Did Paul say he was Chief of Sinners?

[Floatingaxe]

Paul was revealing his humility, plain and simple.

[christdw]

You guys are all talking around in circles! It's not about the Greek, or the tense he used, etc.

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:

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."

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.

Edited February 23, 2007 by christdw

[EricH]

You guys are all talking around in circles! It's not about the Greek, or the tense he used, etc.

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:

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."

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.

The point you are missing is that the Greek grammar simply will not support your idea that Paul was chief, but not of sinners.

Here is the passage:

This saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners"-- and I am the worst of them.

1 Timothy 1:15 HCSB

In this passage Paul makes a propositional statement. Namely that Jesus came into the world to save sinners. The greek word for sinners here (amartolous) is an adjective in the normal accusative masculine plural. Paul then uses the relative pronoun (ov) which is in the genitive masculine plural. The relative pronoun agrees in gender and number with the adjective for sinners. They are both in the masculing plural. The pronoun is in the genetive case (used here in the partitive sense) meaning "from among". So literally in the Greek the text says "Christ Jesus came to save sinners of which I am formost. The verb for I am (eimi) is in the present indicative active. This tense means that Paul sees himself currently in this condition.

So right here we have a verse where an apostle is calling himself a sinner (infact the chief of them). The greek demands this interpretation. Help me understand why you are ignoring the greek grammar to get the interpretation you do out of this passage.

[Ovedya]

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.

What you are saying regarding sin is incorrect. If Christians were no longer sinners, or no longer had the capacity to commit sins, then there would be no need for Pauls exhortations to live according to the Spirit as opposed to the flesh. Simply the fact that those verss are in the Bible refute your assertation that Christians are no longer sinners.

I think that you are defining "sinners" as "Those who are without salvation." The Bible does not make any such argument. Christians do still have the capacity to sin. The only difference is that we have a way to be absolutely forgiven, whereas the "sinner" who is without the grace of God will die in his sins, and will pay the penalty for them.

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:

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."

It wouldn't even work according to your hypothetical, because grammatically it is not correct. Christ did not come into the world to save sinners who are currently being saved. He came into the world to save sinners, period. Yes, Christians are in the process of being saved. That is absolutely true. But that does not negate the fact that we are still sinners. That is, we still have the capability and the propensity to commit sin.

[reconditioned]

Oh come on people. Paul just had a self esteem problem. Unless he was just one (edited by moderator) of a humble speaker. And impressive too. But the English is quite simple. Its the same as any of us would say. That the was guilty of the worst sins. or something.

Am I making sense? I think that makes sense.

[christdw]

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.

Edited February 23, 2007 by christdw

[Ovedya]

Oh come on people. Paul just had a self esteem problem. Unless he was just one (edited by moderator) of a humble speaker. And impressive too. But the English is quite simple. Its the same as any of us would say. That the was guilty of the worst sins. or something.

Am I making sense? I think that makes sense.

I think Paul was humble. Certainly he had a lot to brag about - Phil. 3:4-8 - but his realization that all of those attainments were worthless compared to Christ Himself.

I believe that Paul did harbor some guilt over what he had done to the church (Acts 8:3; 9:21; Gal. 1:23) . Obviously he was forgiven, but it very well could have been a source of some deep pain for him:

"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God." (1 Cor. 15:9

[EricH]

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.

We have done that above. We are still waiting for you reasoning for ignoring the Greek syntax and what it demands

[Ovedya]

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.

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)

[Ovedya]

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.

We have done that above. We are still waiting for you reasoning for ignoring the Greek syntax and what it demands

Yes. Please address the grammar problem.