Floyd said:
The exhortation to "keep in the love of God" is not the same as loss of Salvation! Your implication is (IMO) wrong.
As stated, Salvation is secure, as it is not conditional on us, but our Lord's "worthiness"!
Regards.
Floyd.
As you know, the Corinthians were particularly corrupt in all ways prior to the Gospel teachings and conversions. Their extreme's were a real concern for Paul etc. The context is Jewish as ref. to chp.10; and leads to the subject of idolatry .What Paul is saying in 9:27 is by example he would be a "castaway"; not condemned, but a reject as regards his ministry; it would become ineffective due to sin! He goes on to say in 10:20-21 that it cannot be both ways; serve God and Satan!
Your recent comments state that without perfection a person is lost! As mentioned before, That would mean all people are lost!!!
Christ Jesus our Lord was/is the only worthy one, His Sacrifice was "once for all". When (not if) a person fails; "He is faithful and just to forgive" etc.
That provision would not be there if all was lost!!
Regards.
Floyd.
THe Christian cannot be OUTSIDE of God's love and be saved.
Those that bleive in the man made doctrine of eternal security try to use Rom 8:38,39 as a "proof text" of theirs. Verse 39 says "
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord"
So they are equating being in God's love with salvation > nothing can separate you from God's love, that is, nothing can separate you from salvation. So if being in God's love is not salvation, then what is the Eternal Securists point of Rom 8:38,39?
Note verse 39 says that the love of God is "
in Christ Jesus". Therefore if one does not have God's love he therefore is
NOT in Christ. Being
IN CHRIST is the only place salvation can be found. So salvation is not possible separate from God's love/OUTSIDE of Christ.
There are two sides to salvation:
1) God's faithfulness to man
2) Man's faithfulness to God
Eternal Securists are careful to pull out of context just the verses that speak about God's faithfulness to man and wrongly claim that God's faithfulness is because of "eternal security" yet they purposely ignore the verses that speak that man must be faithful to God. No verse says God will remain faithful to those that become unfaithful to Him.
If I had a nickel for everytime Jn 10:28 has been pulled out of context by the Eternal Securists (ES). The ES says, "see the verses says "neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand".
One may ask "why does God not let any man pluck them out of HIs hand"
The ES is quick to respond "eternal security" and thereby adds and forces that into the text.
Yet verse 27 tells us "who" God holds in HIs hand and "why" God does not let them be plucked out of His hand and it has
NOTHING AT ALL to do with the man-made doctrine of eternal security.
Verse 27 Jesus says "
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;"
Jesus said
MY sheep. So the qualification to be one of Christ's sheep and be held in God's hand is "hearing" and "following" Christ.
1) both verbs hear and follow are Greek present tense denoting an ongoing, sustain action, not something one does just once or sporadically
2) people hear and follow by choice, therefore one can quit hearing and following by choice.
So those that God holds in HIs hand that cannot be plucked out are Christ's sheep, the ones that are faithful in their hearing and following Christ. Yet one can quit being faithful inhishearing and following and remive himslef from God's hand. Again, nowhere does the any context say God will be faithful to those that become unfaithful to HIm.
So we have both sides of the salvation equation: (1) man's faithfulness to God in his hearing and following Christ and (2) God's faithfulness to those who remain faithful in hearing and following Christ.
God's faithfulness is in no way unconditional...God will not remain unconditionally faithful to those who become unfaithful to Christ in their hearing and following.
Another example is Phil 1:6 "
Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ"
The ES pulls this verse out of context and claim God will performs this work unconditionally because of eternal security.
Yet verse 5 says "
For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now"
They had remained faithful ih the gospel from the first day until now, so God is faithful to continue to perform that good work in them.
So again we have both sides of the equation:
Man's faithfulness in remaining in the gospel
God's faithfulnness in performing that good work in them
As long as they remained in the gospel Paul was confident God would perfom that good work. Had they fallen away, outside the gospel God would not have continued that good work unconditionally.
Those in Galatia had fallen away from the gospel, Gal 1:6 and that unfaithfulness led to their being "fallen from grace" Gal 5:4
----------------------
1 Cor 9:27 castaway is a condemned position Paul could fall into. No reason to "keep under my body, and bring it into subjection" if falling away into condemnation is not possible.
Coffman Commentary aptly describes what be a castaway is about: (my emp)
As Foy E. Wallace, Jr., said: "The translators (in this place) were evidently attempting to circumvent the possibility of apostasy."[22] There is no excuse for rendering the word here [@adokimos] as either "rejected" (English Revised Version (1885)) or "disqualified" (RSV). It means "reprobate" and is so translated elsewhere in the New Testament (Romans 1:28; 2 Corinthians 13:5,6,7; 2Tim.3:8; Titus 1:16). It is thus crystal clear that the apostle Paul, even after the world-shaking ministry of the word of God which characterized his life, considered it possible that he himself could become reprobate and lose the eternal reward. It was for the purpose of avoiding that possibility that he buffeted his body, walked in the strictest discipline, and devoted every possible effort to the service of the Lord. His example should put an end to all thoughts of "having it made" as a Christian and being certain to win eternal life apart from the most faithful continuance in God's service.
We must therefore refuse interpretations of this passage such as that of Morris, who said, "Paul's fear was not that he might lose his salvation, but that he might lose his crown through failing to satisfy his Lord."[23] Clearly it was such a view as this that led to the mistranslation of
1 Corinthians 9:27; but the truth is available and clear enough for all who desire to know it.
The hope of eternal life is not sealed in a single glorious moment in one's experience of conversion; but it is a lifelong fidelity to the risen Lord, the running of life's race all the way to the finish line. As DeHoff wrote:
Not until every thought and imagination of man's heart is brought into subjection is his conversion complete. In this sense, conversion goes on as long as we live; and we are finally free from sin only when the day dawns and the shadows flee away, and we stand justified in the presence of God with the redeemed of all ages.[24]
Farrar's analysis of this verse is as follows:
The word "reprobate" here rendered "a castaway" (KJV) is a metaphor derived from the testing of metals, and the casting aside of those which are spurious. That Paul should see the necessity for such serious and unceasing effort shows how little he believed in saintly works of "supererogation, over and above what is commanded." "When the cedar of Lebanon trembles, what shall the reed by the brookside do?"[25]
It might be added that this passage also shows how little Paul believed any such doctrine as the "final perseverance of the saints," called also "the impossibility of apostasy."
[22] Foy E. Wallace, Jr., A Review of the New Versions (Fort Worth, Texas: The Foy E. Wallace Jr., Publications, 1973), p. 435.
[23] Leon Morris, op. cit., p. 140
[24] George W. DeHoff, op. cit., p. 78.
[25] F. W. Farrar, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), Vol. 19, p. 291.