Did Paul say he was Chief of Sinners?

[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.

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!)

[Ovedya]

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.

You opened it. Paul uses present-tense language through the entire passage. He is referring to himself - presently.

But even if he were discussing himself as a believer, he never refers to himself as a "sinner." Period.

It doesn't matter. He did refer to himself as the foremost of sinners in 1 Tim.

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.

The grammar is not moot at all. Paul's realization of himself is very honest and very clear. He understands that although he is a believer, he is also still a man who sins - hence "sinner."

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!)

God bless you too, brother. Hope you have a great weekend.

[apothanein kerdos]

As EricH pointed out, the Greek makes it a present tense. There has yet to be an argument against it.

The thing is, "sinner" as a negative connotation, that is, as a lifestyle is only used in the Johannine writings, not the Pauline epistles. The Greek word for sinners, harmatolos, can simply refer to someone that is not free of sin (i.e., not perfect, indicating all men). In other words, Paul is saying that he considers his present sin worse than all other sins being committed at that time. When you turn to the Greek, there is no escaping this. Even Dr. Saucy had to get away from the Greek in order to justify his interpretation. I only wish he would have looked at it deeper.