Listening to a radio preacher the other day, the question of 'the race' in 1 Corinthians 9 was raised. Paul speaks of a race, a prize, and his seeking of an imperishable or incorruptible crown. The preacher in question insisted this was not about salvation, but simply a question of rewards.
Functionally, he was exhorting his audience to something like a 'Higher Christian Life' though he did not use that nomenclature. If Paul is not talking about salvation, then this kind struggle and servanthood are optimal to be sure – but ultimately optional.
But is this what Paul is actually saying? The problem here is ultimately theological. Because of commitments that have been made by this radio teacher (and many others like him), certain doctrinal points are given precedent and when the Scriptures expand on such questions leading to a problem in the realm of coherence – then it is the Scriptures that must be subordinated and explained away. He would certainly deny it, but sadly that's what this radio preacher did and as a consequence he misled his audience, stripping Paul's teaching of its tremendous gravity and the warnings implied therein. The gospel is cheapened because a certain understanding about the nature of faith, the salvation experience, and assurance are embraced and all but 'locked in' you might say. They are non-negotiables that trump all other texts – a canon within the canon of the New Testament.
This along with what can only be called a type of rationalism governing theology means that Paul's words are a problem – if taken seriously and at face value. There are many 'problem texts' for such theologians. In this case, the apostle's words are spun and thus the passage takes on a completely different character.
To understand Paul's reference to the race and the crown, one needs to read the larger section – all of what we call chapters 9 and10. There we learn that Paul is not talking about rewards but the gospel itself – a point he makes in unequivocal terms in 9.23. He does these things for rewards? No – for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.
Then there's a chapter division but this is arbitrary as the same conversation continues. With a 'moreover' or 'furthermore' he turns to the question of unity and analogy between Old and New Covenants. We share the same baptism and the same spiritual food – in Christ. And yet God was not pleased – by implication, Paul is suggesting that these apostates in the Old Testament did not run their race well, they fell short, they sought a crown that was corruptible – they did not receive the prize. Remove the chapter 10 divider from your mind and take in the flow of the conversation and argument. That moreover/furthermore makes this indisputable. The latter is connected to and dependent on the former.
They are our examples and their fall into idolatry is our warning. Just as Paul ran the risk of losing his way in terms of his apostolic charge, the Corinthians were in danger of losing their way or running a bad race when it comes to the gospel. As such Paul warns of lusts, idolatry, immorality, tempting Christ, and complaining.
1 Corinthians 10.12 reads, therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. This is directly parallel to his language of disqualification in 9.27 – or the fear of being reckoned a castaway.
This is not about rewards. This is the gospel.
Evangelical theology cannot assimilate this. It destroys assurance (or so they think). It smacks of works salvation (or so they believe).
It simply may be that their notions of saving faith, works, and assurance are askew. But to take Paul's words and explain them away, by breaking up the context, or spinning the meaning is to twist Scripture.
Paul had a higher calling as an apostle – he presents it almost as if he had another layer to his own gospel struggle or imperative. I don't think I would go quite that far but as Paul was given much – much was required. Again, the Scripture never casts such questions in terms of quantity – as if you must reach a works score of '100' and anything less means you fall short of salvation. No, it's nothing like that at all. Works are presented in terms of quality – the heart, the life, life in the Spirit, persevering. We know that these things are gifts from God and yet we are also called to pursue them – though we don't get the glory or get to claim righteousness on our own merits. We cannot reconcile this as it defies our reason as we should expect. Reason is limited to our ability to comprehend and thus is self-referential. When the metaphysical or spiritual realm comes into play, when we're speaking of eternity, it shouldn't surprise us to discover that there are truth dynamics and tensions that are absolutely true but beyond our ability to fully grasp let alone explain.
The problem with Evangelical hermeneutics is found in their theological prolegomena – in the very nature of what theology is.
For them, everything I've taught here is heresy. Read the passage yourself and judge. If you want to go further, pursue the question in light of historical theology. What I'm suggesting is not Roman Catholic. The works of Rome are man-made contrivances, vain traditions, and superstitions. The Scriptures define such works and define what saving faith is – a persevering trust and obedience. We will fail at every point but again the question is not quantity but quality – that's the fruit, the vitality, the evidence of the Spirit working in you being sought and proclaimed at the Judgment.
Paul feared that in failing to be obedient, in failing to run the race rightly, in allowing himself to be swayed by worldly concerns, softness, and pride he would lose his way and thus corrupt not just the message of the gospel but the testimony of his life to it. This way of thinking is completely outside the boundaries of Evangelical (and a lot of contemporary Confessional) thought. That's something to consider. It's sobering to be sure.
This doesn't mean I'm suggesting that Evangelicals are therefore lost but rather that some are saved despite their watered down cheap grace gospel – which despite its defects and baggage, still contains within it many essential truths.
And it also means that the twisted gospel being preached by the radio preacher is dangerous and has the potential to mislead a lot of people – and he'll answer for it in the very manner Paul feared. And yet this man is not Paul. He's not an apostle and so the nature of his judgment is unknown – but his errors are on full display.
No comments:
Post a Comment