1 Corinthians 5:5 and Losing Salvation

[eahaddix]

:hmm: Does 1 Corinthians 5:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=31;) (ref. 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:1-5%20;&version=31;)) reference the possibility of losing salvation?

[TLIR]

I don't think that particular scripture is alluding to losing salvation.

We are saved by grace through faith. Lose your faith. Lose your salvation. Does not mean living in sin causes you to lose salvation nor does it mean those who have doubts lose their salvation. If some one was to lose their faith in Christ and believe in Buddha or just turn to atheism they have lost faith and (Heb 6:6 KJV) would apply since to be saved again would require Christ to be crucified again.

(Heb 6:4-6 KJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
(Heb 3:14 NIV) We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.
(1 Tim 4:1 NIV) The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

[CoreIssue]

That is an intriguing verse.

Interesting consideration is that if the power of the flesh sin nature would loose salvation, eventually, then God, and not Satan, would destroy the flesh.

So why would Satan destroy the flesh?

Probably because any saint God opens to destruction would be quickly in the cross hairs of Satan and demons. One less saint around. One less risk of becoming a powerful witness upon turn around.

I think what is being said is that such a saint should have all fellowship withdrawn and that God would withdraw protection for such a saint leaving them open to deadly attack. Better dead than alive spiritually speaking. Change or perish.

My 2 cents here.

[Jessie]

I wonder if those were never born again?

make believers?

change or perish is probably right, too many have like another here said in another thread have a foot in the church and a foot in the world.

thats such a difficult passage for me.

[eahaddix]

We are saved by grace through faith. Lose your faith. Lose your salvation.

Grace alone is the basis of salvation, while faith is the means by which God enacts his grace.

Ephesians 2 [NIV]
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Now, once God enacts his grace, the believer is imputed with God's righteousness (Romans 4:1-5, 23-24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%204:1-5,%2023-24;&version=31;), Genesis 15:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2015:6;&version=31;), James 2:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202:23;&version=31;), see also Philippians 3:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians%203:9;&version=31;), etc.), which includes payment for all [past, present, and future] sins (Hebrews 10:10-14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2010:10-14;&version=31;), Hebrews 7:25-27 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%207:25-27;&version=31;), Hebrews 9:25-28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:25-28;&version=31;), 1 Peter 3:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=67&chapter=3&verse=18&version=31&context=verse)). Therefore, once God's grace is enacted, God has no reason to revoke one's salvation, even during backsliding or apostasy.


If some one was to lose their faith in Christ and believe in Buddha or just turn to atheism they have lost faith and (Heb 6:6 KJV) would apply since to be saved again would require Christ to be crucified again.

(Heb 6:4-6 KJV)
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Hebrews 6 [NIV]
4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age,

Hebrews 6 [Greek] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Hebrews+6%3A4-6&section=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search)
4 Adunatongartouv apac fwtisqentav, (5685) geusamenouv (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1089) (5666 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5666)) te thv dwreav thv epouraniou kai metoxouvgenhqentav (5679) pneumatov agiou 5 kai kalon geusamenouv (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1089) (5666 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5666)) qeou rhma dunameiv te mellontov (5723) aiwnov,

In Hebrews 6:4-5, the Greek word for "taste" is geuomai (Strong's #1089) (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1089), which means:

"2. to taste
a. i.e. perceive the flavour of, partake of, enjoy
b. to feel, make trial of, experience [Strong's Lexicon] (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1089)

"to taste; by implication, to eat; figuratively, to experience (good or ill):--eat, taste" [Strong's Greek Dictionary] (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK10.htm#S1089)

With this in mind, note that the subject is "tasting," or making trial of, the listed things from God. This communicates the idea of experiencing without complete involvement, since tasting is an incomplete action of consuming. Remember that believers spiritually eat and drink Christ Jesus's body and blood (ref. John 6:51, 53-57 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:51,%2053-57;&version=31;)), not simply taste Christ Jesus's body and blood, in getting salvation.

