christdw

We are not sinners by virtue of our sins. We are sinners by virtue of our having sin - as in "the nature of sin." All believers have the sin nature, which cause us to commit sins. "Now then it is ano longer that work it out but sin that dwells in me." (Rom. 7:17) "But if what I do not will, this I do, it is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me." (Rom. 7:20) "If we say that we do not have sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the atruth is not in us." (1 John 1:8) For Paul, there are two domains: being a "sinner" (in the flesh) and being "in the Spirit" (a child of God). When someone accepts Christ, he leaves the domain of being in the flesh, and moves into the domain of being "in the Spirit" (Romans 8:9). Christians are no longer sinners, although they still sin (1 John 1:8), which I myself pointed out. But, as I said, our sin no longer defines us; we are no longer defined by our sin; we are no longer a "sinner" in the Biblical sense. Of course we sin (1 John 1:8), but we are no longer SINNERS, according to how a SINNER is defined in the Bible. So 1 John 1:8 does not go against my argument. John never refers to us as a SINNER. But we do sin, which I know full well and am not arguing against. Romans 7:17 and 7:20 also does not contradict what I just said. However, although I fear to open up this can of worms, Romans 7:14ff is discussing an unregenerate person. Paul is equating himself to what he was like under the law, not as a believer. But even if he were discussing himself as a believer, he never refers to himself as a "sinner." Period. I have never argued that we don't sin. I have never argued against the grace of God. We can do nothing by our own power. But, calling a person a "sinner" in the Bible is a weighty accusation, and it is only referred to someone who has not received Christ (for example, see 1 Peter 4:18, where Peter contrasts the SAVED with the SINNER). The grammatical is a moot point. I do not argue that Paul is not referring to himself as the chief among those who were sinners. If I implied that, I am sorry. (I do see the confusion...what I meant is that Paul never says, literally, word for word, "I am the chief sinner," but rather "among whom I am the chief.") I am saying, however, that he no longer considers himself a sinner, and so have proposed a reading of that verse in my previous posts. I have no desire to rehash that point. And, I have yet to see where the Bible refers to Christians, saved believers, as "sinners." I am gone for the weekend, so won't be able to discuss this further until later! But God's blessings on your weekend! (And I appreciate that this has turned into a mature discussion, rather than the name calling that characterized it earlier!)

Of course we still sin (1 John 1:8), but our sin no longer defines us. Although we sin, in the Biblical sense, we are no longer "sinners." The Bible treats the term "sinners" the same way I am treating it, which is: someone who is not saved, who is still in the flesh. When we become a Christian, we are no longer designated as being a "sinner," and instead are new creations, in the Spirit, children of God, etc. Our modern day usage of "sinner" is not in keeping with how it was used in Bible. We say that "because we sin, we are a sinner." That is not how it was used in the Bible and in NT times. A Christian is no longer a "sinner" in the Biblical sense. He is now a "saint." You cannot be a child of God and a sinner, 1 John 1:9. Test me on this. My offer still stands; show me a passage where a Christian, who has been saved, is, after his salvation, referred to as a "sinner" in the Bible and I will drop my argument. But you won't be able to find one--this is the only possible exception, and it's really not an exception at all, as Paul is talking about his life before he was saved.

Actually, that's what it boils down to. Your "interpretation" is inadequate because it ignores the fact that Paul was speaking of himself as the worst of all sinners, in the present tense. Ahhh! Again, you're missing the point. The question was, "Did Paul call himself the chief of sinners"? The answer is "no." He said, "...that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost [or chief]." Look at that. Did Paul call himself the Cheif of sinners. NO. He called himself the "chief." But the "chief" what? He doesn't say. Forgive me for saying so "christdw" but that is the most inane argument I think I have ever seen. Simple grammar proves you wrong. The word "whom" points to the word "sinners." The rest of your agument is simply invalid. You are reasoning that the Scriptures say something because of your preconceptions. So you are not reasoning at all within the boundaries that the Scriptures set. And frankly, I don't care what "Dr. Saucy" says about it. If he's arguing the same, then he's wrong as well. It is pointless discussing this. You all accuse me of preconceptions; you all obviously have preconceptions, as well. The scripture is very clear in several places that Christians have left the "domain" of being sinners, or in the flesh, and have moved into that of being "in the Spirit" or being "children of God." Romans 8 is perhaps the most convincing chapter on this (see Romans 8:9-14). If you would do serious scholarship of the scriptures, and not simply dismiss what I am saying because of your preconceptions, you would see this is the case. But I see that no one is willing to seriously engage this, to seriously investigate what the scripture says. It is apparent that you, Oveyda, did not even take the time to read my entire previous post, as you would have clearly seen that I said the following: If someone can show me where, somewhere else in scripture, "Christians," after they have been saved by Christ, are referred to as "sinners," then I would drop my argument. 1 Tim 1:15 is the only possible passage that I am aware of (James 5:19-20 appears to, but when James says "saving his soul from death" it makes it clear that the errant sinner "among" them was not a Christian in the first place, see also 1 John 2:19). And since it isn't 100% clear in this passage, as I have argued, that Paul is calling himself a "sinner" in his current, post-salvation, state (but rather, a "sinner who has now, currently, been saved"), and since it flies in the face of so many other passages where Christians are explained to have left the domain of being a sinner (2 Cor 5:16-17; Eph 2:10; Gal 5:24--what does it mean if the flesh has been crucified?; 1 John 3:6; 1 John 3:9, among others), my argument appears more than reasonable. It's pointless for me to discuss this passage anymore unless someone can show me where, elsewhere in scripture, Christians who have been saved are referred to as sinners. Don't take my word for it; test your "preconceptions" yourself.

