Correction Regarding the View of Ardel B. Caneday Concerning 1 Corinthians 9:23-27 -- By: Editor

Journal: Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
Volume: JOTGES 24:47 (Autumn 2011)
Article: Correction Regarding the View of Ardel B. Caneday Concerning 1 Corinthians 9:23-27
Author: Editor


Correction Regarding the View of Ardel B. Caneday Concerning 1 Corinthians 9:23-27

Editor

In the Spring 2011 issue of Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society I reviewed an article by Dr. Ardel Caneday on 1 Cor 9:23-27.1 Afterwards it was called to my attention that I misrepresented Caneday in a quote I gave.

The misrepresentation occurred when I was discussing what I thought was a contradiction in Caneday’s article. I said, “Caneday contradicts himself as to whether Paul was or was not expressing concern in 1 Cor 9:23-27 that he might be eternally condemned.” I then gave an example, but my example was in error.

Here is what I wrote, “For example, [Caneday says that]‘Paul poses the possibility of his own failure to pass the test in the Day of Judgment and the possibility of his being cast into perdition [i.e., the lake of fire]’ (p. 6; see also pp. 25-26).”

There are actually two errors in my quote.

The First Error: Presenting Someone Else’s View As Caneday’s View

The words I quote are Caneday summarizing the view of Shank and Marshall, who are Arminians, not Caneday’s stating his own view. Caneday is a Calvinist.

After discussing what he calls “The Loss of Salvation View” (pp. 5-6), the view of Shank and Marshall, he then explains a group of views he calls “Extra-Salvation Loss Views” (pp. 3-20). He begins that section with these words:

The idea that Paul poses the possibility of his own failure to pass the test in the Day of

Judgment and the possibility of his being cast into perdition [i.e., the lake of fire] prompts many to shudder at the prospect and leads them to theological ingenuity. The result is a variety of innovative explanations of 1 Corinthians 9:27 that contend that, while Paul fears a loss, his fear does not entail loss of salvation but rather loss of an extra-salvation reward, a reward that is in addition to his salvation which is secure (p. 6).

The words The idea that refer back to the first view he was discussing. I do not think that I caught that in my reading of the article. But I should have since he had just finished discussing that view. Thus when Caneday writes, “Paul poses the possibility of his own failure to pass the test in the Day of Judgment and the possibility of his being cast into perdition [i.e., the lake of fire],” he is summarizing the Arminian view.

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()