Now, how can one experience these items without complete involvement? Just like the unsaved spouse is sanctified by the saved spouse (ref. 1 Corinthians 7:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207:14;&version=31;)), an unsaved individual can share certain spiritual elements of a Christian community. For instance, the unsaved can be involved in bringing salvation to others, knowing the Word of God, and the work of the Holy Spirit in general.

Moreover, Hebrews 6:4 mentions the "sharing of the Spirit." This is significant, for believers do not share (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/share) the Spirit between each other. To the contrary, the Spirit dwells within every believer individually (1 Corinthians 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%203:16-17;&version=31;), 2 Corinthians 6:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%206:16;&version=31;), see also John 14:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:16;&version=31;)).

Hebrews 6:6
if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance,[...]

Hebrews 6:6 [Greek] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=heb+6%3A+6&section=0&it=kjv&oq=Hebrews%25206%3A4-6&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=heb&ng=6&ncc=6)
kai parapesontav (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3895), (5631 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5631)) palin (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3825) anakainizein (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=340) (5721 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/extras.cgi?number=5721)) eiv (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1519) metanoian (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3341),

According to the Greek text of Hebrews 6:6, Paul states that when such a person falls away, restoring the change of mind within them becomes impossible. In other words, when such a person deviates from an association with "the faith" or a Christian community, they will persistently refuse to return.

Hebrews 6 [NIV]
7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

Notice that in Hebrews 6:7-8, Paul uses the illustration of land to differentiate between people. Notice that the productive land is already receiving rain, while the unproductive land does not receive rain. When applied to people, this illustration means that a productive believer is productive because of what God gives them, while a non-believer or pseudo-believer produces nothing because God gives them nothing.

Thus, based on this argumentation, I conclude that Hebrews 6:4-8 does not teach "Conditional Salvation."

(Heb 3:14 NIV) We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

Let us put this verse back into context.

Hebrews 3 [NIV]
14 We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. 15 As has just been said:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%203:14-19;&version=31;#fen-NIV-29995a)]
16 Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17 And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? 18 And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%203:14-19;&version=31;#fen-NIV-29998b)]? 19 So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

Footnotes:
(a) Psalm 95:7-8
(b) Or disbelieved

Notice that in Hebrews 3:7-11, 15-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%203:7-11,%2015-19;&version=31;), Paul speaks about ancient Israel's rebellion, or disbelief, in God. Specifically, Paul reminds the reader that God punished ancient Isreal's rebellion with 40 years of desert travel (Hebrews 3:9, 16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%203:9,%2016-17%20;&version=31;)). Paul identifies ancient Israel's disbelief as the root problem (Hebrews 3:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%203:19;&version=31;)), which God refused to tolerate (Hebrews 3:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%203:18;&version=31;)).

Now, notice that Hebrews 3:7-11, 15-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%203:7-11,%2015-19;&version=31;) surround Hebrews 3:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%203:17%20;&version=31;) as a warning against the unbelief of Israel. This means that in verse 17, Paul advises the Jews to continue the ancient Israelite faith in God by accepting Christ Jesus.

(1 Tim 4:1 NIV) The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

Hold on a second. Where does Scripture equate "falling away" or apostasy with the loss of salvation?

[CoreIssue]

Don't forget Romans 8.

Those who love God in freewill are predestined all the way to glorfication.

Predestined means it is a lock, sealed and done deal.

[eahaddix]

Don't forget Romans 8.

Those who love God in freewill are predestined all the way to glorfication.

Predestined means it is a lock, sealed and done deal.

Indeed so! Believers are sealed by the Spirit (2 Corinthians 1:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%201:22;&version=31;), Ephesians 1:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%201:13;&version=31;), Ephesians 4:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:30;&version=31;)), which marks God's ownership (1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206:19-20;&version=31;)).

Romans 6 [NIV]
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.

Galatians 5:25 [NIV]
Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.

[eahaddix]

That is an intriguing verse.

Interesting consideration is that if the power of the flesh sin nature would loose salvation, eventually, then God, and not Satan, would destroy the flesh.

So why would Satan destroy the flesh?

