Paul: "Lest I be reprobated."

[Van]

Contrary to your idea, I think we have taken this discussion as far as it will go. I demonstrated that loss of salvation is not taught by any scripture. You are simply running through the usual suspects, Job, Judas, no difference between the Old Covanant and the New Testament. None of it stands up to study.

As a parting thought, lets actually look at Hebrews 6:4-6. What does it say, are we talking about folks who have been born again? Nope. Enlightened? Yep. So we are talking about folks who have heard the true gospel and rejected it. There is no other gospel whereby we can be saved so it is impossible to bring them to repentance so long as they reject the gospel. Thats it. Its crystal. Land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned. Note scripture does not say "and is cursed" but only in danger of being cursed. Therefore opportunity still exists. Jesus taught about these folks, in Matthew 13, they received the gospel with joy, yet because their faith did not reach their heart, their faith was rootless. So they were not born again, they did not believe from the heart.

To repeat, there is no scripture that indicates a born again believer can be transformed back into an old creation.

 

[Nazaroo]

As far as I can see, there is no 'born again' status in the scriptures at all.
This is a misunderstanding created by listening to Nicodemus instead of Jesus.

It was Nicodemus who suggested 'born again'.

Jesus corrected him and explained the term 'born from above'.

Jesus was not referring to believers being born again.
This was Nicodemus' error.

Jesus was talking about His own origin: from above.

"I am from above. You are from below."

If Jesus did not have a divine origin, He could not be the saviour.
Nicodemus only recognized him as a 'good teacher', and had no understanding.

As far as its existance as a 'Christian' doctrine, it is a very late abberation of Christianity localized in the United States evangelical/pentacostal movements. In other words, a minority heretical sectarian doctrine.

 

[tall73]

Again, I stand pat, my view reflects what Paul is saying, yours does not.

By the numbers the imperishable prize is the salvation of others.
This is the reward for preaching the gospel effectively.
If Paul disqualifies himself by not exercising self control, he cannot preach the gospel as effectively as if he practiced self control.

"So run that you may obtain the prize" Practice self control.
So that we may obtain an imperishable prize, the salvation of others.
If I preach self control to others, and then do not practice it myself, I disqualify myself from preaching self control to others.

The jewels in our imperishable crown are our children in Christ, those we have helped lead to Christ.

I do not see how it can be read any other way, but that is the issue.

There are three other uses by Paul of the term crown, each of them a stephanos, referring to the prize in the games. Besides the two you mentioned here is the other:

2TI 4:6 For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 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.

Here he compares his own life to a race, and he has now finished it, he endured to the end, he KEPT THE FAITH. He now sees the crown as in store for him, and for all those who long for Jesus' coming.

The argument here seems to favor the reading of the prize as eternal life.

James and Peter also make this same application.

However, we give first priority to Paul's usage. So there are two texts that clearly show him speaking of a crown in regards to those who believed through him, and one that could possibly be referring to eternal life.

Context is always the most important. The context of the general passage is Paul's compulsion to preach the gospel. He must preach, and makes himself a slave to all men. So that would favor your view.

In the immediate passage itself he is referring to the gospel as a race competing for the crown:


But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Now the problem I see is that if the crown are his converts. Once he has preached to others, and they accept it, they are now his crown, If your view is correct that can't be lost, and neither can his salvation. So then what is the disqualification?

The whole sense of the passage seems to say that he preaches to others (for salvation), but he himself misses out on it through his lack of self control.

I am not saying that Paul had no security. I think he did. But he seems to recognize that he must endure to the end. And once he had, or was right on the verge of it, (in the 2 Timothy passsage) he then was assured of that prize that he was not completely assured of before.

Now to address Nazaroo's point, I agree that the Hebrew believers were in a real danger. But the overall picture gives the view that the danger was not of some gross sin, but falling away from Christ due to persecution, and hardship, and taking a public stand against Him. All of the old covenant comparisons, showing how Jesus is much better than Moses, than angels, than the high priest etc. seems to indicate they are in danger of falling back into Judaism.

There are mentions of teaching about righteousness, but he also commends them for their standing fast before, and says they need to continue. It is true they have not developed the way they should. But the danger seems to be that they will fall away because of the difficulty, and like the seed in the parable of the sower will be singed beyond recovery.

