Whom I am chief.

You can't have it both ways my friend. If as you say, Paul is talking about after salvation, then when he says "sinneres whom I am chief" that it means he is the number one greatest sinner at that time. Then the others he chastises are not as great a sinner as he. That is the end result to what you are saying. You can't say no, what they were doing is worse, because he said he was the chief sinner. If you keep saying why would he say I am, if he didn't mean it, well why would he say chief, if he didn't mean it? No chief, means he is the number one sinner that is clear, the only question is if he meant before or after salvation. It then makes no sense it could be after.


1Cr 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person.
1Cr 5:12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?
1Cr 5:13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person.




Here Paul is giving them instructions about those amongst them committing these sins, they should be put out. So Paul then should have been put out if he was the chief sinner after his salvation, there is no wiggle room here he would be worse than them. The only logic in this at all is that one must go back and look at all the verses in context, verses 12-16, and realize that he was talking about his being the chief sinner before salvation.

 

Paul is the one who stated 'of whom I am chief,' not me. And he was speaking of the present.

I am sorry you cannot accept the fact that Paul struggled with sin as he affirmed in other epistles as well as the one to Timothy.

Paul, even though chief of sinners, did not hold on to sins he committed. He did not take pleasure in them.

His stating 'that he is the chief of sinners is translated as such in 29 versions of the Word of God I have at my fingertips.

How many have you found that say 'was'?

Even the NLT realize they made a mistake in translating it as 'was' in an earlier version and re-edited it to read 'am'... the proper translation. Paul was speaking of himself as a saved person, in the present tense, being 'chief of sinners'.

 

You keep stating it like I believe "I am" is translated wrongly. I will try and say it clearly once again. I believe he meant "I am", but was referring to before salvation when he said it. He said I am because that is how he felt about himself, how great a sinner he was and yet Jesus was able to still save him, he said I am because that is how he viewed himself. So lets forget bringing up whether he mean to say I am or I was, I believe he meant I am as well. But if he was speaking about his actions after his salvation, than much of what he wrote, wouldn't make sense. Plus he would have no moral authority at all for much of what he was demanding of others, in the name of God. He would have been a hypocrite.

 

I will try another analogy to see if I can better explain what I mean. Paul called himself the chief sinner, as a title. it would be like Emmitt Smith saying I am the leading rusher in the history of the NFL. But wait his is not playing, he is retired, how can he say I am? Because it is a title he holds, as the greatest (chief) rusher. Paul was the chief sinner, because at the time when the Gospel was in it's the early stages of being spread, he was a persecutor of the brethren, he blasphemed the Lord. He wanted to crush the very Gospel of Jesus from existence. He was claiming his title as chief sinner, for which he was.

 

your analogy does not compute4 against Paul's statement. Emmet Smith comparing past (history) to Paul's present (I am).

yer really grasping here, Steven

 

I think it makes perfect sense. If Emmitt says I am the rushing leader, he would say so because of what he had previously accomplished. Even though he no longer plays football, he would still say I am because he would be claiming the title.

 

From the one who now thinks Barry Bonds is the greatest hitter of all time, because he surpassed Hank Aaron in career home runs in the NL and AL ???? Just wonderin!

Ed

 

Thank you for understanding how I meant it. It would be silly for Emiitt to say I was the rushing leader. It wouldn't make sense, even though he is no longer a player. It is his title because of what he had done in the past.

 

Wrong again.

If Emmett Smith is retired, he no longer holds the title as rushing leader. It is the one who is still playing with the most rushes who is now the leader.

Emmett would be wrong to say he is the rushing leader. He could say he had the most rushes, but not that he is the rushing leader. He is no longer leading if he is retired.

 

Now who's grasping. :laugh:

 

Your daughter is still in High School at 44? Wow! that in itself is a record, Bob. You must be awfully proud of her.

 

I strive not to understand the world, but the Word of God. You may do well to strive for that mastery as well concerning Paul's writing to Timothy.

 

That's Good Advice Bro Bob

The problem with relying on the teaching of those who were once the leaders of the church is that they are not 100% infallible. They have made errors, and no man should trust in the teachings and doctrines of one man or many men.

Spurgeon is a great man, but, he was subject to error like all of us. I read and study these great men, but, I also realize that they make mistakes. ONLY God is infallible, thus, I will allow His word to lead me. As for the interpretation of the Chief of sinners, I'd have to say that Paul was showing to his followers that he, at one time was the most hideous of sinners that ever lived, and if God could save him, well, He can save any one of us, and forgive any sin known to man.

Shalom,

Pastor Paul