Probably because any saint God opens to destruction would be quickly in the cross hairs of Satan and demons. One less saint around. One less risk of becoming a powerful witness upon turn around.

I think what is being said is that such a saint should have all fellowship withdrawn and that God would withdraw protection for such a saint leaving them open to deadly attack. Better dead than alive spiritually speaking. Change or perish.

My 2 cents here.

1 Corinthians 5:5 [NIV]
hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28444a)] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Footnotes
(a) Or that his body; or that the flesh

1 Corinthians 5:5 [Greek] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=1co+5%3A5&section=0&it=kjv&oq=1co%25205%3A5&ot=bhs&nt=na&new=1&nb=1co&ng=5&ncc=5)
paradounai (5629) ton toiouton tw Satana eiv oleqron thv sarkov, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4561) ina to pneuma swqh (5686) enthhmeratoukuriou.

"Sinful nature," or sarx (Strong's #4561) (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4561), could refer to the sensuous desires of the flesh, as opposed to physical flesh. Based on this, many people argue that Paul meant behavioral readjustment, not physical death.

Moreover, if one compares the NIV, NASB, and KJV's rendering of 1 Corinthians 5:5, one notices an inconsistent placement of the phrase "may be," which modifies the meaning of this verse. The NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=31;) applies this phrase to his sinful nature's destruction, while the NASB (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=49;) and KJV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=9;) apply this phrase to his spirit's salvation. However, the Greek text does not contain a formal equivalent of this phrase, in any sense, thereby making this issue about subjective dynamic grammatical equivalence.

That aside, Jessie brought up a good point (ref. post #4 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=10035&postcount=4)). Why should the reader presuppose that the said man is saved?

Any thoughts?

[CoreIssue]

That aside, Jessie brought up a good point (ref. post #4 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=10035&postcount=4)). Why should the reader presuppose that the said man is saved?

Any thoughts?
Because the verse says this.
his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Not a maybe statement as regards the spirit. He must be saved.

[eahaddix]

Because the verse says this.


Not a maybe statement as regards the spirit. He must be saved.

You are begging the question with semantical parallelisms. How do you know 1 Corinthians 5:5 applies to maintaining salvation, as opposed to obtaining salvation?

[CoreIssue]

You are begging the question with semantical parallelisms. How do you know 1 Corinthians 5:5 applies to maintaining salvation, as opposed to obtaining salvation?

Actually, I did not.

You commented about Jessie saying how do we know he was saved to begin with and asked for comments.

I commented on that stated context.

So, I am not begging the question.


5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor%205:5&version=31#fen-NIV-28444a)] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.


It is said as his spirit will be saved and not may be saved.

Therefore he is saved and this is about maintaining and not obtaining salvation.

If not saved then this would not be stated as an absolute.

Strong's Number: 4982 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=4982&version=kjv) Original WordWord Originsw/vzwfrom a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saoz, "safe")Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4982&version=kjv#Legend) EntrySozo7:965,1132Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechsode'-zo http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=4982g) Verb Definition
to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction
one (from injury or peril)
to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health
to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue
to save in the technical biblical sense
negatively 1b
to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment 1b
to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance

[eahaddix]

Actually, I did not.

You commented about Jessie saying how do we know he was saved to begin with and asked for comments.

I commented on that stated context.

So, I am not begging the question.

No. You are begging my question by inserting presuppositions into semantics with multiple meanings.

It is said as his spirit will be saved and not may be saved.

Therefore he is saved and this is about maintaining and not obtaining salvation.

If not saved then this would not be stated as an absolute.

I addressed this issue in my last post. This depends on which English translation you consult.

Moreover, if one compares the NIV, NASB, and KJV's rendering of 1 Corinthians 5:5, one notices an inconsistent placement of the phrase "may be," which modifies the meaning of this verse. The NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=31;) applies this phrase to his sinful nature's destruction, while the NASB (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=49;) and KJV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=9;) apply this phrase to his spirit's salvation. However, the Greek text does not contain a formal equivalent of this phrase, in any sense, thereby making this issue about subjective dynamic grammatical equivalence.


