Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Some have regarded (1Cor. 5:5) as the strongest verse in the Bible for once saved, always saved and I would not disagree.
Many commentators try to avoid what Dillow so gladly affirms. They argue Paul did not mean the person should be killed. However, the early church fathers correctly understood Paul's command was to kill the man. Tertullian said Paul was invoking the Hebrew Scripture's familiar "judicial process" whereby a "wicked person being put out of their midst" was done by the "destruction of the flesh." (Tertullian, Against Marcion. Book 5, ch. VII.) This is evident in Paul's language about purging. It was taken directly from the death penalty laws in the Mosaic Law, e.g., (Deut. 17:7), 21:21, 22:21. Furthermore, Paul uses the language of a judicial officer rendering a verdict in 1 Cor.5:3, which a death sentence would require. This incident reveals a flaw in Paul's ideas that all the Law was abrogated, even its civil rights to protect the accused. Under the Law, a hearing was necessary where two eye witnesses tell the judge the persons were caught in the very sexual act prohibited in the Law. No inference was permitted in capital cases. (Deut. 17:7; cf John 8:4). Second, the witnesses in an incest case with a stepmother had to confirm the father was alive at the time of the act. Otherwise, as some Rabbis pointed out, the act was not precisely prohibited by the Law. Then, in strict compliance with the Law, Paul should have required the two witnesses to be the first to throw stones. (Deut. 17:7; John 8:4 et seq.) Paul instead presumptuously declares the death penalty over an accused without hearing testimony and questioning the circumstances. Paul's abrogation of the Law thus cut out barriers against precipitous actions by those in authority. Paul took full-advantage of a freedom he gave himself from the Law of Moses to ignore civil rights protected in the Law.
Kendall, Once Saved Always Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1985) at 156.)
In spite of the sin of fornication, Paul still regarded the person as a saved man. (Gromacki, Salvation is Forever (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976) at 138.)
If Dillow and these writers are correct (and they are accepted as correct by mainstream evangelical Christianity which Moody Press typifies), then Paul taught a carnal sexually immoral and unrepentant fornicating Christian has nothing significant to lose. Paul is supposedly saying a Christian can commit even incest with his step-mother and be saved all the while. Thus, of course, the same must be true of "consistently unrepentant fornicating Christians."
Recap: How Mainstream Christianity Proves Paul Teaches A Christian May Fornicate
Accordingly, mainstream Christianity offers several proofs that Paul teaches it is permissible for a Christian to commit fornication although it may not be expedient:
-
The Law is abrogated.
-
If one said fornication were strictly impermissible, that is not only Legalism, but also it implies a works-salvation.
-
Paul only warns loss of rewards in (Gal. 5:19) if a Christian practices fornication. (Dillow.) Thus, no rewards nor salvation are lost for occasional fornication; and
-
Paul's language in (1Cor. 5:5) implies consistent acts of unrepentant incest do not even threaten loss of salvation, so practicing unrepentant fornication cannot possibly pose such a threat.
- Dave Hunt, CIB Bulletin (Camarillo, CA: Christian Information Bureau) (June 1989) at 1.