Can a believer sin?

[npetreley]

See my explanation in post #94.

I might add that comment is a little bit insulting.

I don't think you got my point, which was, indeed, directed at James. You don't see anything sadly revealing about this statement?

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

 

[Steven2006]

I don't think you got my point, which was, indeed, directed at James. You don't see anything sadly revealing about this statement?

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

I'm sorry I misunderstood you, my apologies.

 

[James_Newman]

I don't think you got my point, which was, indeed, directed at James. You don't see anything sadly revealing about this statement?

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

Sadly revealing? Hmmm. I think that what I am revealing is that I indeed believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, which some call 'antinomianism'. While at the same time, I am the one who gets called a legalist. Funny world we live in.

 

[bound]

I think you mean what I mean also, that we should just trust that what Christ said is true. He said if we believed on Him we would be raised up on the last day. I don't think there are any strings attatched to that promise, its a free gift.

It would appear that you have replaced one human action (i.e. obedience to the Law) with another human action (i.e. belief in Jesus Christ). You can paint it any which way you desire but you merely reduce Salvation to an 'unmeasurable' human action just as the Jews reduced it to a 'measurable' human action. Instead of a personal 'work of faith' you have made it a personal 'faith claim'.

Our Lord and Saviour said "Some will cry "Lord, Lord and I will say I never knew you". I believe we can make all the 'claims' we want in this life but such is not proof of Salvific Regeneration.

The debate is moot.

 

[James_Newman]

It would appear that you have replaced one human action (i.e. obedience to the Law) with another human action (i.e. belief in Jesus Christ). You can paint it any which way you desire but you merely reduce Salvation to an 'unmeasurable' human action just as the Jews reduced it to a 'measurable' human action. Instead of a personal 'work of faith' you have made it a personal 'faith claim'.

Our Lord and Saviour said "Some will cry "Lord, Lord and I will say I never knew you". I believe we can make all the 'claims' we want in this life but such is not proof of Salvific Regeneration.

The debate is moot.

But belief is not an action. Salvation is a 'work of faith'? I have never read that in the bible. I don't think I said claiming you believed was how to be saved, but merely believing is all that is required.

 

[npetreley]

Sadly revealing? Hmmm. I think that what I am revealing is that I indeed believe in salvation by grace through faith alone, which some call 'antinomianism'. While at the same time, I am the one who gets called a legalist. Funny world we live in.

Either you don't know what antinomianism is, or you don't understand the gospel. I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

 

[James_Newman]

Perhaps you could explain them both to me.

 

[EdSutton]

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"?

I'm not Hope of Glory, but I will try and answer you on this.

And I'll type really slow, so as hopefully not to lose you, here.

Losing someone has to do with my years as a cab driver beating traffic, you see.

All koine`Greek verbs have five different characteristics, inherent in them. They are person, number, voice, mood, and tense. They also have a self-contained subject, as well. Hence "eimi" is "I am", the continuous/present tense (Here the Greek doesn't make a distinction, unlike English, for example.) as written, and is written as " ’ειμι ". The verb stem (of the root word) will have various suffixes, and may have prefixes, as well. These 'spelling' changes tell us what these five characteristics are. This is the first person, singular, present tense, active voice, indicative mood form, as well as the 'root' word for
"I am". This happens to be the form found in Strong's Concordance, as well as every lexicon. Were the meaning to be "I was" or "I have been", (The Greek does not make this distinction in this verb between the "past" and/or "past participle", unlike English, where thte rendering is determined by the context in the sentence.) the imperfect tense is used and would be written as " πν " (I render these two letters as "En" when I'm transliterating) with what appears as something resembling a "bird's eye" above the actual word, which is actually an accent and 'breathing' mark. (This would be the first person singular, imperfect tense, active voice, indicative mood, but it is not what is in the Greek text. And as the text is paramount, not the 'interpretation', but rather the text provides the interpretation, here Paul is saying "of whom I am chief." The actual words as reproduced by Bible gateway where the font does not transfer all that well is as follows (It is the same in both Greek NTs that I have in my paws, FTR.)