Strong's Number: 4982 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=4982&version=kjv)Original WordWord Originsw/vzwfrom a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saoz, "safe")Transliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4982&version=kjv#Legend) EntrySozo7:965,1132Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechsode'-zo http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=4982g) Verb Definition

to save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction
one (from injury or peril)
to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health
to preserve one who is in danger of destruction, to save or rescue
to save in the technical biblical sense

negatively 1b
to deliver from the penalties of the Messianic judgment 1b
to save from the evils which obstruct the reception of the Messianic deliverance

But how do you know that 1 Corinthians 5:5 uses definition 1a1, as opposed to definition 1a4?

You are employing backwards reasoning. Specifically, you are presupposing a select definition of sozo, then applying this definition to the context of 1 Corinthians 5:5.

[CoreIssue]

Because hinging salvation on the destruction of the flesh is illogical and not Biblical.

Salvation is by repentence, not being killed by Satan.

Remove the sin nature of the flesh and there is nothing left to bring down a saved spirit.

[eahaddix]

Because hinging salvation on the destruction of the flesh is illogical and not Biblical.

I already addressed this issue.

"Sinful nature," or sarx (Strong's #4561) (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4561), could refer to the sensuous desires of the flesh, as opposed to physical flesh. Based on this, many people argue that Paul meant behavioral readjustment, not physical death.


Salvation is by repentence, not being killed by Satan.

Agreed. But, as a situational tool, Satan can push pseudo-believers into a saving submission, no?

Remove the sin nature of the flesh and there is nothing left to bring down a saved spirit.

Hold on a second. How many modern saints live, or have lived, a backslidden or apostate life? Why does "Satan (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4567)" not kill all of these saints?

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Salvation is by repentence, not being killed by Satan.



Agreed. But, as a situational tool, Satan can push pseudo-believers into a saving submission, no?

Not if he kills them. Which is the mechanism of the statement that saves the spirits.
If Satan can kill them he is not going to mess around and give them a chance to repent.
You are introducing extended time elements here not in the conditionals. Kill them. Dead. No more options.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Remove the sin nature of the flesh and there is nothing left to bring down a saved spirit.


Hold on a second. How many modern saints live, or have lived, a backslidden or apostate life? Why does "Satan (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4567)" not kill all of these saints?
Backslidden does not equal unsaved.

Satan cannot kill what he does not have permission to kill. Paul's statement regarding this guy shows permission.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

All saints sin. This guy crossed a line according to Paul

[eahaddix]

Not if he kills them. Which is the mechanism of the statement that saves the spirits.
If Satan can kill them he is not going to mess around and give them a chance to repent.


You are introducing extended time elements here not in the conditionals. Kill them. Dead. No more options.

Where does 1 Corinthians 5:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5;&version=31;) use the word "kill"? The Greek word for "destroy" [NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=31;)] or "destruction" [NASB (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=49;) and KJV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=9;)] is olethros (Strong's #3639) (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3639), which means:

"1. ruin, destroy, death
a. for the destruction of the flesh, said of the external ills and troubles by which the lusts of the flesh are subdued and destroyed" [Strong's Lexicon] (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3639)

"ruin, i.e. death, punishment:--destruction." [Strong's Greek Dictionary] (http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK36.htm#S3639)

The primary meaning of olethros is "ruin," which is employed differently under different contexts, as illustrated above. When applied to 1 Corinthians 5:5, the contextual usage of olethros depends upon the meaning of sarx (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4561"Sinful nature," or [I]sarx (Strong's #4561) (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4561), could refer to the sensuous desires of the flesh, as opposed to physical flesh. Based on this, many people argue that Paul meant behavioral readjustment, not physical death. [/COLOR]
Nowhere does 1 Corinthians 1:1-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:1-5;&version=31;) state that this man was "beyond a point of no return" or "sinning beyond salvation." To the contrary, 1 Corinthians 5:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5;&version=31;) probably represents the final recourse of communal disciplinary measures for persistent sinning (1 Corinthians 5:2, 9-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:2,%209-13;&version=31;)), as outlined in Matthew 18:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:15-17;&version=31;) (see also 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%203:14-15;&version=31;), Titus 3:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%203:10;&version=31;), etc.). In fact, many people speculate that 2 Corinthians 2:4-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%202:4-11;&version=31;) speaks about the same man.