Incidentally, that parable seems to indicate that they recieved the gospel and began to grow, then persecution killed them. Which would essentially support the save view.

 

[Van]

Hi Tall77, thanks for the careful presentation of the passage. For the reasons you stated, I presented my understanding. The context indicates the jewels in our crown are those imperishable treasures we helped into the kingdom. Backing away from the most reasonable view, the crown remains a reward for diligent service. Loss of salvation is no where in view. For example I disagree that 1 Timothy 4:6 puts loss of salvation in view. The idea is that his crown of righteousness has been laid up for him, rewards for his faithful service to our Lord. So while it is fair to point to verses mentioning the crown of life which has obtaining eternal life in view, these passages are not written by Paul and use crown to indicate a person has become part of the royal family of God.

 

[Van]

Nazaroo, as I said, I think we see scripture so differently it is pointless to continue. You have declined to address how a new creature could become an old creature, or how someone converted could become unconverted. To repeat, my view is that when we spiritually arise in Christ a new creation, we have been spiritually born again. During our spiritual baptism into Christ's death is where the circumcision of Christ occurs and where we are converted.

 

[Nazaroo]

I have no trouble accepting the possibility that your interpretation of 'crown' is correct
in the main passage under discussion; (1 Cor 9:15f...10:22)

But this, far from forming evidence for the impossibility of losing salvation,
actually underlines the danger:

Paul faces the danger of losing the race and the crown:
(his crown is the very people he has brought to salvation).

How do you lose such a crown? How does anyone lose their loved ones?
By being cut off from them: simply said, by losing your own salvation.

This is the most straightforward interpretation of Paul's loss,
if indeed that reward is the very people he has saved.

Their salvation cannot be lost, simply because Paul stumbles.
They may not even be aware that Paul has stumbled.
Their salvation is assured by their own loyalty and perserverance.
But Paul's salvation is not.

He loses the access to the friends he has saved,
because the gulf is impossible to cross, as the parable of Lazarus indicates.

Your interpretation provides evidence for the loss of salvation, not its impossibility.

The problem isn't your interpretation of 1 Corinthians.

Its your doctrine that a Christian's salvation is in no danger.

You have declined to address how a new creature could become an old creature,
or how someone converted could become unconverted.

I will address that now.
Far from losing our free will when we become Christians
and begin again as new creatures with the fellowship of the Holy Spirit,
our free will has never been freer. We can now make decisions based upon
our reliable experience with God,"knowing Him AS God" (Romans 1:20-21).

How can a new creature,converted become fallen,or apostate?
Free will.
A mechanism amply testified to in scripture and confirmed in experience.
And by which we are justifiably held accountable by the Lord Himself.

Anyone one of us can simply turn away, cold and loveless,
and betray our fellow Christians into death and torture for as few as 30 silver.

"Not me Lord! I will never deny you!"

Pride before a fall.

The Value of Judas

If the Judas tragedy is to have any meaning at all,
beyond a Sunday school shuffle to avoid scaring children,
it must be as a warning.
Just as the story of Peter is a warning.
A warning of danger for Christians to take to heart,
so that they not only tame the tongue,
but as Paul says urgently,
"Bring even our thoughts under subjection to bondage",
lest anyone stumble.

-----------------------------
I have now shown you

(1) why your own interpretation of Paul here doesn't support your doctrine of 'un-loseable' salvation.

(2) how salvation can be lost, and a new creature/convert can fall away, just as you requested.

(3) Previously I showed how your distinction of 'two covenants' of salvation was unsupportable. We only have the 'icon' which fades away, and the real Covenant for all, past and future.

(4) Previously I showed how your distinction of two types of human relationship to God was unsupportable and logically fallacious.

(5) Previously I showed that all the scriptural examples are real and still stand, namely OT and NT like Judas, Sapphira, etc. and warn of the danger.

(6) Previously I showed there can be no 'special cases', favouritism, or unfair treatment from a Just and Impartial God who is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow. That people like Judas commited a deadly sin through their own free will, even though they knew God and tasted spiritual enlightenment.

(7) Previously I showed that there is no magical 'born again' status that guarantees salvation is un-loseable.


Now I ask you in turn. Show me what other evidence you think there is for what appears to be a completely untenable position.

