Was St Paul just being pompous?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Sac49

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2016
582
30
0
#21
I wanted to like your post until I got to the end, where you say there is no hierarchy of sin. Jesus actually said that there is, so it would seem from God's perspective that there is a hierarchy of sin. For the referent, I will direct your attention to what Jesus said to Pontius Pilate prior to His crucifixion. Pilate repeatedly found no fault in Jesus, questioned what truth was, and was surprised that Jesus mounted no defense of Himself in light of the charges against Him, and what He was facing.

"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you
realizeI have power either to free you or to crucify you?"


Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me
if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the
one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

Well from what i see in the Bible the only difference in sin "hierarchy" is the unforgivable sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Maybe Pilate was guilty of that by default? I dont know but this is my understanding of sin.
 
Dec 19, 2009
27,513
128
0
71
#22
The Bible can surprise me. I've read all of it at one time or another, but even so I sometimes come across interesting passages which I seem to have missed before.

In 1Timothy 1:15, St Paul says that he is the worst of sinners, and then repeats this in the very next verse.

It is an easy passage to read without grabbing the full meaning, but one day I found myself puzzled by it. It appears at a glance to be a very arrogant thing to say. You may be just a common sinner, but St Paul is the worst of sinners.

Then it dawned on me that St Paul was one of the first people ever to persecute Christians - until around midday as he approached Damascus.

In short, it appears that St Paul was implying that the worst sinner is the person who persecutes Christians.
I think the point that Paul is trying to make is that Jesus is here to save ALL sinners, not just those with small sins.
 
Feb 28, 2016
11,311
2,972
113
#23
PR,

he knew that he was worthy of his 'reward', for his Saviour had to have assured him
of the fact that he had indeed run and won his race...
 

Johnny_B

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2017
1,954
64
48
#24
The Bible can surprise me. I've read all of it at one time or another, but even so I sometimes come across interesting passages which I seem to have missed before.

In 1Timothy 1:15, St Paul says that he is the worst of sinners, and then repeats this in the very next verse.

It is an easy passage to read without grabbing the full meaning, but one day I found myself puzzled by it. It appears at a glance to be a very arrogant thing to say. You may be just a common sinner, but St Paul is the worst of sinners.

Then it dawned on me that St Paul was one of the first people ever to persecute Christians - until around midday as he approached Damascus.

In short, it appears that St Paul was implying that the worst sinner is the person who persecutes Christians.
He says it because of verse 13 and if the Holy Spirit moved him to say that it has to be true. Paul always qualifies his personal statements. Like in I Corinthians 7 not the Lord but I say. or in Romans would that I could suffer judgement that my brother might be saved(the Jews) not n exact quote.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,200
6,546
113
#25
Yes, ........ and ...... No

:)

He would never exhibit self aggrandizing. He was too humble for that. Now, he was secure in his Salvation.......I believe that, but he very often pointed out his human weaknesses throughout his Epistles.

Worthy of the Reward is a bit different than worthy of the Saving Grace God bestowed upon him by choosing him.

PR,

he knew that he was worthy of his 'reward', for his Saviour had to have assured him
of the fact that he had indeed run and won his race...
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,200
6,546
113
#26
I am aware of his reference to believers as saints.......can't remember right now if he used capital S or not though......or if it matters. It was just when I read it, it seemed a wee bit Catholic in it's reading.......

Saint Paul..........see........anyway, was just wondering

To be fair, I don't think he ever described himself as a saint, but he did use the word saint to describe people who went to church - or at least some people who went to church.

Point taken though. I refer to him as Saint Paul as a matter of convention.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,200
6,546
113
#27
If it makes a difference.............

[FONT=&quot]Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Each of these shows he used the "small s" for saints, which tells me he was only speaking of them as "believers, members of the faith" and not Saints as the Catholic Church teaches. But, that may just be me, soooo

As for 1 and 2 Corinthians and 1 and 2 Thessalonians, he addressed those Epistles "to the church." Just FYI.


[/FONT]
 
Jun 1, 2016
5,032
121
0
#29
The Bible can surprise me. I've read all of it at one time or another, but even so I sometimes come across interesting passages which I seem to have missed before.

In 1Timothy 1:15, St Paul says that he is the worst of sinners, and then repeats this in the very next verse.

It is an easy passage to read without grabbing the full meaning, but one day I found myself puzzled by it. It appears at a glance to be a very arrogant thing to say. You may be just a common sinner, but St Paul is the worst of sinners.

Then it dawned on me that St Paul was one of the first people ever to persecute Christians - until around midday as he approached Damascus.

In short, it appears that St Paul was implying that the worst sinner is the person who persecutes Christians.

Paul was all about " Christ in me" in the area you are speaking of

v 13 kjv " Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief" << hes saying this about Himself. He was before these things He is explaining that anyone even the worst of sinners can be saved because of Gods mercy Given through Jesus.

when paul is talking in another place it reveals that " sin" had changed from the Law, to the gospel. Because He says this also of Himself

Phillippians 3 :4-6 " Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the RIGHTEOUSNESS TOUCHING THE LAW , BLAMELESS.<<< He says he is blameless according to the Law of moses.....but then continuing on in this chapter He says all that is worthless compared to Knowing Jesus Christ.

v7-15 "But what things were gain to me, those I COUNTED LOSS for Christ. 8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the KNOWLEDGE OF Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, THAT I MAY WIN Christ, 9And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

12Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. 15Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you."


 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,674
13,131
113
#30
Well from what i see in the Bible the only difference in sin "hierarchy" is the unforgivable sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Maybe Pilate was guilty of that by default? I dont know but this is my understanding of sin.

Jesus is telling Pilate that the Sanhedrin are guilty of greater sin than Pilate is, because they are the ones who handed Him over to Pilate - which is then played out when Pilate addresses the crowd, offering to release the Lord ((release God?? ha! Pilate's ignorance)) and the crowd responds shouting for Him to be crucified, saying "
His blood be upon us!" as Pilate washes his hands. though Pilate is guilty of injustice, condemning a man he himself sees as innocent, the crowd is more guilty, demanding that injustice be done - a crowd who ought to have known the scriptures and seen the works Christ does, should have understood what evil they were doing much better than Pilate. Pilate probably did not understand what he was doing, not like the Sanhedrin did.

we see the same hint of hierarchy again here:

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.
(Mark 9:42)​

and similarly, here:

For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
(1 Corinthians 8:11-12)​

the Sanhedrin sinned not just against God in handing over Christ to Pilate, but against Pilate, putting him in the position of executioner who didn't have the revelation of God in the scriptures to understand what was being done. Jesus tells him, they are guilty of "
greater sin."
Saul, too, who should have known who Jesus is, was sinning against the church, potentially destroying the faith of the weak by persecuting them with the argument that he was acting in God's name.


since you brought up blasphemy against the Spirit, consider Saul's rationale when he persecuted the believers: he was assigning the work of the Spirit among these people to Satan, wasn't he? because when he did these things, he did them in what he thought was zeal for his religion. Saul, in accusing '
the saints' of blasphemy, was himself blaspheming.

perhaps looking back, Paul realized that at the time he knew what he was doing was wrong - having been present at Stephen's stoning, and surely not unaware of Christ's ministry on earth, shouldn't he have understood who Jesus is? maybe not then. but when he wrote this letter, he surely knew.