1st cor 9 v 27

1Co 9:27 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.


1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

If God will chastise "ONE" by turning them over to satan, but still save their soul, why should his chastisement be any different for the next.

Once saved, you come out from under "WRATH" and come under "Chastisement".

Flesh doesn't mean anything to God, only the "SOUL".

 

Greetings

Context again! Paul states that he is discussing rewards (v18). Moses is a prime example of one who was disqualified from finishing the race BUT STILL REAPED ETERNAL LIFE! This text is an issue of rewards given to believers – not the justification of believers.

The key word “Castaway” is also found in 2 Cor 13:5. Here, Paul is fearful that his readers might be reprobates. Here, he knows that not everyone wins for he asks, “Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but only one receives the prize?” Therefore, Paul disciplines himself lest he too becomes a castaway. But word for castaway is adokimos, just as it is here for the word reprobates. Which translation is the best? Perhaps there is another better word!

The word adokimos means not standing the test (as in cults) or that which is unfit for any good deed (as in reprobate). If adokimos means not standing the test, then the Day of Judgment will indeed be fearful. Likewise, if we are examined and found unfit, then the only recourse is to be cast out like salt.

The word adokimos is mistranslated in the KJV as castaway or reprobate. It could be inauthentic. The negating particle means that prior definitions must be understood first as unapproved then as inauthentic. Bromiley shuns the English words "castaway" or "reprobate" even in Rom 1:28 where those apart from Christ give themselves over to an outlook which “is unattested or inauthentic.”

A better way to see the meaning of adokimos is that it is the negative of dokimos (tested, precious). But dokimos means approved in 1 Cor 11:19 and 2 Cor 13:7, and 2 Tim 2:15. In 2 Tim, studying is something a Christian is to do. Studying is not a requirement for justification. Studying is something for which one gains approval after justification.

Moses did not win the prize of entrance into the Promised Land. He rebelled at God’s command to speak to the rock. In his anger against his fellow Israelites, Moses struck the rock instead thus break a type God was developing. As a result of Moses’ disobedience, God disqualified him from receiving the prize of entrance into the Promised Land. Moses fell in the wilderness with the rest of the rebellious and stiff-necked generation. But since Moses came out of heaven at the transfiguration, it is clear that the falling in the wilderness is not the equivalent of losing one’s eternal salvation. Hence, we can see that the Arminian heresy that equates failing to win the prize with eternal damnation is built on a faulty understanding of context and the word adokimos.

Scripture does refer to God Himself as Abraham’s reward (Gen 15:1). Beyond this, rewards are given for service done (Num 18:31; 1 Sam 24:19; 2 Sam 22:21; Psa 18:20, 19:11, 58:11, 127:3; Jer 31:16; Matt 5:12, 6:4,6,18, 10:41-2, 16:27; Rom 4:4; 1 Cor 3:8,14; Col 3:24; 1 Tim 5:18; Heb 10:35, 11:6; 2 John 8; Rev 22:12). Isaiah shows that our salvation is related to God Himself while rewards are things that He brings with Him (Isa 62:11).

Presuppositions determine choices between words. The Arminian philosophy alters the key definitions to support their works-righteous view. But the word adokimos could also mean not standing the test (as in not passing to the next level) or that which is unfit for any good deed (as in being extremely young so as not able to do anything). In either of these definitions, eternal security is not lost. What a HUGE difference presuppositions make!

Lloyd

 

Lloyd that was a good example of pontification "instead" of detailed exegesis of the text in question.

You are pretty reliable on that count. One could easily have predicted "complete avoidance of 1cor 9:27" in your post BEFORE you posted it!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Now he will switch to the “Gospel” mission the “Gospel focus” the fact that His preaching of the Gospel of Salvation is such a consuming role that earthly benefit fades. He is under a higher calling

This is key – Paul has just said that his “reward” is to “offer the Gospel without charge”. This is not a setup for saying “I buffet my body and make it my slave lest I CHARGE someone a penny for speaking to them about the Gospel”. His focus has not gone there at all. Rather he is still talking about his boast that he is able to preach the Gospel without reaping the due benefit/reward of earthly perishable gain. And he even counts that fact as “his reward” because it leaves him free from the sense of “owing” anyone anything..

At this point Paul jumps fully into the topic of SALVATION! He argues the point of wining the lost. He shows that his focus and goal is fully set on the salvation that is brought through the preaching of the Gospel!

Wining here is “Wining souls for Christ” in the preaching of the Gospel. Preaching the Gospel to others – resulting in their Salvation!

Paul shows that the “SAVING’ them is the whole point of this Gospel preaching. He preaches the Gospel to others in order to SAVE them. He mentions nothing about those saved getting big houses in heaven nor does he mention what great honor and room-size reward he is seeking in heaven. His entire focus is not on “What perk do I get” but on the great value/reward of SALVATION itself as the goal and objective of the Gospel received when preached “to others”.