 

[Van]

Nazaroo, I think we need to return to the text. The initial idea was that being disqualified meant loss of salvation. My counter view was that Paul was saying he would be ineffective in preaching the gospel because after exhorting others to practice self control, he would not exercise self control. Paul was saying preachers that do not walk the talk are disqualified from earning the crown. Loss of salvation is no where in view. Loss of an eternal relationship with our Children in Christ is in view, not because we lost our salvation, or they lost theirs, but because we did not have any children to fellowship with.

We exercise self control to receive an imperishable gift, our crown of righteousness composed of our children in Christ. We do not put them in Christ, God does (1 Corinthians 1:30) and so our crown of righteousness is laid up for us. (2 Tim 4:8).

 

[AndOne]

I would have to say that the value to the story of Judas is the lesson that God is soverign over all. It was in His plan for Judas to betray Christ. Christ had to die and suffer on our behalf - since it was in God's/His design for redemption. Judas played a role in that - that is all. In regards to salvation - Judas was never saved to begin with.

Let's remember this is about GRACE. If it can be lost - its not grace. If salvation can be lost than our Lord's sacrifice was a waste of time - since we all continue to sin....

 

[Van]

I have now shown you

(1) why your own interpretation of Paul here doesn't support your doctrine of 'un-loseable' salvation.

Rehash - I responded that the passage concerning disqualification does not prove salvation is unlosable, but it does not support loss of salvation either.

2) how salvation can be lost, and a new creature/convert can fall away, just as you requested

No, you have said born again folks are not born again, that converted folks are not created, and that new creation can become old. But I stand pat, scripture indicates folks are born again when they arise in Christ a new creation.

(3) Previously I showed how your distinction of 'two covenants' of salvation was unsupportable. We only have the 'icon' which fades away, and the real Covenant for all, past and future.

And again, I say the Old Covenant is different from the New Testament in that salvation is not sustained by good works on our part, but by God's protection of our faith.

(4) Previously I showed how your distinction of two types of human relationship to God was unsupportable and logically fallacious.

And I responded that your view was in error, Jesus specifically teaches he can treat people differently. God does as He pleases, and if it pleases God to harden the hearts of some to bring His plan of salvation to fruition, He can do it, and so is the straightforward teaching of scripture.

(5) Previously I showed that all the scriptural examples are real and still stand, namely OT and NT like Judas, Sapphira, etc. and warn of the danger.

Of course the examples stand, and have application for us. But the flaw in the Old Covenant, described in Hebrews, has no application for those born again in Christ, who are covered by the New Testament in His blood.

(6) Previously I showed there can be no 'special cases', favouritism, or unfair treatment from a Just and Impartial God who is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow.

And I showed that using folks as advesaries in this life does not indicate unjust treatment because their hearts were hostile to God from the get go.

(7) Previously I showed that there is no magical 'born again' status that guarantees salvation is un-loseable.

You said John 3:3 does not mean what it seems to say, and I respectfully disagree, unless we are born again, or born from above, or converted, or arise in Christ a new creation, we will not enter the kingdom of God.

 

[Nazaroo]

"Let us reason together, says the Lord."

"Go, reconcile with your brother, then return."

"No man builds a house, without first calculating the cost."

With these scriptures I will begin anew:

You and I, Van seem to have a difference of doctrine. In a patient and loving Spirit, I would like to take the time to see if we can find the root and solve our differences.

(1) Is there a significant difference between our doctrines? What is at stake?

Lets have a look. Both you and I agree that some people ultimately are lost, and others ultimately are saved. In this we do not significantly differ. Thus the Lord God of Israel saves some, destroys others. Even the actual percentage estimates here probably don't significantly differ between us, I presume, although we might tentatively differ about the probability of salvation in specific individual scriptural cases.

Your Doctrine

Next, if I may summarize your doctrine, some people, truly 'born-again' Christians, early in their walk, (at the point of acceptance, baptism, surrender, belief) become new creatures in Christ. From this point on, although they are still alive, and likely to live a long life complete with future sins, their salvation is assured for all time, beyond dispute. It is as good as done. Although they have not actually received eternal life, and most will die, the promise is unconditional. No further requirements or conditions are imposed. This new creature may sin again and again, but will never be allowed to jeopardize his own salvation, or else he simply cannot. Nothing, no sin contemplated in the future can separate him from the gift of salvation.

My Doctrine

Now my doctrine: Indeed Christians become new creatures in Christ. However, from the beginning of their walk as Christians until their death or kingdom come, they are in constant danger of losing their salvation, because it is conditional, and remains conditional throughout their earthly walk. The conditions are thankfully are however straightforward. They are to remain in Christ as a requirement. For this commandment to have meaning it must be achievable and carried outwillingly as an act of free will. This is not a promise, but a commandment. Its fulfillment is the responsibility of man, not God. God remains faithful, sovereign in the areas He chooses, and consistent in His dealings from man to man, regardless of man's choices. Salvation can be lost, without affecting God's reliability.


Self Examination

Oh wretched me. Why am I so foolishly stubborn? Clearly from man's point of view, for me personally, your doctrine is better. Who wouldn't want unconditional salvation? What is wrong with me? Why can't I just humble myself and embrace the sound doctrine of some of my brothers in Christ here, and get on with it. What am I hanging onto? Some confusion? a sin of pride? Am I trying to save face? What is it about my brother's doctrine that causes my aversion?

I search myself and judge myself repeatedly, but have to confess my blindness. So I retrace my steps carefully, to see exactly how I built my house, and find out where the workmanship was faulty. I compare my structure with the blueprints of scripture, and examine the foundations. What if my house is a house of cards? What if I have built upon a foundation of sand? I take my measuring tools, and just as carefully examine my brother's house. How could we have built such diverse constructions using the same blueprint?

What did I accept that cannot support the weight I put on it? What did I reject that should have been incorporated into the body of my doctrine?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"One is like a man building a house, who dug deeply,
and laid the foundation on rock." (Luke 6:48)

I began my foundation with these doctrines:

(1) God is honourable, and merciful.

God is consistent, not unpredictable. He has an unchanging nature.
God is impartial, not biased. He treats everyone equally.
God is Just, not unethical. He treats everyone fairly.
God is sovereign, not weak. He cannot be defeated.
Therefore, God is reliable. He is utterly trustworthy.

God is a provider, not a denier. He sustains the world.
God is merciful and patient, not careless. He extends mercy.
God is a Father, not a tyrant. He rules with love. He loves the world he made.
God is holy. not bribeable. He cannot be corrupted.
Therefore, God is our only hope. He is utterly necessary.

(2) If anything appears otherwise, refer to rule 1.

 

[Nazaroo]

Now with my foundation in hand,
I approach the problem of whether or not some believers have indeed lost their salvation, or at least their lives, in the past. Clearly it appears so, and we have many OT examples.
But appearances can be deceiving.

According to my doctrine, these people indeed had salvation in their hand, but forfeited it, while according to your doctrine, these people were never really saved, never actually were new creatures, truly converted, or 'born again'.

What does Paul say, a mere few verses ahead in the very book we've been reading?

I don't want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors...
all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink!
For they drank from the same Spiritual Rock ...that was Christ!
Nevertheless God was not pleased with them, and they were struck down.
...We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did,
and were destroyed!...
These examples were written to teach us,
So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall!

(1 Cor 10:1-12)

And now you will say, "ah yes, but these were OT peoples. They were not under the New Covenant. Their salvation was NOT assured like ours is." God gave them a crappy deal, an inferior covenant.

What happened to God's Impartiality? I have to ask you, how does this statement of yours hold up to the foundations I laid previously? That God is impartial and fair, shows no favourites? You have no explanation that preserves the honour of God.

Instead you appeal to His sovereignty. - His right to be arbitrary, and contrary to the universal principles of justice He demands of us. Somehow this 'God' of yours is independant of the very nature that He demands from us, and we ascribe to Him.

But mere sovereignty is not adequate to explain or interpret the examples of people in scripture. The 'god' of the Muslims claims sovereignty, but is truly loveless. The moral fiber of a merely sovereign 'god' is no better than that of a petty dictator, biker, or a mafia don.

And what is Paul's purpose in this passage, and the purpose of the examples, if not to warn us of danger? You would instead somehow have us view the lesson as a simple instruction on God's sovereignty. We can go back to sleep. There is no real danger. The worst that can happen is we'll have a few less friends.

And What other option is available under your system of interpretation?
You would say again that these people were not really saved.
That partaking in the spiritual food and drink of the very Christ
is a mere formality, worthless, not equivalent to being a new creature, or 'born-again'.

