1 Cor 5:5 question

Len

Well-Known Member
Hi All,
I was talking to a fellow christian who insists that you can lose your salvation, I dont know many verses to use against it even though I believe OSAS, but I was wondering if this verse is somethng I can use to show that even if we commited adultery, fornication etc our souls are still saved, or am I way off beam with this thought for this verse and my thinking?

1 Corintihians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
 

Steve53

Well-Known Member
Hi All,
I was talking to a fellow christian who insists that you can lose your salvation, I dont know many verses to use against it even though I believe OSAS, but I was wondering if this verse is somethng I can use to show that even if we commited adultery, fornication etc our souls are still saved, or am I way off beam with this thought for this verse and my thinking?

1 Corintihians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
That's not a verse I would go to in support of OSAS.

Ephesians 1:13–14 , 2 Corinthians 1:21–22 , John 6:39 all come to mind as solid references to OSAS.

You may also want to try and introduce the aspects of Union and Fellowship into the conversation and illustrate how we can interrupt our fellowship with God, but never lose our Union with Him because keeping us saved is something He does because we can't stop sinning.
 

Len

Well-Known Member
You may also want to try and introduce the aspects of Union and Fellowship into the conversation and illustrate how we can interrupt our fellowship with God, but never lose our Union with Him because keeping us saved is something He does because we can't stop sinning.
Hi Steve53,
Thanks for the extra verses, and we certainly covered the lost fellowship angle .... he was using a couple of verses out of Matthew one of which I could explain as it was for the tribulation period but it was just that he kept focusing on fornication as a "that's it" for you to lose your salvation and I was seeing the connection between someone in that sin and dying but still getting to heaven (but I did not use it)
 

Steve53

Well-Known Member
Hi Steve53,
Thanks for the extra verses, and we certainly covered the lost fellowship angle .... he was using a couple of verses out of Matthew one of which I could explain as it was for the tribulation period but it was just that he kept focusing on fornication as a "that's it" for you to lose your salvation and I was seeing the connection between someone in that sin and dying but still getting to heaven (but I did not use it)
:hat
I might ask him: What makes fornication any more or any less of a sin than any other sin? Any sin, is one too many in God's eyes. That's why we need Jesus in the first place. And if Jesus can't keep us saved, what kind of God are we worshiping if He can't keep up with those in His care and who's souls He purchased on the Cross?
You know your friend best, so might I suggest you get him directed squarely at God's Sovereignty and Power and Glory? That should awe him enough to rest easy in OSAS. At least it would work for me! :ahaha
 

sawas

Well-Known Member
That's not a verse I would go to in support of OSAS.

Ephesians 1:13–14 , 2 Corinthians 1:21–22 , John 6:39 all come to mind as solid references to OSAS.

You may also want to try and introduce the aspects of Union and Fellowship into the conversation and illustrate how we can interrupt our fellowship with God, but never lose our Union with Him because keeping us saved is something He does because we can't stop sinning.

Hi Steve - I certainly agree that your references above provide just the sort of assurance that the OP should be resting upon. Also, your comment regarding Union and Fellowship (or our Abiding in Him) is, to my thinking, of critical importance, especially here in this context.

Accordingly, I'm persuaded that the 1 Cor 5:5 passage might/should be interpreted as an expression of Paul's desire for a reconciliation of that fellowship and the healing, preserving, and perfecting influence that comes from abiding in Christ. That believers can't (or, perhaps, should not) expect God's protection (of our flesh) when living in sin should, I think, go without saying. That believers also have absolute assurance (as demonstrated in your citations) should, likewise, not be doubted.

I'm not a very skilled linguist (by any means) but, in reading Strong's references to the phrase "may be saved" (G4982), find these possible interpretations: save (93x), make whole (9x), heal (3x), be whole (2x), any of which might be acceptable or useful substitutions, depending on the context. While most translations have opted to use the most common of these (save), the uncertainty or confusion that the OP expressed is further compounded by the interjection (in English) of the words "may be". What's this, now? How can this contradict the clear assurance of salvation?

Certainly, as I continue in my own hermaneutical eduction, it seems that any "appearance of contradiction" can only be resolved by testing the the premise of "both/and", rather than "either/or". Knowing that the author of the bible is not capable of self-contradiction, I would insist that the solution in such cases must be "both/and". Here, as the passage simply can't represent a contradiction of the assurance of salvation and, as such, must be interpreted with a logically compatible translation, i.e. "healed" or "made whole", as the case may be.

My two cents.
 
Last edited:

Steve53

Well-Known Member
Agree 100%!

Nicely done!

