Can a believer sin?

Are you saying "defective verb" equals aorist? Or am I misreading you?

 

Amen!

Sometimes it's not even a temptation, as I've learned over the years, from committing myself more and more to God.

But, a saved person can also choose to commit these acts.

It's not a question of "can a person resist?" It's a question of "will a person always by necessity choose to resist?"

A saved person can commit every sin in the book, and probably come up with a few new ones. But, he doesn't have license to do so. He can, but he may not.

 

You're quite correct.

I was thinking of verbs in general, and not eimi in particular. Eimi always implies durative action, and to denote the aorist idea of eimi, would use ginomai.

John 8:58 would be a good example of using both words: Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

 

I will just put it this way, If he can and does, he will split hell wide open and never had the saving Grace of the Lord.

 

He won't be in the lake of fire, that's for certain, but works (whether good or bad) don't determine whether you've ever been saved or not.

 

Jesus taught just the opposite. Mat 7:18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

 

Don't confuse the ME folks with stuff that's in the Bible.

 

You are misreading me. A so-called "defective verb" does not have all the tenses normally associated with Greek verbs, or is irregular, in some other way. That is all that means. I stated, if you read my post, as opposed to just scanning it hoping for an 'opening', that the imperfect was the closest approximation and stood in the stead of the aorist, although I did not word it exactly that way.

An English example of an irregular verb is "to set"; anothter is "to be". In fact, many more verbs in English are "irregular" than are "irregular" in Greek.

Ed

 

A third grader would know if the toy wagon she was playing with was defective if one of the wheels were missing. There is something wrong with eimi for it to be called a defective verb, if something is wrong then bias comes into play or guess work. You say you use a different translation than strongs. What is the exact definition of "eimi" that your book gives, being you don't like Mr. Strong?
Don't leave any words out, just copy and paste the definition of "eimi", from your book or books. I would like to make up my own mind.

 

A man who dies, and is overweight for the reason of eating too much at the time of his death, is just as guilty as a man who dies committing the sin of adultey while dying. Both sins are an abomination in God's sight. Both God condemns. In fact the first, the sin of gluttony is more akin to prostitution, for a man (as long as he is overweight) continues to live in a sinful condition. He keeps his body in that sinful condition by maintaining a lifestyle that keeps him overweight.
This is a perfect example, Bob, of "He that is born again cannot sin." The verb means to continue in a sinful lifestyle without any repentance.

 

I consider this to be complete wrong. Jesus said there was a difference and if you want to compare spitting gum on the sidewalk with adultery, go ahead but you do not have scripture support for such doctrine. Some people can eat till the fall from the table and never gain a pound, and another can starve himself to death and keep getting heavier. We were born that way, so who fault is it. I say Adam's.

 

"Defective" or "irregulard" has to do with "form", Bob, not definition. I'll try an give somethng you may get. "To preach" is a regular verb. Its present is "preach"; its past is "preached"; its past participle is "preached". That is the 'form' of a regular English verb. Its past and past participles are usually formed by adding "ed" to the main verb.

When the offering is taken, we assume people "give". "Give" is an irregular verb. Its present is "give"; its past is "gave"; its past participle is "given". The form is not give, gived, and gived.

"Am" is another irregular verb, as I shared before. Its present is "am"; its past is "was"; its past participle is "been". It is not am, amed, and amed.

And there are 10 1/2 colums of usage (not definition) of "eimi" in Thayer's Lexicon alone. The "problem" is not in the definition. Strong's gives the basic definition (for I looked that up)) of "to exist" or "to be". The same is given by Thayer. The KJV translators also render this correctly, as do all others, to my knowledge. But you are taking how the word is rendered, given the tense, and attempting, whether by design or merely theology, to put another spin on it, that the language simply will not support, either in Greek or English, because of again, the tense.

The tense is present in the verse in question. Hence, "I am". Were the tense the imperfect, it would have been rendered "I was". This tense does occur many multiplied times in the NT, just not in this verse. The same is true of the future tense of "I shall (or will) be".

And it makes exactly the same amount of sense, to render the verse "I shall be 'chief' (of sinners)" as to render it "I was 'chief' (of sinners)". Neither is the correct tense, and neither is what Paul is saying. Or "first", or "foremost" or "no. 1", or however you wish to render 'protos'. That rendering of 'protos' , BTW, does not change the meaning, but forcing in the 'past tense' onto "eimi" does do exactly that.

So I shall pass on your request to print out 10 1/2 colums of pages, since I have no way to copy this en toto. And I have no way to reproduce the Greek font, except imperfectly, and only then on a letter by letter basis of copying and pasting, and I'm simply not doing that for the amount of time it would take, for it would take me a full two weeks, at a minimum, at the amount of time I have available. Sorry.

BTW, I never said I did not like "Mr. Strong", for in fact I do 'like' the efforts that were required to assemble this information. I just recognize the limitations of a concordance as opposed to a lexicon. And I also recognize the limitations of a lexicon as opposed to a concordance. I appreciate good commentaries and Bible Atlases, too. But they don't do what concordance does. They don't do what a lexicon, does, and neither do they all work in reverse. You will be hard pressed to glean any Greek meaning of "eimi' or any Hebrew meaning of "sheol" from any of the best ever Bible Atlases, for example. They are simply not designed for that purpose. You will also have a hard time finding the location of Beersheba, and its geographic relation to Babylon, Egypt, or Jerusalem, for example, in Strongs concordance. That is not what it is for.

Ed

 

Aw! go ahead Ed; it will pass before you know it..........

I can tell you know some Greek. I suspect that Strong's did too. I suspect that Strong's with all of his fellow translators had more Greek study than anyone on BB, and for some reason Strong's gave "have been" and "was" in the same column as "am". That is why I am comfused.

No matter though, if it is the present tense. I do not believe Paul meant that he was now committing the chief of sins, but that his life consisted of persecuting Jesus Christ and His Church is why Paul said "of whom I am chief".

An Apostle, preacher or teacher is not going to spend his life teaching people not to sin, and what sin is, and what will happen if you sin, while all the time he is chiefly sinning. For it to make sense to anyone that Paul would be committing chiefly sins, while setting up churches, teaching others not to sin. "shall we sin that Grace may abound, God forbid", is beyond me. I just do not believe it that way Ed, and never will.

How many times have you seen on this board, including you, have members used "of whom I am chief", to justify sins of the saved. What if you are wrong Ed, that Paul meant when he was persecuting the church of Jesus Christ, but the Lord showed him mercy.

 

I suggest you are "comfused" :laugh: (Sorry, couldn't resist, this.) from not reading the plan of the Greek dictionary of Dr. Strong. You can find this on page 5 in the hard copy. If you read this, you will see what is the form of the book, and it is not what you keep suggesting (and I and others keep correcting you on).

I'd suggest you are correct, in that a large group of 'scholars' would collectively know more than any one individual. However, I'm not sure that James Strong had any additional 'helpers' or 'scholars' in compiling this massive work. There are none referred to in my copy, FTR.

But I would question your comment about what a preacher or teacher could or could not do, as to preaching about something while at the same time, "chiefly sinning". Does the name of a certain well-known preacher from Colorado, recently, ring a bell? Are you familiar with a certain large worldwide church body that has been widely accused in relation to 'immorality' and underage participants, in the USA, recently, including two 'dioceses' in our own state (The Cincinnati diocese, does come into Northern KY, I believe, but could be mistaken, here.) ? How about a recently deceased lady who was well known on TV? How about a fairly well-known evangelist from Louisiana, a few years ago? Or another one from South Carolina? If not, PM me and I will supply them. I'm fairly certain that your memory will be sufficiently 'jogged'.

You seem to be overlooking Paul's declaration of "that where sin did abound, grace did 'super' abound".

I do not recall ever on this board, or anywhere else for that matter, "justifying" any "sins of the saved". (I can speak for no other person.) If I have, would you please show me where. I'm sure that finding such would take far longer than my attempting to reproduce 5 pages of Thayer, one letter at a time.

There is a great deal of difference between saying that a (or any) Christian can (potentially) commit about any sin that an unbeliever can commit, and saying that any such sin is "justified". I do agree with the former; I do not say the latter.

Ed

 

This is all I could find with a quick search of you amening it.

 

I sure don't see that as condoning sin.

I forget where I read this, but I guess it's true that if you don't offend at least half your congretation, you're probably not preaching grace.

 

It wasn't about condoning sin, it was about the saved can commit any grievous sin without repentance.
So, you do not believe sins have to be confessed before you die?

 

"Have to be?" Or else what?

 

1 Corth 6:
9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

 

That's about unbelievers, not believers with unconfessed sin.

I'll put it this way. I guarantee you and I will die with unconfessed sin. You can object to that all you like, here, but I'll accept your apology in heaven.