... ων πρωτος ειμι εγω

You have, in the past (attempting to 'prove' an assumed point, of course) referred to the pages of one Corey Keating at the site

http://www.ntgreek.org/ .

I will, for a quick study, refer you to the same site, where he gives this in far greater detail than can I possibly, in a post. Here is the page at the site:

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm

And that is how we know the tense, as well as the other four things about the Greek verb. For it is in no way, "the only thing we have to go on".

Unless, of course, one is relying entirely on Strong's, which does not purport to attempt to be a grammar or give any grammatical breakdown.

Ed

 

[Hope of Glory]

To add to what Ed said, the tense, voice, and mood of the Greek is much more revealing than English, since Greek has six tenses, three voices, four moods, and they can be infinitives or participles. When a participle is used with the article, it's a noun, otherwise, it's an adjective, and it generally contemplates the actions as real.

Nouns have eight cases under five forms, and you know exactly what goes with which word in most cases.

However, there was no punctuation used.

This is one reason that I don't think we'll ever get an accurate word-for-word translation without making the Bible longer, and I don't like dynamic equivalence in most instances.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

James Newman asks question, can a Christian sin?

Absolutely, yes. All Christians do sin often after their salvation.

Baptists believe Christians will not lose their salvation, if they sinning daily after their salvation. Because Christ's blood forgived all their sins at once.

1 John 1:7-9 telling us, we must walk in the light and fellowship with Christ long as his blood cleaning all our sins, also, we must confess our sins to Christ long as He is faithfully forgive our sins. Or, if we remain in the dark, and not confess sins to Christ, then, he would not forgive our future sins.

James 1:14-16 warn us, if any Christian remain in sins, it shall bring forth to death(spiritual). Means, if a Christian remain in sins without repent or confess, it shall bring to spiritual death- second death in the lake of fire.

Luke 15:11-32 tells us, the son leaves his father, walk in the dark. It shows us, all Christians do sin often after salvation. If suppose, a son remains in the dark, without repent and never return to his father. Then, a son would remain lost period. 'Lost' is not speak of loss reward or joy, it speaks of spiritual. The contextual of Luke chapter 15 is a matter talk about salvation.

Bible warns us, if we practice sins in our lifetime, then we shall not enter eternal life, go into the lake of fire. - Gal. 5:19-21.

There is much conditionals in the Bible, we cannot afford to neglect them, we must take heed and obey God's Word.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Brother Bob]

And I'll type really slow, so as hopefully not to lose you, here.

Don't blame your typing on me, its the only way you can type is slow. You said so in the past and I believe it. (notice the tense!)

Translating Into English

I have a real respect for people who are able to produce an accurate, yet easily readable, English translation from the Greek. There are many challenges in producing an English translation. Some have commented about wanting a 'word for word' translation of the Greek New Testament. Keep in mind that one language can never adequately translate another language with the same feeling, emphasis, rhyme, idiom, etc. Due to these and other factors inherent in language, doing a 'word for word' translation is not really that meaningful. This would only be a valid kind of exercise if there were two languages that corresponded so close in structure that the only difference in the two was their vocabulary. Then there would also be the requirement that each word in one language had one and only one word that exactly corresponded to it in the other language. There are no two languages that I know of that correspond to each other in grammar, rules of syntax, semantic structure, etc., especially not modern English and Koine (Biblical) Greek.
Because of these differences in language, producing a translation inherently means that there must be some interpretation on the part of the translator. There is no such thing as a completely 'unbiased' translation. However, as a translator consciously puts aside all intention of conveying certain doctrinal notions and preconceived ideas, then chances are he will produce a less-biased translation.

He is totally honest with the reader, at least.