My only real reservation to using 1 Cor 5:5 is that early on in your discussions it may be a bit too meaty an appetizer. Though definitely a "main course" type thing once you've established security in Christ Jesus.

IMHO you're doing very well representing what the Word actually says and we know His Word will not return void.
 

sawas

Well-Known Member
Agree 100%!

Nicely done!

My only real reservation to using 1 Cor 5:5 is that early on in your discussions it may be a bit too meaty an appetizer. Though definitely a "main course" type thing once you've established security in Christ Jesus.

IMHO you're doing very well representing what the Word actually says and we know His Word will not return void.

Thank you, hoping to do my best (which, sadly, is not always good enough :(). You're right, for sure, about this being a "meaty appetizer". Gives "the molars" a workout with the chewing, lol.
 

Stevelw

Watchman
1 Corintihians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
I’m a simpleton In regards to language,, so help is appreciated If this isn’t right.

The way I am seeing this section of the verse is as follows.

that the spirit may be (general truth) saved
not
that the spirit maybe (might be, may or may not be) saved

So if may is a general truth in this instance, the wording can be seen in context of the whole verse above as, “that the spirit can be saved”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Len

sawas

Well-Known Member
Hi Steve - I'll take another crack at this, as I do enjoy learning to better puzzle these sorts of issues out. But, like you, I don't claim any particular expertise, just a dogged desire to "get it right". Feel free to help keep me on track.

I'll get to your specific question in a moment or two, but I'd first like to expand my above-cited preference for harmonizing (apparent) conflicts in scripture. As noted, I do this by first testing the premise that both statements or passages must be true ("both/and", rather than "either/or"). Since there cannot (logically) be any conflict, it is our understanding and perception of the conflict that needs attention. It is reasonable to assume that, while both must be true, the rules of logic might well insist that one must be subordinate to the other.

Here, for instance, we must determine whether or not the passages cited by @Steve53 above (Ephesians 1:13–14 , 2 Corinthians 1:21–22 , John 6:39) could, in any way, be subordinate to 1 Corinthians 5:5. In other words, is it logically possible that the phrase "may be saved" could apply - as to a matter of justification - to any believer (who is already saved)? That's simply not logical. The controlling conditions (being sealed) would rule out the possibility of being "unsealed".

There are, instead, two other logical choices to consider: a) either the phrase "may be saved" means that the sinning believer must be "made whole" or "healed" (or reconciled in fellowship with the Lord, the option I described earlier), or b) whether this sinner may or may not be saved, i.e. an actual believer. So, let's briefly consider that second possibility.

Later (in 1 Corinthians 5:11), this becomes (seemingly) a more obvious possibility, especially given the NASB's use of the phrase "so-called brother", an idiom which for many would today automatically imply a strong measure of doubt. The original greek for this (onomazō ), however, would appear to simply mean "the name or label that one is called by". As such, it appears (to my reading) to simply impart special instructions regarding those who are fellow believers. In and around this same passage, Paul is careful to note that we're not to avoid associating with immoral people who are outside of the church, only those who are immoral within the church, i.e. fellow believers.

In other words, these passages do not, in my view, make any specific (iron-clad) allegation regarding the veracity of the claim of the believer. Rather, it is charging us (fellow believers) to judge such behavior within the church and to cast out of fellowship (refuse to tolerate) those who would commit such egregious behavior. Perhaps, we'll just leave for future discussion, what sinful behavior might be tolerated (if any), but, I think we can safely assume that efforts should have already been extended to reconcile such a person before "casting them out".

Now, given all of the above, I think I might (LOL) have a better grasp at what you're getting at. In English usage, "may" typically describes a more likely - even typical - outcome, whereas "might" is more commonly intended to limit such assurance. I think your observations are germane, insofar as the outcome - whatever it might be - for a believer would be assured and, thus, "quite typical". As such, I'd amend your final statement to be:

So if may is a general truth in this instance, the wording can be seen in context of the whole verse above as, “that the spirit would be saved” .

In the end, I'd still inclined to interpret the word "saved" here as "healed" or "made whole" (i.e. reconciled) if/when applied to an actual believer. If it were targeted at an unsaved, unbelieving person (and, thus, not "sealed") then, of course, "saved" would apply in the normal (more common) sense as it applies to any and all unbelievers. Here, the judgement that Paul is calling for in the chapter is specifically targeted toward the behavior of those within the church (of actual believers), not their position in Christ. I rather suspect he'd have made that clear if it were the case . In fact, he more-or-less makes the opposite case. We (the church) to judge behavior within the church, whereas God judges those outside. The church is always and everywhere defined as the body of believers. Likewise, unbelievers, by definition, are those who are outside of the church.


 
Last edited:
Back
Top