Backslidden does not equal unsaved.

So? Cross-examination allows me to switch between defensive argumentation and "devil's advocacy."

Satan cannot kill what he does not have permission to kill. Paul's statement regarding this guy shows permission.

And who gave Satan permission? God? Paul? The Corinthians?

All saints sin. This guy crossed a line according to Paul.

What "line"? Who establishes this "line"?

[eahaddix]

:look: In the past, you claimed "the Bible is solidly eternal security," yet also claimed "God ensures our salvation by any means necessary."

:hmm:However, "eternal security" does not require "loss prevention," unless "loss prevention" produces "eternal security." Hence, according to this reasoning, the loss of salvation is possible, yet completely improbable. This reasoning strikes me as a doublethink.

Question: Given the above distinction, how is losing salvation possible?

[TLIR]

(Rom 4:16 NIV)
Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace...

[eahaddix]

(Rom 4:16 NIV)
Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace...

:): And? Without a context, I could interpret this phrase in many ways.

[CoreIssue]

QuoteWhere does 1 Corinthians 5:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5;&version=31;) use the word "kill"? The Greek word for "destroy" [NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=31;)] or "destruction" [NASB (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=49;) and KJV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5%20;&version=9;)] is olethros (Strong's #3639) (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3639), which means:

Really, a silly argument.

To make ill or ruin the body is a motivation to change ones life. Satan would not want one to wake up and become a solid Christian.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyStrike
"Sinful nature," or sarx (Strong's #4561) (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4561), could refer to the sensuous desires of the flesh, as opposed to physical flesh. Based on this, many people argue that Paul meant behavioral readjustment, not physical death.


Nowhere does 1 Corinthians 1:1-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:1-5;&version=31;) state that this man was "beyond a point of no return" or "sinning beyond salvation." To the contrary, 1 Corinthians 5:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:5;&version=31;) probably represents the final recourse of communal disciplinary measures for persistent sinning (1 Corinthians 5:2, 9-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:2,%209-13;&version=31;)), as outlined in Matthew 18:15-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:15-17;&version=31;) (see also 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%203:14-15;&version=31;), Titus 3:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%203:10;&version=31;), etc.). In fact, many people speculate that 2 Corinthians 2:4-11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%202:4-11;&version=31;) speaks about the same man.

By your logic Paul was just wasting his time here, wasn't he?

I did not say or imply sinning in the context of quantity or any such other thing. There verse is a head scratcher indeed.

Context seems to be more of not falling by sin but moving so far from God as to abandon faith in God.

We don't really know, do we? Not said, is it?

So this is all specualtion as to why the man's spirit was at risk. Which has to be the subject of the statement because the flesh was never "born-again" to start with.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Backslidden does not equal unsaved.


So? Cross-examination allows me to switch between defensive argumentation and "devil's advocacy."

Really, a vague and meaningless statement here.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Satan cannot kill what he does not have permission to kill. Paul's statement regarding this guy shows permission.


And who gave Satan permission? God? Paul? The Corinthians?

Paul is an Apostle. Last I looked, that meant he received revelation from God. And only God can grant that permission.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
All saints sin. This guy crossed a line according to Paul.


What "line"? Who establishes this "line"?

An undefined line we can only speculate about since it is not clearly defined.

You find other statements in the NT about saints moving away from God to the point of them dying. Read 1 Cor 11. All of it. These are saints but yet we see warnings such as:
30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Yes, all sins are forgiven as regards eternity. But no, there are still consequences in this flesh from them from God.

And if God chooses to let Satan be an instrument then that is what it is.

So, my pasts statements stand without Biblical challenge. We do have Eternal Security even if means God has to kill us to maintain it.