First of all, Apothanein, you were insulting and that was uncalled for. We are trying to have a debate; there is no need to put someone down--that is not keeping with the spirit of this board, nor in how we should deal with Christian brothers and sisters. And simply saying "that wasn't meant as a put down" does not give you a right to say what you want. Second of all, yes, I did read that article before I posted it--thoroughly, several times. That article expresses a point that I was making, which is crucial to the interpretation of 1 Tim 1:15--Christians are no longer sinners. We have moved from the realm of being a "sinner" to now being a "child of God" or "in the Spirit," and that is the point Dr. Saucy makes in that article. Therefore, based on that conclusion, it does not make since that Paul would be calling himself, in his current state, i.e. at his time of writing 1 Tim. 1:15, the "chief [of sinners, period]." There is no contradiction between what Dr. Saucy says and what I have said. I have come to the conclusion that Paul is referring to himself as the "chief [of sinners that is now, currently, saved]." (Read my entire post if you do not believe me.) He is not calling himself, in his present state, the chief sinner. Many people recall that verse and say, "Look! Paul calls himself the chief of all sinners." My argument is that Christians are no longer sinners, so Paul is not simply referring to himself as the "chief sinner" in his current state now, as a Christian; he is referring to himself as the chief sinner that has left the realm (or domain) of being a sinner, and has moved into the domain of being a "son of God," "in the Spirit," or, simply, "saved." Or, as Dr. Saucy puts it when he sums up his view on 1 Timothy 1:15, "Thus the apostle was not applying the appellation 'sinner' to himself as a believer, but rather in remembrance of what he was before Christ took hold of him." Do you see an contradiction between that and what I presented? I do not. I have simply put it this way: Paul is referring to himself as the "chief [sinner that is now, currently, saved]." Aponthanein, you misrepresented me in the quote that you used, and took what I said out of context. That was merely my introduction; in it, I was pointing out that Paul did not precisely say what he was the chief of. He simply called himself the "chief." As I said, many people quote 1 Timothy 1:15 and say "Paul calls himself the 'chief of sinners.'" My point in the introduction is to say that, when you say that, you are misquoting 1 Tim. 1:15, because the verse does not say "I am the chief of sinners." Paul calls himself the chief. But, literally, he does not refer to himself as the "chief of sinners," but rather "among whom, I am the chief [period]." I'm not suggesting he is calling himself the "chief parking lot attendant" or the "chief host at Appleby's." Obviously, the "whom" limits what he is calling himself to what he previously said. But, taking into account the fact that Christians are no longer "sinners," the verse could be understood as something like this: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am the chief [sinner who has now, currently, been saved]"--and, therefore, he is no longer a "sinner." Because, as I've said many times, and as Dr. Saucy has so eloquently illustrated, Christians are no longer "sinners." I am not trying to push any warped view of the scripture, and to accuse me of that is one of the highest insults I can receive, and, I believe, one of the highest insults a person can level on someone. As a "pastor-in-training" I take 2 Timothy 4:1-5 as a solemn charge. I joined this board to have a spirited discussion on scripture and theology. I would hope that we could all be mature in our debates and not resort to leveling insults All of us should be more careful before we blindly accuse someone as twisting scripture, as that is a serious charge. God's blessings on your day.

