The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

Church at Corinth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,146 times Debate No: 10294
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I contend that the man that had committed fornication and the people that were allowing this to happen were saved . Their " state" had changed, but not their "standing "had not. Please show me the verse in 1 Cor. 5 where the writer condemns these CARNAL Christians AS BEING LOST. For that matter, show any scripture in THE CONTEXT of this letter that proves this. If these people were indeed lost,
then Paul would surely be pointing this fact out to them. Please show me
where He did such.


Gateroadmusic, welcome to!

Thank you for enlightening me to a controversy I had no idea there were people arguing about. From your tone I sense there are people who are making this claim you know of.
In round one you put your stance that those referred to in first Corinthians were saved. So to take up the Con position I must contest this stance. Now I find it hard to pass judgement on the salvation of people I have never met cause they lived and died thousands of years before me, or to pass judgement on those who are alive today for that matter and I don't want the Lord to give me that job either. Can you imagine how much that would stress you out if you found out it was your job to do that? Decide were the souls of others will reside in for eternity? So to support the Con position I will argue that for all our knowledge can help us we can not know if they were or were not lost. But that man and those people may end up in the lake of Fire on the day of judgement. This outcome is just as possible as the outcome of their eternal salvation.

Scripture says there will be many who will tell the Lord how they had worked there whole life for him and served him, but he will say to them "I do not know thee"

Also Jesus speaks of how you can sort out the good from the bad prophets based on there fruit. The church's ministry is like that of the prophets, and perhaps that means this method can be applied to them also, and if there fruit is any indication in what the passage you referred to; Corinthians 5
There fruit is not looking good.

Of course this is not sufficient to safely say that they are lost or not lost. And that is my point
But if you had to pick one way or the other for were they go to form a pointless opinion on the matter, the only variables at your disposal to consider lean toward worse place you could go.

What the passage does indicate about them is for letting the man stay that could poison there congregation because they allow for it to be okay to openly practice something the bible says is wicked. Is this scripture still relevant today or was this problem the Corinthians alone had?
You decide.

You can not say they were saved from that passage, you can only say they were contaminated.

If you want me to cite the passages I gave just ask, otherwise I see no need to look them up since there not unknown verses.

Your turn Pro.
Debate Round No. 1


I assume that since your position is "con" and since the "pro" position is that they were saved, your contention is that they were not saved. You are right when you say "for all OUR knowledge we can not know". We CAN know for sure,however, by what the writer, Paul,said of these people. Let's take a look. First of all,in chapter 5,the fornicator is referred to as a " brother", a term of fellowship in the Lord's Church. Secondly, Paul refers to them in inclusive terms in the following passages in 1 Corinthians; Ch. 1: 10,11,18,30 ( brethren,us). Numerous other times in 1 Corinthians this inclusive term "brethren" is used and is proof that these people were indeed saved.Thank you.


That is absolutely not my contention. I'm sorry if failed to make it clear. My Contention is you Pro, can not prove those people were not lost or saved, or are saved, whichever grammatical phrasing you like best. I would also like to point out that I could be proved wrong about the Corinth church as a whole and you somehow prove they were saved and you're position you gave in round 1 would still count as wrong if I can only prove that the one man who committed the sin may have not been saved. But I will argue against both cases, the church as a whole in Corinth and the fornicator within it.

The evidence you have offered to show we can rest assured that they were saved is that Paul called them brethren.
That almost sounds like you think that none of the future residents of hell will have been to church every Sunday, or ever put money in the collection plate, or teach a lesson of Sunday school. I contend that that may not be the case not every one of the seven churches the Lord addressed in Revelations 2-3 came off so well. The Pharisees tithed read there scriptures, prayed in public, and yet Jesus never seemed to have anything good to say about them. I am not saying they are or will be in hell, but they might.

But perhaps you believe that since the holy spirit did not urge Paul to call them something else when this scripture was written, regardless of the fact that it was written as only a letter, then it is safe to say the fornicator was not a hypocritical religious person, but true blue in his faith.