[CoreIssue]

:look: In the past, you claimed "the Bible is solidly eternal security," yet also claimed "God ensures our salvation by any means necessary."

:hmm:However, "eternal security" does not require "loss prevention," unless "loss prevention" produces "eternal security." Hence, according to this reasoning, the loss of salvation is possible, yet completely improbable. This reasoning strikes me as a doublethink.

Question: Given the above distinction, how is losing salvation possible?

Not by quantity or quality of sin. You cannot be condemned by what has been forgiven.

But of a loss of desire for God. Flesh desires driving the spirit to abandon God.

God will not allow that. He will take us out of the flesh, thus removing the driving mechanism that pushes one in that direction.

It isn't double think. Just qualifying the issues properly.

[CoreIssue]

(Rom 4:16 NIV)
Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace...

To loose the faith is to loose the grace.

But God will not allow that to come to term. He will removed the flesh that drives the loss of faith thus fulfilling Romans 8 where those who repent in love WILL succeed all the way to glorification.

Our spirits will never loose faith. That is an issue driven by the flesh.

No flesh, no chance of loss of faith.

[eahaddix]

Really, a silly argument.

You are engaging in a prejudicial language logical fallacy. Simply calling my assertions "silly" proves nothing.

To make ill or ruin the body is a motivation to change ones life. Satan would not want one to wake up and become a solid Christian.

So? How many demons have attacked you under one intention, yet the situation had different results? Evil spirits do not control one's free will reactions to spiritual warfare. Moreover, as a situational tool of God, "Satan (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4567)" can push pseudo-believers into a saving submission, no?

By your logic Paul was just wasting his time here, wasn't he?

But how do you define "wasting time"? Paul stated that this man could influence other people (1 Corinthians 5:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:6-8;&version=31;)), since the Corinthians maintained fellowship with this man (1 Corinthians 5:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:2;&version=31;)). As a result, Paul instructed the Corinthians to take disciplinary measures against this man (1 Corinthians 5:2, 9-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:2,%209-13;&version=31;)).

Context seems to be more of not falling by sin but moving so far from God as to abandon faith in God.

Do you mean apostasy?

I did not say or imply sinning in the context of quantity or any such other thing. There verse is a head scratcher indeed.

We don't really know, do we? Not said, is it?

So this is all specualtion as to why the man's spirit was at risk. Which has to be the subject of the statement because the flesh was never "born-again" to start with.

Hold on a second. How can you differentiate between not obtaining salvation and losing salvation, if the nature of the danger to this man is unknown?

Really, a vague and meaningless statement here.


You are engaging in a prejudicial language logical fallacy. Did you even try to understand what I said?

Paul is an Apostle. Last I looked, that meant he received revelation from God. And only God can grant that permission.

And why did God grant Satan power over this man?

An undefined line we can only speculate about since it is not clearly defined.

This is the point. You are trying to utilize multifaceted vagueness in interpreting 1 Corinthians 5:5. However, vagueness is not positive evidence for positive positions.

You find other statements in the NT about saints moving away from God to the point of them dying. Read 1 Cor 11. All of it. These are saints but yet we see warnings such as:[...]

Hold on a second. "Moving away from God" in what context? Your point is vague.

- - - - - - - - - -

Not by quantity or quality of sin. You cannot be condemned by what has been forgiven.

But of a loss of desire for God. Flesh desires driving the spirit to abandon God.

God will not allow that. He will take us out of the flesh, thus removing the driving mechanism that pushes one in that direction.

It isn't double think. Just qualifying the issues properly.

To loose the faith is to loose the grace.

But God will not allow that to come to term. He will removed the flesh that drives the loss of faith thus fulfilling Romans 8 where those who repent in love WILL succeed all the way to glorification.

Our spirits will never loose faith. That is an issue driven by the flesh.

No flesh, no chance of loss of faith.

So you can lose your salvation by apostasy, but not by sinning? How is this possible? Moreover, can you provide Scriptural prooftexting to substantiate this assertion?

[CoreIssue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Really, a silly argument.



You are engaging in a prejudicial language logical fallacy. Simply calling my assertions "silly" proves nothing.