Indicative Mood
The indicative mood is a statement of fact or an actual occurrence from the writer's or speaker's perspective. Even if the writer is lying, he may state the action as if it is a fact, and thus the verb would be in the indicative mood. It may be action occurring in past, present, or future time. This 'statement of fact' can even be made with a negative adverb modifying the verb

This is no doubt the reason Strong's defined eimi (am) as , am, was, have been. So now we go to the bias. I don't know what Strong's bias was, do you?

 

[christianyouth]

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.

This is a great answer. I think this is the best way to understand the problem, James. I have an on-going struggle with sin, but when I sin, I cannot enjoy the sin. Before I was converted, I could enjoy sin. Now, sin is misery. As Steven said, when the Holy Spirit regenerates us, things change. We will not be comfortable in that lifestyle.

We need to recognize that there is an initial repentance that always accompanies salvation. Zacchaus(spelling) stopped his cheating, and said "Lord I will give all my goods to the poor, and if I have wronged anyone I will pay back four-fold." The Thief on the cross stopped blaspheming and hurling insults at God, and showed the godly sorrow that works repentance when he said "We deserve this, but this man does not deserve this." He was acknowledging his sin.

Repentance. We need to understand this word.

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by Steven2006
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.

Good answer except the "literal" thousand year kingdom".
I guess you know that the "church doctrine was a spiritual thousand year reign" for around 1600 years, and is not going on.

 

[EdSutton]

Don't blame your typing on me, its the only way you can type is slow. You said so in the past and I believe it. (notice the tense!)


He is totally honest with the reader, at least.

Yes, I admit that I type slow, and it is the only way I can. I just took pains to slow it down even more, just for you. Obviously, according to the response, I should have typed it even slower! :smilewinkgrin:

But thanks for the comments on my honesty. :laugh:

Indicative Mood
The indicative mood is a statement of fact or an actual occurrence from the writer's or speaker's perspective. Even if the writer is lying, he may state the action as if it is a fact, and thus the verb would be in the indicative mood. It may be action occurring in past, present, or future time. This 'statement of fact' can even be made with a negative adverb modifying the verb

This is no doubt the reason Strong's defined eimi (am) as , am, was, have been. So now we go to the bias. I don't know what Strong's bias was, do you?

Strong had no bias, here, nor did he 'define' eimi ("I am," not merely "am", for this is a 'Greek' word, not an 'English' one), but merely gave the basic sense from the inception of the word. As to whether or not James Strong had any bias, the answer is yes, obviously, as do we all. However, "eimi" is not one of them, nor can it actually be, given the word, itself, and this form. It can be nothing more or less than "I am".

Strong's does not "define" the word in the way you keep putting forth, but shows how that root word is rendered, given the various tense, voice, mood, person, and number. He is entirely correct that the form of "eimi' proper is the first person, singular, present tense, indicative mood, as well. The voice is understood as "active" although, it technically is not, for a "state of being verb", i.e. the English form of "to be", has no such voice.

But I think you have not bothered to read the page I linked to, but again, are letting your own bias (as opposed to Strong's) show here, wanting to build a theological argument on whether or not Paul was saying what the langauge appears that he "am chief" as opposed to "was chief" of sinners. You might notice that no reputable translation renders this in the way you are wanting to. Are they all biased as well?? Gotta' run to the tire place. Bye all, till tonight.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

But I think you have not bothered to read the page I linked to, but again, are letting your own bias (as opposed to Strong's) show here, wanting to build a theological argument on whether or not Paul was saying what the langauge appears that he "am chief" as opposed to "was chief" of sinners. You might notice that no reputable translation renders this in the way you are wanting to. Are they all biased as well?? Gotta' run to the tire place. Bye all, till tonight.

Ed

According to the reference you gave me, they are all bias. Do you believe your own references or just part. You can type as slow as you want, but Strong's says it could be "am" or it could be "have been" or it could be "was".
I mean, well let me post it again:

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

There is a note in there about being a "defective verb".