Actually, that's what it boils down to. Your "interpretation" is inadequate because it ignores the fact that Paul was speaking of himself as the worst of all sinners, in the present tense. Ahhh! Again, you're missing the point. The question was, "Did Paul call himself the chief of sinners"? The answer is "no." He said, "...that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost [or chief]." Look at that. Did Paul call himself the Cheif of sinners. NO. He called himself the "chief." But the "chief" what? He doesn't say. As I argued, although you could make a point that he is calling himself the Chief of Sinners [period], from other passages in the Bible, it is clear that CHRISTIANS are NO LONGER SINNERS (cf. 1 Peter 4:18, 1 John 3:9, among others). Christians have moved from the domain of being "sinners" to now being "in the Spirit" or "children of God." And being a "sinner" and being a "child of God" are mutually exclusive (again, 1 John 3:9). We still sin, yes, but our sin does not define us; we have adopted a new nature (2 Cor 5:17). Therefore, it is a contradiction that Paul is saying that he is now currently the chief of sinners and still saved--it cannot be. So, another "intepretation" is necessary. There are a few possibilities. I have suggested that he is saying that he is the "chief sinner that is now, currently saved. Another alternative is that he is talking about his former life "I was the chief sinner"; although he uses the present tense, it is not without precedence for Paul to use the present tense to talk about himself in the past, e.g. Romans 7:14-25 (in this passage Paul is not, as is widely held, talking about his life as a Christian; context clearly shows that this is Paul under the law, without Christ. So when he says, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me," Paul is talking about life under the Mosaic law. Read all of Chapter 7 and 8 of Romans and you will clearly see that is the case; only in recent years has that passage been interpreted as to be the life of a Christian). Either "interpretation" I presented is not playing loose with the text; for to say that Paul is calling himself the "chief of sinners that has been saved" is no less a valid interpretation than him calling himself the "chief of sinners [period]." After all, as I tried to explain, Paul does not say what he is the chief of; he simply says that he is the chief something. Dr. Robert Saucy has written an excellent article on the issue of "saint vs. sinner," and in it he talks about 1 Timothy 1:15. He is probably more learned and brilliant than any of us, I suggest you all read it: http://www.ficm.org/questions/saucy%20bib%20sac.html. God's blessings on you all!

You guys are all talking around in circles! It's not about the Greek, or the tense he used, etc. The question is Did Paul call himself the Chief of Sinners? The answer is, unequivocally, NO. He never referred to himself as the "chief" (or the "foremost" or anything else) of sinners. He says, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost." The foremost what? That is the question. The passage, itself, is ambiguous. We can't determine with 100% certainty what Paul is the foremost of. So, when that is the case, we must use clearer passages to explain ambiguous passages. A very clear passage occurs in Romans 8. Here, Paul is talking about walking "in the Spirit," and walking "in the flesh." Walking in the flesh is another term for being in the "sinful state," or, a "sinner." After laying out both sides of the "flesh" and the "Spirit," Paul says this in Romans 8:9: "However, you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you." Therefore, Paul is clearly saying that a Christian is NOT in the flesh, he is NOT in the sinful state, but rather, he is in the state of the Spirit. It's not like, when we became a Christian, that our flesh nature still existed, and there was slapped a spirit nature on top of it. Our flesh nature was crucified (Galatians 5:24), and we are now a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). Does that mean we still sin? Yes, of course! But for Paul, to be a "sinner" and to be a "saint" is not based on our ACTIONS, it is a state of being; a nature; a domain. And when we became a Christian, we had a "new birth," and we left our old nature behind, and adopted a brand new one, that of being in the Spirit, or being a "son of God" (Romans 8:14). Can a son of God be a son of God AND a sinner? No. It's a contradiction (1 John 3:9). So, while we might SIN, our SIN no longer DEFINES US. In those instances, we can be seen as a "saint who sins." With that, we turn back to 1 Timothy 1:15. While it could be argued, from the grammar of the text, that Paul is calling himself the "chief of sinners," it is observed that (1) he never actually says that, and (2) the rest of scripture (these references, and others, which Rukkus has given) clearly show that Paul no longer considered himself in the sinful state. THEREFORE, another interpretation on this passage is necessitated because scripture is so clear elsewhere. And that is why Paul is not calling himself the "chief of sinners," he is calling himself the "chief of former sinners who have now been saved." And this does not mean that Paul is bragging here, as has been suggested; instead, it means that he realizes how low he was--how big of a sinner he was--and therefore, the ENORMOUS gap that Christ made up when He saved Paul. Paul is not exalting himself above anybody; rather, he is putting himself below all, by saying that he was displayed the most mercy because he was formerly so bad. This is a quote from another page on this topic that I find very insightful: One of the great delusions of the day is, that one may be a Christian, and at the same time be a sinner. Never did the devil hatch up a greater soul-deceiving lie. Even the expression,