See how this adds to the conversation Kerux? We can now discuss why we may agree or disagree with FFC's interpretation. One would like to be able to do the same thing with your posts, but they are typically void of any communication of understanding and therefore do not contribute to the topic. It's almost as if you're relying on implication to state your position (i.e. the verses 'speak for themselves' and therefore imply your line of reasoning). There are two issues I see with this that work against effective communication: 1) Your implied position can be completely misunderstood because it is not explicitly stated, which can result in responses that are not even on-topic. 2) If all else fails you have 'an escape route' where you can ultimately say 'that's never what I thought, you misunderstood my meaning.' This is very unfortunate for the readers and discussion contributors who have invested their time in trying to come to a collective understanding.
Edit: Oh, I should note that you did post your opinion on the 1 Cor 5 passage. They were:
So we have two conflicting views. My view which you may have missed, is that the person is saved and unrepentant. Your view is that he is not saved and unreprentant. My evidence that he is saved is twofold: He is a member of the church, which presumes that he has confessed Jesus as his saviour. And second, that Paul says he will be saved on the day of the lord. (His flesh *may* be destroyed, indicated that he may or may not come to repentance to save his flesh, but the word may does not reference his spirit, as it will be saved regardless.)You refer to the I Co. 5 passage. There is no evidence that the person involved in the sin in question is even saved. You even point this fact out:
"is actively involved in what everyone will consider reprehensible sin and is unrepentent." You connect no repentance to this person.
Putting him out of the fellowship was for the purpose of making him think about his sin, to shake him from his 'everything I'm doing, even my gross sin, must be okay, because I'm still in fellowship with God's people and, of course, I "believe," to repentance.
Why would Paul turn a Christian over to Satan? The turning of the sinful person to Satan is for that person to come to the point where he realizes his sin and repents, turning to God, "that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."
What I think is missing here, is an explanation of the reasoning behind your interpretation. If we had that, we could compare both interpretations *and their supporting evidence* and possibly draw some conclusions about the most reasonable interpretation. Note that your main reasoning seems to be (once again implied) that *because* he was unrepentant he must not have been saved. But this entire thread is about the possibility of being uprepentant yet still saved. So really, that is just a reitteration of your position and not evidence in and of itself.