Now comes that “unpleasant section” for many where Paul points out the seriousness of this Gospel pursuit for the goal of saving people -- so that I may by all means save some. as he says.

It is as a “fellow partaker of the GOSPEL” that Paul wants to participate in preaching. He then shows that his own example in persuing that goal of being “A fellow partaker of the Gospel” is the standard/model/role-model for the saints. He has left the realm of “I am a leader and Apostle and so I have special rights” to the perspective of WE ALL want to be “Fellow partakers” of the Gospel for as he has just pointed out when the Gospel is received the people are saved. (; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.)

So now in this “fellow partaker of the Gospel” model for ALL that Paul is offering (in the form of his own life example) he shows how it works. He shows the perspective of the saint, the attitude, the focus the Olympic ALL for the Gospel focus that is NEEDED. IN fact he argues that it is critical EVEN for an Apostle for even in this most exaulted case HE is at risk “LEST after preaching the Gospel to other I MYSELF should be disqualified” from that very Gospel!

How instructive!

Yet how fervently ignored by those who find this to be an “unpleasant” section of scripture!

Take each "detail" and show the meaning IN the 1Cor 9 context itself. Let the argument speak for itself IN the text you are exegeting.

Or do you read vs 23-27 and respond with

And so when Paul says

Do you respond with

"Are you saved by your efforts of paying close attention, persevering and taking pains with those disciplines?"

Will your response to each of these displeasing texts be simply to challenge them and show how your view of "other texts" don't allow these unpleasant texts to exist??


When Paul says

Do you respond with I would hope that you are humble enough to put no faith in yourself........and at least a little in God!

In an effort to misdirect away from the texts above where Paul is being crystal clear – perhaps when you see yourself needing to “gloss over” the details of these text and you respond to them as “inconvenient” to your views on other texts (like Eph 2 for example) it is a sign that those other texts are being taken to extremes in your interpretation.

When we let THE TEXT speak does it cause you to immediately jump to some other "more comfortable" text?

IF so - it is a sign that you have taken what your comfortable texts do not actually say explicitly and have added "inferences" that were never in those texts to start with.

In the case of these "unpleasant" texts - it is the mere quote of them and the insistence on seeing their details rather than glossing over them that is causes so many to have heart burn.

 

Failure to frame a logical argument on your part Lloyd is no excuse for "making stuff up for Arminians to believe".

#1. The case of Moses does NOT show Moses "lost" - Arminians never claim that "one mistake causes you to be lost".

#2. The definition of "lost" is NEVER said to be "failure to get more candy in this life" by the Arminian model. Rather it is "failure to go to heaven" in fact it is a turning away from God that results in LIVING LIFE for SELF - not an "incident" where one has sinned!

#3. Twisting and bending the Arminian argument "until you get it to fit your example" is not "compelling" or "objective" or even a method of getting to truth "eventually" -- it is simply and "antic" for OSAS.

Try again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hey BobRyan

Your reason has no basis of measure.

Is this one sin? Perhaps one big sin?

But wait! What is a big sin to you heretics?

You make up this list and that - to no avail. For unless you are perfect your human-centered self-righteous system leads only to death.

Are you perfect?? I know the answer!

When you cut yourself away from Christ, then all you have is vague generalities that can't be tested or verified. No wonder you can't bring yourself to use the word "hope" in the biblical context.

You failed in clinging to Christ. But you do a wonderful job clinging to yourself.

Lloyd

 

I believe that by carefully marking the "details" in the text of 1Cor 9 - as I did in my post above the answer to that question is blatantly obvious.

Click here -- http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1602.html#000004

Paul IS arguing for "perseverance" on the very REAL grounds that He did not want to be disqualified FROM the Gospel after having preached it.

This is so clear and obvious from the text (see the details I pointed out) that the only way to "refute the scripture" is to take the text-devoid ad-hominem-enhanced approach Lloyd has taken in his last post above. Even his first post AVOIDS the actual CHAPTER of 1Cor 9 as well as ANY actual exegesis of the problem text itself.

That is very "instructive" for the open minded reader.

The CONTRAST in the two approaches could not be more obvious than in my post given in that link above followed by Lloyds last post above.

Please reread them and let me know if you do not see this as incredibly obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Can we “retranslate” 1Cor 9:27 so it will be more “Acceptable” for OSAS?

 

Here is a post here of similar focus --

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1577/8.html#000107

 

Greetings

Here is the right way to look at 1 Cor 9:27.