The lesson of the OT examples from Paul now become merely,

"This is what would have been, or could have been,
if you weren't a new creature, 'born again'.
So watch out!(?) or at least be grateful!
God gave those others a crappy deal, with no 'un-loseable' salvation!
Be humble at least.
The 'god' we know is arbitrary and capricious, like a spoiled child.
Who knows? He could be a monster again next week to someone else.
Good thing you have this unbreakable promise from Him.
We are lucky we can bind him by his 'word', like a Medieval demon,
since clearly he has no real principles. (The New Paul Commentary)

Similarly, under your system of interpretation,
the author of Hebrews speaks to us in a kind of wavering riddle:

Those who reject the Son of God will suffer punishments worse than death!...
But of course those people never accepted Jesus in the first place,
so that doesn't really apply to you. But watch out! Hold on to the end!
And you'll find that since you already had un-loseable salvation,
it probably wouldn't have mattered after all.
Those guys had a raw deal, constantly having to repent over and over,
and make monthly installments on their salvation. And look.
In the end, they got the Spirit of God mad anyway, and perished.
But don't worry too much. You got a sweet deal.
That was all just a bad dream that happened to someone else,
and its fading away. Relax. Its all over now. Just a dream.
(Hebrews, New Predestinarian Translation)

 

[tall73]

Hi Tall77, thanks for the careful presentation of the passage. For the reasons you stated, I presented my understanding. The context indicates the jewels in our crown are those imperishable treasures we helped into the kingdom. Backing away from the most reasonable view, the crown remains a reward for diligent service. Loss of salvation is no where in view. For example I disagree that 1 Timothy 4:6 puts loss of salvation in view. The idea is that his crown of righteousness has been laid up for him, rewards for his faithful service to our Lord. So while it is fair to point to verses mentioning the crown of life which has obtaining eternal life in view, these passages are not written by Paul and use crown to indicate a person has become part of the royal family of God.

Even if you discount the passage in I Timothy you still have to answer to the immediate context. I don't see jewels mentioned in this passage at all. In fact, the crown is a stephanos, a victory wreath. It is not a diadema, a royal crown. You don't put jewels in a wreath. He is saying that he is competing to get the crown- The prize for finishing the race.

It can't be loss of reward in regards to those preached to. Because he says that he already preached to them. He is saying AFTER he finished the race, after he preached to others, then he might be disqualified. He is looking at a hypothetical event at the end of his life. Even according to your view they are now (at the end of the race) either in Jesus or not, saved or not. So his loss has nothing to do with them. It is his own loss that he is discussing. And that can only be that he will lose the race which is the Christian life. That after others were saved through him, he won't be saved.

 

[Nazaroo]

Predestination Spreads like a Cancer

Like the 'tar baby' in the story of brere rabbit, or somebody's gum we've stepped in on the hot ashphalt, Predestination gets into everything, and infects everyone.

You began by denying you believed in predestination, except regarding the un-loseability of salvation. Now when we face up to the example of Judas, it is so temptingly handy, that we find you applying it to unbelievers like Judas as well, even though you placed him in the category of those who never received the gospel, never partook in the Holy Spirit, and never knew Jesus. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

Now Judas is explained by having Jesus 'choose' him because Jesus knew he would never even accept Jesus' message or Spirit. Jesus knew Judas would never receive salvation, so He was able to choose him for the awful task of betrayal and prophesy his actions and subsequent destruction.

Judas now has no human face at all, but in an 'us/them' view, he is a strange alien cartoon creature, who enters and leaves without stirring any human sympathy or concern. Don't worry about that guy: "Its just Judas. He was meant to be the jerk. He never knew Jesus, and was never even offered salvation, because he wouldn't have taken it anyway."

If it weren't bad enough for Judas, what does it do to our own souls, our own image of Jesus and God? Did He love Judas? What happened to the tragic human story, and the healthy sympathy for human frailty and accompanying fear that the parallel stories of Peter and Judas were meant to inspire?

Again, not only does this inadequate explanation of Judas disagree with our foundational principles concerning the nature of God, it also contradicts the very examples about God's nature given in the OT and NT.

Is the same Jesus who preached that 'He who would rule over all must serve all.",and who let the Rich Young Ruler freely walk away sad, going to predestine a human Judas for the role of monster? No. Jesus taught us that God respects our persons and our choices, born-again or not. We may be punished or face consequences of our actions, but everyone must be granted basic freedoms of choice, or be compensated by a truly Just and Merciful God. Judas could not be pre-chosen and predetermined for destruction.

