I have nothing to add, but I'm very interested to see what others have to say.

The idea of "once saved, always saved" has long been a question for me since there are so many who claim salvation and then go fallow (as far as we can tell).

I don't know if this passage really relates to the C vs A debate.

I've always understood "disqualified" to mean disqualified from being a missionary for the Gospel. So I guess I go with the Gill interpretation. But - as always - I could be, and probably am, wrong.

Jen - I have long kept in mind the "seed planted in shallow soil" example regarding those who go fallow. I've seen a number of them too. I think Paul saw a lot of them as well ("Demas, having loved this present world" . . .) - Whether they were ever saved, I have no idea.

My question is this: what's the relationship between what Paul's concerned about and what he could actually be disqualified from? In other words, even if he was afraid of losing his salvation (which doesn't seem to me to be what he's saying, but I could be wrong), does that mean he actually could? After all, whom among us can claim that their emotional reactions always line up perfectly with what they believe to be true (let alone with the truth as God knows it)?

Wesley tries to put too much weight on this verse to prove a point, imho.

AM says what I wanted to say (something approaching the idea that sometimes Paul's rhetorical flourishes do not necessarily reflect theological convictions), but I am in the "he's talking about the privilege of being a minister of the gospel" camp.

If I was listening to John Wesley speak the above quote I would question what he is saying as in the first sentence he qualifies what he is saying, "This single text MAY give us a just notion of the scriptural doctrine of election and reprobation", emphasis mine. Then he goes on to say, "and CLEARLY SHOWS us, that particular persons are not in holy writ represented as elected absolutely and unconditionally to eternal life", emphasis mine. I would ask John,"Well, John, which is it?"

To my way of thinking there is no way John Wesley could have known and it would be difficult at best to infer his conclusion.

Disclaimer: I was raised in and have spent most of my time in the Weslian tradition. It is very easy to see both sides and bounce from one to the other. I have to side with Bill on this and say that I'm a huge fan of God's sovereignty.

I think that if Paul is talking about his salvation here, then he is teaching a "get it by faith, keep it by works" based salvation...

Wiersbe says this:

Paul’s fear of becoming a castaway had nothing to do with his salvation. He is not talking about salvation but Christian service. We are not saved by running the race and winning; we run the race because we are saved (Phil. 3:12–16 and Heb. 12:1–3). The word “castaway” means “disapproved, disqualified”; it is translated “not well pleased” in 10:5. Paul compares himself to the herald who called the athletes into the arena, yet who himself did not pass the tests to be a contestant! Paul was not afraid of losing his salvation but of losing his reward for faithful, sacrificial service.

Wiersbe, Warren W.: Wiersbe's Expository Outlines on the New Testament. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1997, c1992, S. 446

I think I fall in line with this thinking. I think it may be possible that he is talking about being disqualified from the blessings mentioned in verse 23 in which he concludes his thoughts about becoming all things to all people. Verse 23 reads thusly:

I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

Perhaps the blessings that Paul speaks of extend past eternal life and fellowship with our Lord and Savior. While the inital blessings of salvation are extended to all believers, those who seek Him more closely are extended plenty of blessings that come with having a mind like Christ's.

These are initial thoughts - I welcome feedback (but no flaming).

Flame on!! wait . . . I can't flick my Bic . . . is it empty? There's no spark . . . that's embarrassing.

Anyway, all of the good stuff has been said above. I'll just put in that while I believe the Bible clearly teaches that God saves all whom he wishes to save, that he adopts his own from before the foundation of the earth, that salvation is a gift of God and not something earned or even chosen by men, I also believe the Bible does not encourage us to put our salvation behind us, as it were, by claiming "once saved, always saved" as an excuse. If we are truly saved, there should be evidence of it, as James says. If there isn't evidence, if the only reason we can give for our salvation is that we had an experience in the past, then we should not believe we are saved at all.

". . . continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose" (Phil. 2:12-13). If God is the one working in us to will and act, then why do I need to work out my salvation with fear? That's the paradox.

Thanks for your insights, guys.

I think that by "disciplining his body", Paul is wanting to be sure that there is nothing in him that would enjoy the pleasures of this world and keep him from partaking fully in Christ's sufferings (a theme picked up significantly in 2 Corinthians)........Paul suffered because he "preached to others"....."going soft" or being undisciplined would result in NOT suffering for the gospel....his message was that Jesus was everything and losing our lives for His sake is the highest calling of all......Paul was all about beating his fleshly desires into submission so that he would truly be dead to a life that this world has to offer....for him, anything less would disqualify him from being able to tell others that life is found by losing it for Christ