In 2 Cor 13:5, Paul is fearful that his readers might be reprobates. Here, he knows that not everyone wins for he asks, “Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but ONLY one receives the prize?” Therefore, Paul disciplines himself lest he too becomes a castaway. But word for castaway is adokimos, just as it is here for the word reprobates. Which translation is the best? Perhaps there is another better word!

The word adokimos means not standing the test (as in cults) or that which is unfit for any good deed (as in reprobate). If adokimos means not standing the test, then the Day of Judgment will indeed be fearful. Likewise, if we are examined and found unfit, then the only recourse is to be cast out like salt.

The word adokimos is mistranslated in the KJV as castaway or reprobate. It could be inauthentic. The negating particle means that prior definitions must be understood first as unapproved then as inauthentic. Bromiley shuns the English words castaway or reprobate even in Rom 1:28 where those apart from Christ give themselves over to an outlook which “is unattested or inauthentic.”

A better way to see the meaning of adokimos is that it is the negative of dokimos (tested, precious). But dokimos means approved in 1 Cor 11:19 and 2 Cor 13:7, and 2 Tim 2:15. In 2 Tim, studying is something a Christian is to do. Studying is not a requirement for justification. Studying is something for which one gains approval after justification.

Moses did not win the prize of entrance into the Promised Land. He rebelled at God’s command to speak to the rock. In his anger against his fellow Israelites, Moses struck the rock instead thus break a type God was developing. As a result of Moses’ disobedience, God disqualified him from receiving the prize of entrance into the Promised Land. Moses fell in the wilderness with the rest of the rebellious and stiff-necked generation. But since Moses came out of heaven at the transfiguration, it is clear that the falling in the wilderness is not the equivalent of losing one’s eternal salvation. Hence, we can see that the Arminian heresy that equates failing to win the prize with eternal damnation is built on a faulty understanding of context and the word adokimos.
Scripture does refer to God Himself as Abraham’s reward (Gen 15:1). Beyond this, rewards are given for service done (Num 18:31; 1 Sam 24:19; 2 Sam 22:21; Psa 18:20, 19:11, 58:11, 127:3; Jer 31:16; Matt 5:12, 6:4,6,18, 10:41-2, 16:27; Rom 4:4; 1 Cor 3:8,14; Col 3:24; 1 Tim 5:18; Heb 10:35, 11:6; 2 John 8; Rev 22:12). Isaiah shows that our salvation is related to God Himself while rewards are things that He brings with Him (Isa 62:11).

Presuppositions determine choices between words. Under the Arminian short discussion, their philosophy altered the key definitions to support their works-righteous view. But the word dokimos could also mean not standing the test (as in not passing to the next level) or that which is unfit for any good deed (as in being extremely young so as not able to do anything). In either of these definitions, eternal security is not lost. What a HUGE difference presuppositions make!
In Romans 4, Paul shows that rewards are not related to the grace of justification. In Hebrews 11:6, we are encouraged by the fact that God gives rewards for faithful service. John notes a difference between a partial reward and full reward (2 John 8). Heb 10:14 shows that one is already perfected while in the process of determining one’s level of sanctification. Finally, Jesus’ last words are to already-saved Christians encouraging them to even greater works for He will give to everyone according to their works.

It must more than clear that rewards are related to service and completely unrelated to what it takes for salvation. Thus the Arminian human related presuppositions are forced upon scripture while the OSAS presuppositions flow naturally from a common-sense reading of God’s Word. Rewards then are for service, not justification.

In 1 Cor 3:12-18a, Paul says that all believers will stand before Christ at His judgment seat that each may receive rewards for service. He shows that there are two types of works: gold, silver, precious stones or wood, hay, stubble. The good works will lead to greater heavenly rewards while the worthless works lead to loss.

But again, is the loss at Christ’s Judgment Seat that of losing one’s eternal security that the Arminian Sadvocates teach? Thank God - No! For we are shown that faithless believers have their works burned up and suffer great loss. But the good news of the gospel is that even those faithless persons ARE STILL SAVED (v15)! Christ’s judgment will not assess destiny – it will assess the quality of Christian life on earth with a view to the quality of heavenly life.

Lloyd

 

According to LLoyd the way to "look at 1Cor 9:27" is not to read it at all. Notice that there is NO REFERENCE AT ALL to the text itself in his response.

NEITHER does he reference vs 26 or vs 25 ...

In other words the way to "deal with" a text that does not fit your theological paradigm is to "ignore it entirely" AS IF it did not exist.

Seek out more friendly texts that can be "fit" into your views and ignore the ones that cause problems.

As the Link I provided shows - the ALTERNATIVE to that is to LOOK at 1Cor 9 ITSELF and SEE what Paul IS saying!!

The contrast could not BE greater.

The contrast is left as an exercise for the reader.

Of course Lloyd does suggest the "solution" that NASB, Holman, DARBY, NKJV .. ALL get it "Wrong".

