Can a believer sin?

1. Bob, it could not have been translated have been or was.

2. It would have to be the imperfect of eimi or where it is a present tense participial form of eimi which would be relative to the action of the maintain verb that described a completed action as in Eph. 2:13.

3. 1 Tim 1:15 is the present tense form of eimi, and no version of the Bible has "was" or "have been."

4. Strong's does not say why eimi is have been or was.

 

Didn't Luther throw them out? :laugh:

 

I think it boils down to this:

1. A person that has absolutely no fruit of the Spirit evident in their heart or life should not be boastfully confident in their profession of faith. Among the fruits of the Spirit are faith and love. The conversion experience itself is an evidence of regeneration.

2. The greatest evidence of my salvation is not what can be seen outwardly but what I know I believe inwardly.

3. It is not our good works, per se, that proves we're saved, nor is it our bad works that prove we're not saved, but it is the ability to continue in sin without a conscience toward God that is evidence that a person might not be saved. In other words, someone that does not have that struggle going on between the Spirit and the flesh should examine their faith.

 

1Tim 1:
12: And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
13: Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
14: And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
15: This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Strong's seem to suggest otherwise, but if what you say is true, then what if he was talking about all of his life, including the past?

Even this scripture seems to be referring to all of his life, which would include the past, because he includes his past sins, of which he obtained mercy. He did not speak of sin now, but spoke of his past sins. Why?

 

Luther threw it out as "an epistle of straw, lacking the wheat of the gospel," but later on, he took it back.

 

I've never heard that he took it back.

 

1. In v.12 Paul thanks the Lord for his sovereign grace toward him.

2. In v. 13 Paul talks of his life before Christ and how he was shown mercy and he continues in v. 14 of the sovereign grace of God.

3. In v.15 Paul alludes to a trustworthy statement and says, "I am chief of sinners."

4. At the time of his writing, with his former life behind him, Paul says, "I am chief of sinners." I have a program with 31 translations and none read, "I was chief of sinners." It is not there.

 

Since the Bible records Paul as saying, "I am chief (of sinners), I guess the rest of us are somewhere apart from that, wouldn't you say? That is not to suggest any self-righteousness on any of our parts, but the Holy Spirit, apparently did not disagree with Paul's assessment, causing it to be recorded, for us. And kind of like the Biblical "saint of saints", one of only two humans referred to three times as "righteous" or "just" in Scripture, and the only person specifically identified as being among the "godly", is none other than 'Hizzonor', himself, the Mayor of Sodom, good old Lot!

I'm sure glad that the Lord does not judge, as we tend to. Anyone else agree?

Ed

 

1. You're probably right on that.

2. However, he did say that it remains in the canon but not among the chief writings.

 

Luther also said this about the epistle of James...

That has always been my impression of the book. Even the catholic encyclopedia says,

 

I will side with Carson and Moo when they say, "We do not wish to minimize Luther's criticism of James: he clearly had difficulites with it. But his difficulties arose from a somewhat imbalanced perspective induced by his polemical context" (An Introduction ot the NT, 2nd. ed., p.632).

 

So Moo says not to have a cow over Luther's remarks?

If you don't like that pun, I can think of an udder one.

 

I love that response! Only you can pull it off. :laugh:

 

You've already milked that pun for all it's worth! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Naw! Don't confuse Martin Luther with Marcion, the Heretic.

Ed

 

I'm very interested in your comments.
That wich is born of God is the Spirit. Do you take this to be the part of man in which God gives breath to upon the bestowing of grace? The spirit?

That which sins is flesh. Are you saying this is the soulical man?
I would think that we all here should agree that the soul and spirit are not the same thing.

 

From what I have seen in other threads, do I take it that you are not fond of the Book of James?

 

"My little children I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
1John 2:1

So I would say yes, Christians can sin.

 

When Paul said 'of whom I am chief', he was speaking present tense, not past tense. This can be verified by his Epistles to the Romans when he wrote that 'the evil that I would not, that I do.'

Paul struggled with sinful flesh and there were times when he gave in to those temptations.

 

Well, I still say when he said "I am chief of sinners" he could of been talking about just 2 or 3 lines above where he tells what sins he commits.

If he is saying that he now commits sin more than they all. Please give us some examples of what sins he was committing, that were so bad?
He gave us what he committed before, and found mercy. You also speak of God's Grace, which to me is what helps us from sinning.

Also, once again it seems that Strong's agrees it could of meant past.

Strong's

1510
eimi
eimi
i-mee'
the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic):--am, have been, X it is I, was.

So it could read "I have been chief of sinners". or "I was chief of sinners".

I could not quote how many times members have went to that 5 words to make up a whole doctrine on a subject, when it could mean "Past sins". No one seems to know all those bad sins he is committing now, or present.
What if Strong's Translation of "am" is correct. I can see where some want it to be present, to justify their own sins, present.

BBob