Yep. But I still think it is a silly argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
To make ill or ruin the body is a motivation to change ones life. Satan would not want one to wake up and become a solid Christian.



So? How many demons have attacked you under one intention, yet the situation had different results? Evil spirits do not control one's free will reactions to spiritual warfare. Moreover, as a situational tool of God, "Satan (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4567)" can push pseudo-believers into a saving submission, no?

You are switching contexts here.

We are not talking demons trying to nullify the effectiveness of a saint but being allowed to kill a saint.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
By your logic Paul was just wasting his time here, wasn't he?

But how do you define "wasting time"? Paul stated that this man could influence other people (1 Corinthians 5:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:6-8;&version=31;)), since the Corinthians maintained fellowship with this man (1 Corinthians 5:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:2;&version=31;)). As a result, Paul instructed the Corinthians to take disciplinary measures against this man (1 Corinthians 5:2, 9-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205:2,%209-13;&version=31;)).

Kicking him out is one thing. Stating he was to be destroyed is another.
Paul, by what you have stated as his desctruction was pretty much pointles wasted time by saying anything beyond kick him out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Context seems to be more of not falling by sin but moving so far from God as to abandon faith in God.

Do you mean apostasy?

No. Abandoning God does not demand one abandons their beliefs about God.

Demons abandoned God but never lost the knowledge of who he is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
I did not say or imply sinning in the context of quantity or any such other thing. There verse is a head scratcher indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
We don't really know, do we? Not said, is it?

So this is all specualtion as to why the man's spirit was at risk. Which has to be the subject of the statement because the flesh was never "born-again" to start with.



Hold on a second. How can you differentiate between not obtaining salvation and losing salvation, if the nature of the danger to this man is unknown?

Because of context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Really, a vague and meaningless statement here.


You are engaging in a prejudicial language logical fallacy. Did you even try to understand what I said?

Yes. And I found it vague. Unclear in meaning on this particular point.

So, not prejudicial, which you are making a false assumption of here.

It simply was not a clearly understandable statement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Paul is an Apostle. Last I looked, that meant he received revelation from God. And only God can grant that permission.

And why did God grant Satan power over this man?

We are not told.

I have noted in many conversations you are not accepting of the fact God does not tell us every detail of every issue.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
An undefined line we can only speculate about since it is not clearly defined.

This is the point. You are trying to utilize multifaceted vagueness in interpreting 1 Corinthians 5:5. However, vagueness is not positive evidence for positive positions.

Actually, I am dealing with what we are told to extent able. Which is sufficient for the points I made. But not all aspects of the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
You find other statements in the NT about saints moving away from God to the point of them dying. Read 1 Cor 11. All of it. These are saints but yet we see warnings such as:[...]

Hold on a second. "Moving away from God" in what context? Your point is vague.
Read the chapter. It is there.
- - - - - - - - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Not by quantity or quality of sin. You cannot be condemned by what has been forgiven.

But of a loss of desire for God. Flesh desires driving the spirit to abandon God.

God will not allow that. He will take us out of the flesh, thus removing the driving mechanism that pushes one in that direction.

It isn't double think. Just qualifying the issues properly.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
To loose the faith is to loose the grace.

But God will not allow that to come to term. He will removed the flesh that drives the loss of faith thus fulfilling Romans 8 where those who repent in love WILL succeed all the way to glorification.

Our spirits will never loose faith. That is an issue driven by the flesh.

No flesh, no chance of loss of faith.


So you can lose your salvation by apostasy, but not by sinning? How is this possible? Moreover, can you provide Scriptural prooftexting to substantiate this assertion?

If all sins are forgiven at repetence then one cannot loose their salvation by sinning.

What does that leave as the only means of lossing salvation? Abandoning God.

Note. I did not say apostasy. That is your assumption. I believe that is a poor word here.

[TLIR]

You are begging the question with semantical parallelisms. How do you know 1 Corinthians 5:5 applies to maintaining salvation, as opposed to obtaining salvation?

Because he is referred to as a brother.