I suppose if you are desperate "Enough" you might go there as well.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hey Bob

Why make comments about stuff you can't understand. Instead, grab a Greek-English concordance. All you have to do is notice that the next to the last word in the sentence is "adokmos."

The whole post was relevant to the text and all you could do was use my post as a springboard to your own errors.

Not one translation - anywhere - suggests the twisting that you force upon the text. Disqualified is not a word for "lost." Moses was disqualified for entrance into the Promised Land, yet he himself is yet saved.

But when one is blinded by human-centered self-righteousness, then any verse that speaks of God's loving discipline is perverted into a so-called proof that discipline is the equivalent of damnation.

This is only fitting for someone willing to redefine Christ finished work on the Cross into a self-righteous obedience system that leads to death.

Lloyd

 

Hi Robert Hutton

Demas is an excellent point for sanctification - NOT for justification. I've posted this before but since you appear to be new to this thread, this is for you!

Context again! Paul states that he is discussing rewards (v18). Moses is a prime example of one who was disqualified from finishing the race BUT STILL REAPED ETERNAL LIFE! This text is an issue of rewards given to believers – not the justification of believers.

The key word “Castaway” is also found in 2 Cor 13:5. Here, Paul is fearful that his readers might be reprobates. Here, he knows that not everyone wins for he asks, “Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but only one receives the prize?” Therefore, Paul disciplines himself lest he too becomes a castaway. But word for castaway is adokimos, just as it is here for the word reprobates. Which translation is the best? Perhaps there is another better word!

The word adokimos means not standing the test (as in cults) or that which is unfit for any good deed (as in reprobate). If adokimos means not standing the test, then the Day of Judgment will indeed be fearful. Likewise, if we are examined and found unfit, then the only recourse is to be cast out like salt.

The word adokimos is mistranslated in the KJV as castaway or reprobate. It could be inauthentic. The negating particle means that prior definitions must be understood first as unapproved then as inauthentic. Bromiley shuns the English words "castaway" or "reprobate" even in Rom 1:28 where those apart from Christ give themselves over to an outlook which “is unattested or inauthentic.”

A better way to see the meaning of adokimos is that it is the negative of dokimos (tested, precious). But dokimos means approved in 1 Cor 11:19 and 2 Cor 13:7, and 2 Tim 2:15. In 2 Tim, studying is something a Christian is to do. Studying is not a requirement for justification. Studying is something for which one gains approval after justification.

Moses did not win the prize of entrance into the Promised Land. He rebelled at God’s command to speak to the rock. In his anger against his fellow Israelites, Moses struck the rock instead thus break a type God was developing. As a result of Moses’ disobedience, God disqualified him from receiving the prize of entrance into the Promised Land. Moses fell in the wilderness with the rest of the rebellious and stiff-necked generation. But since Moses came out of heaven at the transfiguration, it is clear that the falling in the wilderness is not the equivalent of losing one’s eternal salvation. Hence, we can see that the Arminian heresy that equates failing to win the prize with eternal damnation is built on a faulty understanding of context and the word adokimos.

Scripture does refer to God Himself as Abraham’s reward (Gen 15:1). Beyond this, rewards are given for service done (Num 18:31; 1 Sam 24:19; 2 Sam 22:21; Psa 18:20, 19:11, 58:11, 127:3; Jer 31:16; Matt 5:12, 6:4,6,18, 10:41-2, 16:27; Rom 4:4; 1 Cor 3:8,14; Col 3:24; 1 Tim 5:18; Heb 10:35, 11:6; 2 John 8; Rev 22:12). Isaiah shows that our salvation is related to God Himself while rewards are things that He brings with Him (Isa 62:11).

Presuppositions determine choices between words. The Arminian philosophy alters the key definitions to support their works-righteous view. But the word adokimos could also mean not standing the test (as in not passing to the next level) or that which is unfit for any good deed (as in being extremely young so as not able to do anything). In either of these definitions, eternal security is not lost. What a HUGE difference presuppositions make!

Lloyd

 

This verse appears to be talking about "destruction of the flesh". It doesn't appear to have a salvific context at all.

 

Calvinists are hereticalnot Armininas Ascund. Your system is pure blasphemy.

 

This verse appears to be talking about "destruction of the flesh". It doesn't appear to have a salvific context at all. </font>[/QUOTE]If that were remotely true - you would have detailed THE TEXT and you would have SHOWN the way that it points us AWAY from the GOSPEL benefit of eternal life and TOWARD - healthier skin!

Instead you simply assumed the salient point of your own argument AS IF it had been proven.

That is good propaganda tactic on your part but does not help to support your argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Can we “retranslate” 1Cor 9:27 so it will be more “Acceptable” for OSAS?