To speak in such extreme terms about prophecy is to misunderstand the entire nature of prophecy. Prophecy isn't arbitrary at all. It has a moral purpose and is guided by human response to God's warnings. All prophecies are conditional! Even when God speaks in deterministic language, as He did to Ninevah through Jonah, an unspoken condition was assumed, and in that case was activated. And Jonah knew it would happen too. The people repented, and Jonah has the dubious distinction of being the only 'true' prophet whose prophecy didn't come true.

Judas' repentance would not have been a problem for God, or the reliability of prophecy. Only prophecies that come true are activated and noticed. We know about hundreds of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, because someone saw Jesus fulfilling them. If Jesus had other adventures, other prophecies would have been fulfilled. The prophecies didn't force Jesus to pick a specific route through Galilee, or force Judas to betray Jesus.

Did Judas partake in the spiritual food and drink of the Christ? Yes.
Isn't this the very downpayment of salvation? What else?
Did Judas follow Jesus' instruction and do the works of other apostles? Yes.

What is the essential difference between Judas and the other apostles?
Loyalty? No. Ask Peter. Belief? No. Ask Thomas.
Free will! Judas chose to commit a deadly sin and betray Jesus.

By their fruits you will know them. Judas wilfully committed a deadly sin.
What was the result? Judas perished.

There are such a thing as deadly sins.
We cannot pray for those who commit them.

 

[Van]

Next, if I may summarize your doctrine, some people, truly 'born-again' Christians, early in their walk, (at the point of acceptance, baptism, surrender, belief) become new creatures in Christ. From this point on, although they are still alive, and likely to live a long life complete with future sins, their salvation is assured for all time, beyond dispute. It is as good as done. Although they have not actually received eternal life, and most will die, the promise is unconditional. No further requirements or conditions are imposed. This new creature may sin again and again, but will never be allowed to jeopardize his own salvation, or else he simply cannot. Nothing, no sin contemplated in the future can separate him from the gift of salvation.

If I may, let me state my doctrine. My doctrine is what I think Paul taught. So, by my lights, it is Paul's doctrine. Some people are truly born again. Correct, everyone God places in Christ (1 Cor. 1:30) is born again. We are placed in Christ when we are spiritually baptized into Christ. When we are spiritually baptized into Christ, we are baptized into His death, where we are justified by the blood of Jesus, our body of flesh is removed, and we arise in Christ a new creation. This happens at the very beginning of our salvation, not sometime later. God chooses us and places us in Christ. We are converted spiritually, we are a new creation, created for good works. Once born again, once placed in Christ, we are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ and to be adopted as sons of God, which refers to our bodily resurrection. This is the doctrine of Paul. Once in Christ, we still sin, but once in Christ as born again new creations, our faith and devotion to Christ is protected so that we are kept by the power of God for an inheritance of eternal life. This is the doctrine of Peter - see 1 Peter 1:3-5. So in the born again from above condition, nothing can snatch us out of God's hand, and because our faith is protected, we will never wish to leave His hand. If we do not continue to have complete faith in Christ, then we were never born again. So the warning is, if we practice sin, and we are not torn, o wretched man, we were never born again. In this born again life we will face nothing that we cannot overcome, because we love Jesus more than anything.

 

[tall73]

I have no trouble accepting the possibility that your interpretation of 'crown' is correct
in the main passage under discussion; (1 Cor 9:15f...10:22)

But this, far from forming evidence for the impossibility of losing salvation,
actually underlines the danger:

Paul faces the danger of losing the race and the crown:
(his crown is the very people he has brought to salvation).

How do you lose such a crown? How does anyone lose their loved ones?
By being cut off from them: simply said, by losing your own salvation.

This is the most straightforward interpretation of Paul's loss,
if indeed that reward is the very people he has saved.

Their salvation cannot be lost, simply because Paul stumbles.
They may not even be aware that Paul has stumbled.
Their salvation is assured by their own loyalty and perserverance.
But Paul's salvation is not.

He loses the access to the friends he has saved,
because the gulf is impossible to cross, as the parable of Lazarus indicates.

Your interpretation provides evidence for the loss of salvation, not its impossibility.

