Guest shiloh357 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 "Saint" and "sinner" are not opposite terms. "Saint" is a word that simply means that we are set apart. It doesn't operate as a replacement for "sinner." The NT doesn't have a doctrine about being a "saint" vs. being a "sinner." So we can both sinners and saints at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted August 29, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.37 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted August 29, 2016 On 8/28/2016 at 3:03 PM, shiloh357 said: Paul called himself, in the present tense, the chief of sinners. With reference to his former life, and his present recognition of what he had been doing. He could not possibly be the chief of sinners and the leading apostle at the the same time. Context is everything. What should be noted that in all his epistles he addresses the Christians as SAINTS, never as sinners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted August 29, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.37 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted August 29, 2016 24 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: So we can both sinners and saints at the same time. Not true. We can be sinning saints (infrequently or occasionally), but not saint-sinners (continuously). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 6 minutes ago, Ezra said: With reference to his former life, and his present recognition of what he had been doing. He could not possibly be the chief of sinners and the leading apostle at the the same time. Context is everything. What should be noted that in all his epistles he addresses the Christians as SAINTS, never as sinners. Sorry, but he says it in the present tense, so your argument is with him. He doesn't say he was the chief of sinners, but is the chief of sinners. It says what it says and that fits the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 5 minutes ago, Ezra said: Not true. We can be sinning saints (infrequently or occasionally), but not saint-sinners (continuously). If sinner and saint, meant opposite things, we could not be both, but they don't. So they are not mutually exclusive terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted August 29, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.37 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted August 29, 2016 7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: If sinner and saint, meant opposite things, we could not be both, but they don't. So they are not mutually exclusive terms. Actually they are mutually exclusive. A saint is a sinner who has (a) repented, (b) believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, (c) received Him as Lord and Savior, and (d) renounced the world, the flesh, and the devil. Although a saint may sin or fall from time to time, he has turned his back on sinning as a lifestyle. Therefore saint and sinner are mutually exclusive. You will never find Paul addressing Christians as sinners, although he deals with sinning brethren (saints) from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willa Posted August 29, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 68 Topic Count: 185 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 14,204 Content Per Day: 3.35 Reputation: 16,629 Days Won: 30 Joined: 08/14/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted August 29, 2016 Once we are saved we no longer make sin a lifestyle. We cease to be professional hit men. We cease to be thieves. We cease from idolatry, etc. We repent and turn away from being sinners but we are imperfect and still sin occasionally. By the way, The Corinthians were such a mess that Paul said they were called to be saints. English Standard version does an excellent job of translating the tenses in 1 John: 1Jn 3:3 ESV And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. 1Jn 3:4 Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 1Jn 3:5 You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 1Jn 3:6 No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. 1Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 1Jn 3:8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 1Jn 3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 1Jn 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 1Jn 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1Jn 1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. So there is a difference between being a sinner as a lifestyle and occasionally falling. Sins are different from keeps on sinning and makes a practice of sinning. When we are saved we identify with Christ. We no longer identify with a sin or are proud of or boast about sin. No one can have "gay pride" and be a Christian. Mutually exclusive. There was once a guy named Blacky who wrote a book about all his sins, and the last chapter was about how he became a Christian. I knew something was wrong or the first chapter would have been about his career as a criminal, the next would be about how he was saved, and the rest would have been about the difference God makes in the lives of men and how his attitudes and actions have changed as a result of his relationship with Christ. The book would have glorified God, not Blacky. True to form, A few months later he was back in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khristeeanos Posted August 30, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 109 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,278 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 29 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/07/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 30, 2016 These are all very great points and I greatly appreciate everyone taking the time to offer their views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dok Posted August 30, 2016 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 57 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2016 Our status is saved. Forever. We sin, but our standing is not sinner. We are the Righteousness of God in Christ. Saved for eternity. Nothing can plunge us back into the status of sinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dok Posted August 30, 2016 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 57 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/14/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2016 It is standing before God. Of course we sin, a verb, daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts