Can a believer sin?

[Steven2006]

Hey, me too. I think we all agree that Paul was a very bad sinner before he was converted on the road to Damascus. And most of us will understand that he still had a sin nature that he struggled with afterwards. I just want to know how successful a man's struggle has to be before he can consider himself saved. Brother Bob would say that Paul acheived a very high degree of practical righteousness, and I would agree. Do we infer that every Christian must run like Paul or he is not really a believer?

I believe no. While we should all try and grow (progressive sanctification), some do not do a very good job at working towards that and stumble more than others. It doesn't mean they are not saved. However, in my opinion if someone can live a lifestyle of sin, with no remorse or conviction from the Holy Spirit to repent, that person should do some real soul searching as to if he was truly saved.

 

[TCGreek]

I am, I was, and I have been are all used in the same way. You can go through the Bible and find "am" anywhere and its translated that way. So, I choose "I was". TC; chooses "I am".
I guess we both are entitled to our own choice. It seems to me it would be the one that included the sins Paul listed. (context) means everything.

1. And what does context say? I have quoted several commentators and NT scholars who are much smarter than I and they all seemingly took eimi as I am, referring to Paul's life after his conversion, and not before. They too were working with the context.

2. Tell me, Bob, what doctrine is at stake here for you?

 

[James_Newman]

I believe no. While we should all try and grow (progressive sanctification), some do not do a very good job at working towards that and stumble more than others. It doesn't mean they are not saved. However, in my opinion if someone can live a lifestyle of sin, with no remorse or conviction from the Holy Spirit to repent, that person should do some real soul searching as to if he was truly saved.

K, so what do we do with verses like this one?

1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

 

[Brother Bob]

Ed; Paul, as another pointed out, did not say "was". He said "am", the current time period, by any reckoning.

That is the KJV and other translations but the word "am" in Greek according to Strong's could be "was" or "have been".

 

[Brother Bob]

TC;
2. Tell me, Bob, what doctrine is at stake here for you?

The same as you, it has been used over and over when trying to justify sins of a Christian, that Paul was chief of sinners, as if Paul was always chief of sinners while trying to teach others not to sin. (context)
It does not make sense, for anyone to try and teach me not to sin, while he is committing that very sin or worse. I just do not believe that an Apostle of the Lord was still "chief of sinners". (context again) "repent ye, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand", that is the message or as Jesus told the woman, "go and sin no more".
Preachers have a job to do, and that is to tell the whole world to repent of their sins, not become a "chief sinner", and everytime someone uses that "Paul was chief of sinners" to justify sin, then you are teaching people "so what if you sin, Paul did", that is a message that will cause people to go to hell, and I care whether they are saved or lost.

 

[TCGreek]

The same as you, it has been used over and over when trying to justify sins of a Christian, that Paul was chief of sinners, as if Paul was always chief of sinners while trying to teach others not to sin. (context)
It does not make sense, for anyone to try and teach me not to sin, while he is committing that very sin or worse. I just do not believe that an Apostle of the Lord was still "chief of sinners". (context again) "repent ye, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand", that is the message or as Jesus told the woman, "go and sin no more".
Preachers have a job to do, and that is to tell the whole world to repent of their sins, not become a "chief sinner", and everytime someone uses that "Paul was chief of sinners" to justify sin, then you are teaching people "so what if you sin, Paul did", that is a message that will cause people to go to hell, and I care whether they are saved or lost.

1. Now we can honor that truce. It seems like you are not going to let up on your good friend Strong's despite all the evidence to the contrary of your particular choice of Strong's.

2. I'm done with 1 Tim 1:15 and your use of Strong's; it's going nowhere.

 

[Hope of Glory]

One reason I do not use Strong's for this is that, according to something I read, Dr. James Strong did not know koine` Greek, but merely compiled these materials together.

Yes, it's a concordance, not a lexicon. Just like Young's Concordance. Young was a Greek scholar, but his concordance (although he wrote grammars, etc.) was nothing more than a compilation of the words used in his translation.

I do sometimes look up Hebrew words in Strong's, not knowing any Hebrew or Aramaic, myself, and figuring even a little bit of help, when needed, is better than none.

Try the BDB. It's available free for eSword. I'll email you a copy if you PM your email addy to me.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Bob, Strong's compiles the way the word is used throughout Scriptures, not the specific way that it's used in this passage. The present tense cannot be past tense under any "context", although present tense could be future in prophetic context.

 

[Steven2006]

K, so what do we do with verses like this one?

1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

The way I understand what John was getting at in 1 John is that there were two types of erroneous doctrines were being put forth. antinomianism and perfectionism. Antinomianism basically said that man was not held accountable for to any moral law. He only had to believe he was justified. Perfectionism, basically believed in the sin nature was eradicated. Much of what John wrote in 1 John was to show the errors in both of these doctrines. That is why one the surface it appears to almost contradict at times.

"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;" 1 John 2:1

Poof there goes perfectionism

"No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:9

Poof there goes antinomianism

Note John does not say "he cannot commit an act of sin", but rather "he cannot sin". And the way I understand from the Greek experts that I have read, the tense of the words and how they are used, it means to practice sin habitually. It is not talking about one act of sin.

I think the rest of the verses in 1 John including verse 5:18, that at first glance appear to contradict each other are also just making these points.

 

[James_Newman]

The way I understand what John was getting at in 1 John is that there were two types of erroneous doctrines were being put forth. antinomianism and perfectionism. Antinomianism basically said that man was not held accountable for to any moral law. He only had to believe he was justified. Perfectionism, basically believed in the sin nature was eradicated. Much of what John wrote in 1 John was to show the errors in both of these doctrines. That is why one the surface it appears to almost contradict at times.

Then you disagree with the 'antinomian' idea that salvation is by grace through faith alone?

"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;" 1 John 2:1

Poof there goes perfectionism

"No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:9

Poof there goes antinomianism

Note John does not say "he cannot commit an act of sin", but rather "he cannot sin". And the way I understand from the Greek experts that I have read, the tense of the words and how they are used, it means to practice sin habitually. It is not talking about one act of sin.

I think the rest of the verses in 1 John including verse 5:18, that at first glance appear to contradict each other are also just making these points.

Fortunately I don't speak greek. My brain has just enough room for one more language and I think I'm going to save it for the mission field.

 

[npetreley]

Then you disagree with the 'antinomian' idea that salvation is by grace through faith alone?

It all becomes clear now.

 

[Steven2006]

The way I understand what John was getting at in 1 John is that there were two types of erroneous doctrines were being put forth. antinomianism and perfectionism. Antinomianism basically said that man was not held accountable for to any moral law. He only had to believe he was justified. Perfectionism, basically believed in the sin nature was eradicated. Much of what John wrote in 1 John was to show the errors in both of these doctrines. That is why one the surface it appears to almost contradict at times.

"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;" 1 John 2:1

Poof there goes perfectionism

"No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:9

Poof there goes antinomianism

Note John does not say "he cannot commit an act of sin", but rather "he cannot sin". And the way I understand from the Greek experts that I have read, the tense of the words and how they are used, it means to practice sin habitually. It is not talking about one act of sin.

I think the rest of the verses in 1 John including verse 5:18, that at first glance appear to contradict each other are also just making these points.

Here is another book where Paul talks about it in a similar way as John. In Gal 5:21 where he says.... "I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The KJV translates it as "do", the NASB as "practice". When I look up the Greek the word is used in the present participle tense, which is described as : "expresses continuos or repeated action."

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob, Strong's compiles the way the word is used throughout Scriptures, not the specific way that it's used in this passage. The present tense cannot be past tense under any "context", although present tense could be future in prophetic context.

Hope of Glory; how do you know it is present tense, if "eimi" the word that was used, means in Greek, am, have been, was?
When all we have to go on is the word in Greek of "eimi"?

 

[Steven2006]

Then you disagree with the 'antinomian' idea that salvation is by grace through faith alone?

No, I agree with that 100%, absolutely. The way I understood what I have read on the matter is that there were groups that believed that after conversion they could then live under no obligation to obey any laws of ethics or morality. They felt they then basically had a license to sin with no consequence. Maybe they were extreme or hyper antinomians, I am not an expert, on it. But I don't think one can be saved, and then, feel they have a license to sin at will. That is what I was speaking about. But I do believe we are saved by grace through faith alone most definitely. Maybe I chose my wording poorly in my explanation.

 

[Steven2006]

It all becomes clear now.

See my explanation in post #94.

I might add that comment is a little bit insulting.

 

[James_Newman]

See my explanation in post #94.

I might add that comment is a little bit insulting.

Don't worry, he's probably insulting me, not you.

 

[James_Newman]

No, I agree with that 100%, absolutely. The way I understood what I have read on the matter is that there were groups that believed that after conversion they could then live under no obligation to obey any laws of ethics or morality. They felt they then basically had a license to sin with no consequence. Maybe they were extreme or hyper antinomians, I am not an expert, on it. But I don't think one can be saved, and then, feel they have a license to sin at will. That is what I was speaking about. But I do believe we are saved by grace through faith alone most definitely. Maybe I chose my wording poorly in my explanation.

Well, the antinomian charge is a weapon employed by many for many reasons. It has certainly been leveled at the clear teaching of salvation by faith alone. But what you say about the license to sin is rather interesting. If in fact a believer is saved through faith alone apart from works, one would be inclined to suspect that most Christians would abuse such a system and that indeed it would bring about the lawlessness that detractors accused Paul of preaching. Undoubtedly Paul refuted such an idea (should we sin that grace may abound?) but was he adding works to the requirements of salvation, or merely downplaying the seriousness of the implications of scott-free salvation? Or is there another consequence of sin that believers might have to look forward to?

 

[Steven2006]

Don't worry, he's probably insulting me, not you.

LOL thanks. Well, after my botched up use of 'antinomian', I hope at least some of my explanation made some sense to you anyway.

 

[Steven2006]

Well, the antinomian charge is a weapon employed by many for many reasons. It has certainly been leveled at the clear teaching of salvation by faith alone. But what you say about the license to sin is rather interesting. If in fact a believer is saved through faith alone apart from works, one would be inclined to suspect that most Christians would abuse such a system and that indeed it would bring about the lawlessness that detractors accused Paul of preaching. Undoubtedly Paul refuted such an idea (should we sin that grace may abound?) but was he adding works to the requirements of salvation, or merely downplaying the seriousness of the implications of scott-free salvation? Or is there another consequence of sin that believers might have to look forward to?

That I think brings us back to 1 John and some of those verses. I think that is what he was saying. If one is truly saved they won't live like that. Once we are saved I believe we will hate sin. We might still be drawn to it because of our sin nature, and even stumble at times and sin. But I think we will not be comfortable in that lifestyle. The Holy Spirit will convict us. God does chastise His children.

 

[James_Newman]

That I think brings us back to 1 John and some of those verses. I think that is what he was saying. If one is truly saved they won't live like that. Once we are saved I believe we will hate sin. We might still be drawn to it because of our sin nature, and even stumble at times and sin. But I think we will not be comfortable in that lifestyle. The Holy Spirit will convict us. God does chastise His children.

Let me touch on Galatians 5 which you mentioned.

Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

No doubt a Christian should shun every sin, but there are some sins that it says they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Notice of course that this list is not finite and set in stone, Paul also adds 'and such like'. It's hard to think of a sin that this list doesn't touch on in some way. I realize that standard teaching is that a Christian just doesn't make a habit of doing these things, but suppose this is not what Paul is saying. What if Paul is warning saved Christians that doing these things will cause them to lose, not their eternal salvation, but the kingdom of God? By which I mean the literal thousand year kingdom.