The problem isn't your interpretation of 1 Corinthians.

Its your doctrine that a Christian's salvation is in no danger.

Agreed.
Either Paul loses his own salvation, or he loses his reward. But once the gospel is preached, it is up to them, not Paul whether they are in Christ. So either way, you are right, it is a salvation issue.

Plus, he is speaking of it AFTER the race. It is not saying that those who might yet be reached by him will be lost, because he is speaking of a done deal.

 

[Van]

Nazaroo, my view of Judas is supported by scripture, you view is not. Lets go over predestination again. God says what He will cause to occur in the future. Prophecy. What ever God says will happen, it is predestined. So this is not a general predestination of all things, it is a limited predestination as clearly stated in scripture. And this form of predestination was not the same as individuals being chosen for salvation from before creation. That form of believing in predestination is the doctrine I do not accept. The bible says once we are in Christ, then we are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ and we are predestined to adopted as sons of God. Thats it.

 

[Van]

Even if you discount the passage in I Timothy you still have to answer to the immediate context. I don't see jewels mentioned in this passage at all. In fact, the crown is a stephanos, a victory wreath. It is not a diadema, a royal crown. You don't put jewels in a wreath. He is saying that he is competing to get the crown- The prize for finishing the race.

It can't be loss of reward in regards to those preached to. Because he says that he already preached to them. He is saying AFTER he finished the race, after he preached to others, then he might be disqualified. He is looking at a hypothetical event at the end of his life. Even according to your view they are now (at the end of the race) either in Jesus or not, saved or not. So his loss has nothing to do with them. It is his own loss that he is discussing. And that can only be that he will lose the race which is the Christian life. That after others were saved through him, he won't be saved.

Lets go over the passage again. 1 Corinthians 9:24-27. This is talking about how to run the race. The race is not over. It is not a done deal. What is Paul going to win by running the race as he should? An imperishable wreath. And what is this wreath? This crown of righteousness. That Paul might become a fellow partaker in the gospel, that he might have fellowship with his children in Christ. And so the future loss of reward for not preaching the gospel as he should is at stake, if he becomes disqualifed after winning some, but does not finish the race.

 

[tall73]

Lets go over the passage again. 1 Corinthians 9:24-27. This is talking about how to run the race. The race is not over. It is not a done deal. What is Paul going to win by running the race as he should? An imperishable wreath. And what is this wreath? This crown of righteousness. That Paul might become a fellow partaker in the gospel, that he might have fellowship with his children in Christ. And so the future loss of reward for not preaching the gospel as he should is at stake, if he becomes disqualifed after winning some, but does not finish the race.

the problem is that he does phrase it such as to say if I finish and have preached to others but myself am disqualified. If he finished and preached then it is not the preaching that is in question. He did it. He says he did it. it is his own crown that is at stake.

 

[Nazaroo]

the problem is that he does phrase it such as to say if I finish and have preached to others but myself am disqualified. If he finished and preached then it is not the preaching that is in question. He did it. He says he did it. it is his own crown that is at stake.

I have to agree too. It can't be that Paul loses his wreath because he failed to preach. (or gets a smaller wreath!)

Failing to preach is not a sin except in a very conditional and abstract sense.
One could fail to preach simply because you are not a preacher or teacher,
but a beginner, or student, unqualified for the office of leading others in hard doctrine.

If Paul were talking about failing to preach, he would be talking to other leaders and preachers primarily, not his flock of followers, Gentiles, children, women etc. and this lesson would not be a mainstream sermon, but a specialist theological debate between two teachers.

Paul is clearly talking about SIN and stumbling, and thus failing to win the 'race', the Christian 'walk' (which Paul really would want us to call a 'RUN'!)
By I think VAN's own admission, SIN is involved here, and is what in his argument prevents others from taking Paul seriously, so they don't listen and are not converted. He is talking about his SIN being a stumbling block to others' acceptance of the gospel from him, not the absence of preaching.

The point is what is the meaning of the prize, and what is the meaning of losing or winning,
not when or how the race might be lost.

It is a smokescreen to argue whether or not the 'timeframe' or viewpoint is
pre- or post- race. 
Since all parties are agreed that it is a hypothetical case Paul is discussing, 
the viewpoint Paul chooses to take in time regarding it is not very significant.
Nor can this tell us anything definite about what is at stake.

