Much appears to be said about the fact that ἡγιασμένοις here (past action with ongoing effect) indicates that the Corinthians have the 'status' of being sanctified (positionally sanctified and set apart) in spite of the fact they struggle with sin, as demonstrated by the wider context of the text.
τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ ⸉τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ⸊, ... (1Cor. 1:2 )
However, 2 Timothy 2:21 uses this same form, but within a conditional future clause (ἐὰν ... ἔσται ...)
ἐὰν οὖν τις ἐκκαθάρῃ ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων, ἔσται σκεῦος εἰς τιμήν, ἡγιασμένον, εὔχρηστον τῷ δεσπότῃ, εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἡτοιμασμένον. (2Tim. 2:21)
At the word level
, it seems like this 'past action with ongoing effect' doesn't work here. Does the fact that it is used within a clause explain what is going on here, or, does this legitimately feed into a question about conceiving the perfect participle as a 'past action with ongoing effect' (i.e. Porter/Campbell), and hence challenge the typical interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1:2?