πιστος ο λογος και πασης αποδοχης αξιος οτι χριστος ιησους ηλθεν εις τον κοσμον αμαρτωλους σωσαι ων πρωτος ειμι εγω
.............................................................................................................................chief am I

εγώ= I

ειμι= to be ( pres ind act 1 sg )

Strong had no bias, here, nor did he 'define' eimi ("I am," not merely "am", for this is a 'Greek' word, not an 'English' one), but merely gave the basic sense from the inception of the word. As to whether or not James Strong had any bias, the answer is yes, obviously, as do we all. However, "eimi" is not one of them, nor can it actually be, given the word, itself, and this form. It can be nothing more or less than "I am". (not according to Greek dictionary, it is "to be")

πρώτος η ον= first foremostprotos i on

It really looks like according to ancient Greek that he is saying "foremost to be I" (There is no chief to it)

So, it sure takes a lot of inserting English Grammar to come up with "I am chief".

I think Paul was talking about him persecuting Christ and His Church. I should of been in on the original translation and you all would not be so confused.....................

 

[DHK]

I should of been in on the original translation and you all would not be so confused.....................

It should be:

"I should have been (sitting) in on the original translation and all of you would not be so confused..."

My grade school English teacher said that bad grammar is sin!!
Since this thread is Can A Believer Sin?
Are you sinning, Bob, when you use bad grammar? Some would think so.

 

[Hope of Glory]

"Of whom foremost am I" would be correct for the word order that is used.

Bob, Strong's simply compiled the way the word is used in the KJV. Right or wrong, he simply compiled them all. He does not "define" the words.

This verb is present tense. "I am." Durative action.

If it were referring to completed past events, it would have been in the aorist, which is punctiliar action. (Although the aorist is not always past tense.)

He is the foremost sinner. I think it's hyperbole to make a point, since there were child molestors, etc., running around, but which is worse: Major sin committed in ignorance or minor sin committed knowingly?

 

[Hope of Glory]

Also, the question is, "Can a believer sin?" not "May a believer sin?"

No one has permission to sin, but anyone is capable of it.

As an example, if I were to be going down the highway at 120 MPH and my wife were to say, "You can't do that!"

My appropriate response is, "I most certainly can, seeing as how I am currently doing it. However, I may not do it, seeing as how I don't have permission."

So, a saved person can sin at will. He has freedom of choice. But, he may not ever sin. It's always wrong.

But, sinning (even horrible, terrible sins such as adultery) is warned against, to saved individuals, with consequences spelled out for continuing in them and not repenting, etc., so they obviously can do them.

 

[Brother Bob]

But, sinning (even horrible, terrible sins such as adultery) is warned against, to saved individuals, with consequences spelled out for continuing in them and not repenting, etc., so they obviously can do them.__________________

Sorry, I have this belief that after a person is born again, that he can keep from committing adultery by the Grace of God.

He is the foremost sinner. I think it's hyperbole to make a point, since there were child molestors, etc., running around, but which is worse: Major sin committed in ignorance or minor sin committed knowingly?

The only way this makes sense is that Apostle Paul was referring to persecuting the Church and Jesus Christ, yet God had mercy on him.

No way, does Paul say others can't sin, when he was still committing sin in the foremost manner. That does not make sense in the least.

 

[EdSutton]

"Of whom foremost am I" would be correct for the word order that is used.

Bob, Strong's simply compiled the way the word is used in the KJV. Right or wrong, he simply compiled them all. He does not "define" the words.

This verb is present tense. "I am." Durative action.

If it were referring to completed past events, it would have been in the aorist, which is punctiliar action. (Although the aorist is not always past tense.)

He is the foremost sinner. I think it's hyperbole to make a point, since there were child molestors, etc., running around, but which is worse: Major sin committed in ignorance or minor sin committed knowingly?

FTR, the verb "eimi" does not 'occur' in or, in fact, even have an aorist tense. It only has the three tenses of the continuous/present, the imperfect, and the future. The imperfect takes the place of the aorist in this "state of being" verb. It is sometimes referred to, or called the "verb substantive" and also sometimes known as a 'defective' verb, as are some other verbs ending in "mi", for this reason.

Ed