My Contention hear is that the term 'brother' does not indicate the condition of the man's heart in relationship to God. It is a term that indicates his relationship with his fellow man in the church. Are you willing to say Jim Jones was not a brother? Or that he was a saved man?
I like how William Paul Young (author of the shack) put it when describing the importance of Relationship.
It is part of how we are to live peacefully hear on earth. But having relationship with someone can not only happen if the two of you are saved. Solomon's mistakes are an example of this. Paul even speaks to the Corinthians about how to deal with the situation when they have relationship with non-believers even stronger than that of a 'brother'. Being able to call each other brother is very important in our Christian lives and a powerful witnessing tool as indicated by Paul, but our success in having this kind of relationship with others does not assure us our salvation or theirs. So Paul can call someone a brother without the condition of there soul being secure.

In spite of all that I have said, I want you to know I do optimistically choose to believe they were saved. But Cold logic and knowledge of scripture do not fuel this belief of them. It is no more complicated than my heart wants me to believe that (if you can call something 6 dimensional uncomplicated). But that cold logic is the only thing useful in a debate.

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your response. Your position as stated is that "brother" does not necessarily mean these people were saved. I disagree. The word for "brother" here is "adelphos", which means "the womb", implying that these people were "birth brothers" or in reality "brothers by the new birth", the spiritual birth. Aside from this , further evidence can be cited from 1 Corinthians that affirms that these people were indeed saved. The strongest verse I will give is chapter 6 verse 6. I quote: "but BROTHER goeth to law with brother, and that before the UNBELIEVERS". Paul here unmistakeably
separates believers from unbelievers, with the church at Corinth, including the fornicator being in the "believer" category.
According to chapter 5 verses 12 and 13, jurisdiction for judgment by the Church is for BELIEVERS, not unbelievers, further proving that this man was in fact a believer, a saved individual.


If you feel safe enough to pass positive judgement on the Corinthians; you should feel safe enough to pass negative judgement on Jim Jones. But for whatever reason you did not respond to this argument I had about the concept of our discussion.

This is probably because you believe your Greek word excludes that example from the situation for the church at Corinth. You did not give a source for the word for ignorant people like me but it wasn't too hard to find. after finding one I now see why you would not provide it.

Sometimes in English a word can have multiple levels of use. like love, we like using in romantic context often but it has uses in describing emotions not quite as extreme as well, such as love for family, for friends, or even for strangers.

As we can see from the source I gave Greek is not different from English in this since. And for the Christian since of the word, it list these possible uses.
6)brethren in Christ
a)his brothers by blood
b)all men
d)Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

Definition d is the one you are saying applies to this passage in scripture. Definition b would apply to my argument for this scripture.

For the voter's maybe this is enough to prove for them that my opponent has not prove the condition of the Corinthians souls since he has left no argument to prove adelphos's use in this passage. But if evidence is desired from me that it means my definition then we need look no further than the context of the passage.

1 Corinthians 5:11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone WHO CALLS HIMSELF a brother but is sexually immoral or.......

I draw your attention to the capitalized letters so that we can see brother hear is only implied as a self-styled title. Not necessarily a God given title. This fits better with definition b of adelphos and not d. This passage at bear minimum applies to the fornicator giving enough reason to vote Con for this debate, seeing as my opponent has neglected to refute my point that the fornicator is all I need to show may have be lost to prove him wrong.

They are some people in the bible that the bible tells us about the condition of there hearts; Josiah, Jehu, David are some examples. But the Corinthians are not an example of who it describes the hearts of.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Con wins hands down. Pro continued arguing the strawman, and could not understand the simple argument that we "simply do not know". Paul is not God, and judgment does not occur during life, rather at the Day of Judgment according to the bible. Considering simply the biblical sources and the arguments, Pro could not win after Round 1.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Sources + Arguments to CON.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mangani 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05