Surely if Paul fails to effectively preach and convert people, God does not abandon them at all, and all things being equal (the failure is Paul's) they will be saved by others.
It is not these others who are 'not saved', depriving Paul of a 'wreath'.
This kind of talk has the imagery of the Hindu 'god' Kali stringing heads on a necklace! Look at my wreath! I don't think so, and the imagery is offensive. The 'logic' of Van's argument here is mind-numbing!

If the people are saved anyway, and so is Paul, in what way is he punished, or has he failed? Do we each hand out a little "I was saved by X" button, which Paul and other preachers collect and staple onto their holy garments, or make a wreath out of? So Paul, having lost the race, now walks around heaven with a sad little crown with only a few pins on it, but everybody is saved! Yeah! Can this be what Paul is so serious about?

What if if is Paul who loses and is punished, in some more severe and significant way, that befits warnings about failing to run the race to the very end, in spite of excommunication, imprisonment, torture, and death as a criminal? What could appropriately inspire ordinary men to endure horrific tortures, risk life and happiness, and lay down their lives for the gospel?

How about the reality of the 'life and death' seriousness of the failure to accept and fulfill the gospel? Of course the issue is salvation, and the alternate to salvation is surely destruction in the Lake of Fire. But if Paul himself is in no danger, then it must be the loss of the salvation of others, who fail to heed stumbling Paul.

But this is an unreasonable burden to lay upon Paul. Surely the God who grants 'un-loseable' salvation isn't going to hold Paul accountable for the loss of countless souls, simply for ineffective preaching due to sins like sloth. Who could bear such a burden in heaven or anywhere else?
Is this the God I know and worship? As Paul would say, "Certainly Not!".

Why not rather believe in a just and merciful God, who saves those who can be saved, by whatever means or man available, and keep the simple message that rejection of the gospel and falling away into deadly sin results in the loss of Salvation? Isn't that the most plausible solution, as uncomfortable as that is, because of the continuing risk and danger?

What makes sense here is that

(1) Salvation is at stake, not prizes experienced in heaven.
(2) The cause of the loss is Paul's deadly sin, not mere sloth or incompetance.
(3) Paul, not his potential future converts, is in danger of losing his salvation.
(4) The warning is for all, since even Paul is not exempt from danger.
(5) The warning is all about hanging onto your salvation, under extreme conditions of persecution.

What could be clearer?

 

[Van]

The idea in the passage is that Paul has finished part of the race, but is still running the race. He has not finished preaching, and therefore if he does not exercise self control, he will be disqualified from further preaching. Paul is saying he must walk the talk.

(1) The assertion that failing to preach is not a sin is in error. He who knows what to do and does it not, to him it is sin.

(2) The assertion that Paul would not be talking to folks in general concerning running the race so as to win is in error. Every born again saved person is an ambassador for Christ with the ministry of reconciliation. We may not open our mouths, but our life is a witness for Christ, even if we are folding the bulletin for Sunday Service, or raking the leaves.

(3) The point is not the meaning of the prize, the point of the passage is for us to run the race so as to win the prize, our crown of righteousness. And this admonition can be applied to all who are faithful servants who are looking forward to Christ's return.

(4) The assertion that if Paul does not preach it means the others will not be saved by anyone is in error, God may save them because they respond to the gospel presented by others, but Paul will not have the reward of contributing to their conversion. If we love Christ, and we are thankful for His sacrifice, not only for us but for the whole world, we are eager to help in His ministry, and the reward of fellowship with those we have poured our life into will be our crown of righteousness.

(5) The assertion more people cannot be saved by our influence is in error. The fields are ripe for harvest, we need more workers and more effective workers who run the race as best they can to the glory of God.

(6) Wow, this one is right, the danger is that if we do not run as we should, folks will not be influenced rightly that could have been influenced and thus our stumbling contributes to their lack of salvation. So the issue is serious, that is why we have the great commission. God works through those who are committed to Christ and His ministry.

(7) This is the burden of every Christian, to make disciples, teaching them to obey all that Christ commanded. The number one commandment is love God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind, and if you do, pouring out your life is a burden of joy. On that day, Christ will put his arm around us, smile and say welcome home, faithful servant.

(8) The assertion that my understanding of the gospel makes God unjust is in error. I stand by Paul's defense in Romans 9. If you have a problem with that, it is with a higher authority than I.