can say that Paul only has those things in mind, and not also moral commands like loving one's neighbor, in those same passages. Moreover, I think that there are many passages - e.g., in Romans and Ephesians - where Paul seems to say that there is absolutely nothing that we can do to contribute to our own justification, and that it is grace through and through. I think Paul teaches that we can't come to faith on our own, that it is a free gift of God, that we are justified by faith alone, and that works plays no part in justification.
DeleteAt the same, I think Paul teaches that God will sanctify the justified through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and that they will grow in holiness. Though the justified are still sinners, they will be gradually conformed to Christ. Thus, if we believe that we came to faith ten years ago, and we haven't seen any real improvement in our moral conduct in that time, then we should seriously doubt that we ever received faith in the first place. Thus, I think even Paul would say that faith is dead unless it eventually issues in some good works. (Galatians 5 is relevant here.) But that doesn't mean that we receive faith through good works, or that we are saved in any way by good works. We are saved by faith alone, but true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Spirit, which sanctifies us and grows us in holiness.
When James speaks of faith without works being dead, I don't think that he is disagreeing with anything that Paul says. At one point, James does seem to say that we are saved not just by faith, but also by works. However, he also speaks of faith being activated by works, and faith being completed by works. The latter language suggests to me that, for James, the works he has in mind flow from and confirm faith. That is perfectly consistent with what Paul says. Paul says the good works of the justified flow from their faith - sanctification flows from justification. So again, James seems consistent with Paul.
Now, I think that someone could write a letter using the exact same words James did and mean to claim that we are justified by both faith and works. And, for all I know, James did think that. Honestly, I suspect that James wasn't really thinking about the fine details of justification when he wrote his letter. I think he was simply concerned to combat anti-nomianism. But I can't know what was going on in his head. Perhaps he did think that we are saved partly through works. Nonetheless, I think that his letter does not support that position, and that it is consistent with Paul. But again, that is just my humble opinion. I won't push Reformed propaganda any more today on this thread!
I am pretty familiar with Reformed theology (as much as a non-seminary, full time mom and wife can be ha!), I dove into that head first a couple of years ago. I do agree with much of it, but not other things, so I can't say I'm reformed, but I do have a love for those who are and understand where they are coming from.
DeleteAll this sanctification and justification talk can make my eyes glaze over sometimes:P It is as if we make it too hard
I have thought this to mean that God can take a person out early (mortal death) because that person is not useful, or maybe even in the way, an obstacle, to what the Lord wants to accomplish. But one can also lose their station or position of authority, or their calling, lose their reputation. God can take a church leader and have him be cast out of that leadership position, like what happened with Jimmy Swaggart. It doesn't mean they lose their salvation, but it does mean they get taken down a few notches.
ReplyDeleteHey, Ma, do you think King Saul was saved? He committed suicide, he lived and died in opposition to God.
My problem with the taking out early idea is that if we immediately go to heaven upon death, then that would actually be a reward of sorts....
ReplyDeleteCould be though, if we lost our chance at a greater resurrection as Paul says.
I don't know about Saul. It seems like Solomon also died in opposition to God, unless I'm missing something (and I may be).
I kind of see Saul as an example of the carnal man, and David the spiritual.
Adam/Christ
Esau/Jacob
Ishmael/Isaac
Saul/David
It isn't a "reward" if it's obvious that the Lord had to take you out because you are being a menace, lol...even if He does reluctantly bring you into heaven...
DeleteDo you think that if not dying in God's good graces, one would be considered not converted?
DeleteI asked Dr. Fruchtenbaum once about Ananias's and Sapphira's lie and them dropping dead right after-with no apparent repentance. He assured me that they were saved.
He also stated in one of his books that all the soils in the parable of the soils were saved...hmmmmmm. I wonder about that one, but that is off topic:)
I would say that we are all sinners, even if we are justified, and so all of us will die with unrepented sins. The case of Ananias and Sapphira is very interesting. It does seem that they sinned against the Holy Spirit, and Jesus and 1 John etc. regard such sin as unforgivable. But these passages aren't completely clear...
DeleteGood point Leslie, and I wasn't trying to suggest that some sins will get you out and some won't. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit again is another can of worms. I know that some think Paul committed it when going after the early Christians.
DeleteWhoa! That point about Paul kind of blew my mind. Maybe that can of worms should be left unopened for now...
DeleteWe think that Paul was worried abut losing rewards in heaven, not about losing his salvation, which is sealed.
ReplyDeleteIf any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
DeleteThe Judgement Seat?
I can see that.
Ah, YES! Run the race in a way in which to win the prize!!! I love this scripture. To me it means, don't be disheartened. Don't give up. Run, baby, run! You'll be refused and rejected. You'll be cast aside. But the prize is not in the approval of others, but in God Himself. Run...
ReplyDeleteHi Deborah Ann,
DeleteHow nice to see you.
This makes me think of Jesus saying that salt that loses it's flavor is not worth anything.
Hi Ma, You'd worry a bone out of a dog's mouth! LOL! "Castaway" simply means cast away, not out of existence, think of Hailey Mills' movie father in "The Castaway", he was still her father, just lost and cut off from his family. It doesn't matter why God takes us home if we're his children he brings us to our place with Him when He gets ready IF we believe, that's it, rock solid!
ReplyDeletematermusearts.wordpress.com
Yes I would (worry:))
DeleteThe word for castaway here is used as reprobate or rejected in other verses, so it was a bit concerning.
There are several good points in the comments. I don't think he means losing his salvation. He has labored hard but not to add to Christ's work as in works salvation but in response to it. His life was not that of ease and comfort, and he faced many dangers (trials and pains we can only 'barely' imagine from our comfy chairs). So, I think he's having to work hard, not to gain or keep salvation, but to keep from succumbing to the flesh, which craves comfort instead of persecution and pain. To think what he must have been facing to fear that he could be cast aside as no good or not useful to the spreading of the gospel maybe? It must have been hard to remain encouraged in his day and time. Running the race and keeping ones eyes on the goal was probably a much needed and constantly required encouragement, both to himself and to others. But I will give it more thought and study time. Thanks for always making us think and search the scriptures.
ReplyDeleteHe did have to suffer and endure much more than any of us , I imagine. Paul does give us this, though:
ReplyDeleteI have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.
He is confident in the end:)
I'm wondering Ma, if "running the race" set before us is in the same context as "walking in the Spirit" and you shall not gratify the desire of the sinful nature? When Paul writes: "those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.", is "castaway" equivalent? Is 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 a word-picture of a track-race, illustrating what Galatians 5:16-25 is spelling out plainly? Makes me think. Thanks for the discussion on an important topic in our lives.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very interesting comparison. It was always troubling to me that Paul adds the "will not inherit the Kingdom of God" part...scary!
DeleteThis makes a lot of sense, and fits. Paul doesn't even put himself above having to walk it out.