If Paul wasn't a sinner he would have said so. What better way to encourage people than to say, 'I used to be a sinner, but GOD changed me and I'm not any more.' But he didn't.
-
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.
If Paul wasn't a sinner he would have said so. What better way to encourage people than to say, 'I used to be a sinner, but GOD changed me and I'm not any more.' But he didn't.
“So why does he say ‘I am the chief sinner’?”
For the same reason Muhammad Ali says “I am the greatest!” The fact is, Muhammad Ali isn’t the greatest boxer, but he once was and he has kept the title. If you were to ask him, “Who is the greatest boxer of all time,” he would not say, “I was” but “I am!”
It’s the same with Paul.
He was writing to one specific person, timothy who knew what Paul meant, for he had spent much time with Paul travelling and preaching with him. He knew Paul's message of living a holy life. Paul could hardly preach that if he was the worst sinner on the planet could he? He was preaching victory over sin, not people being steeped in it
Last edited:
When we read scripture with our natural minds.....things kinda get skewed abit sometimes......just sayin'...
Holy doesn't preclude sinfulness. The priests under the old covenant ate certain parts of the sin sacrifices, which were most holy. Being sinful and practicing sin are two very different things.
I'm not sure what is being smoked here...but the word "holy" is not used once in the article...it's a good thing I double check what is being said..
“So why does he say ‘I am the chief sinner’?”
For the same reason Muhammad Ali says “I am the greatest!” The fact is, Muhammad Ali isn’t the greatest boxer, but he once was and he has kept the title. If you were to ask him, “Who is the greatest boxer of all time,” he would not say, “I was” but “I am!”
It’s the same with Paul.
A big difference between Ali and Paul (when he wrote his epistles) is that Ali lost his mind years and years ago.
No, he didn't. He always acknowledged that he had two natures: one earthly, one divine.
Well if you want to believe Paul as a christian was the worst sinner on the planet I am not going to argue with you about it, you are welcome to your opinion, I have given you mine
Last edited:
The schizophrenic Christian....oh brother...
Ok..I'm off guys..this is just getting too weird for me..ya'll play nice now.. and Merry Christmas!!
Ok..I'm off guys..this is just getting too weird for me..ya'll play nice now.. and Merry Christmas!!
I guess a holy priest eating a sin sacrifice is too much for you to process too.
Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This [is] the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it [is] most holy. The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. Leviticus 6:25-26
P
popeye
Guest
[video=youtube;E63YvVID994]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E63YvVID994[/video]
@ 13;07 ron quotes a brother in new guinea concerning grace in "pigeon english"
"GOD, HIM SAY,ME ALRIGHT"
@ 13;07 ron quotes a brother in new guinea concerning grace in "pigeon english"
"GOD, HIM SAY,ME ALRIGHT"
F
FreeNChrist
Guest
This identity in Christ thing reminds me of the Black Lives Matter activist who pretended to be black for years, but was recently outed as being white. He then said his mother was white but his father was a light-skinned black. When his sister confirmed that both of his parents were white, he threw his mother under the bus by implying that she had an affair with a black man. A black organization offered $25,000 if he would do a DNA test with his real white father. No dice. Because he identified as black, in his mind he was black. But no he wasn't really black. Just a deluded white boy craving acceptance by blacks.
Same thing here IMO with folks identifying as sinless new creatures. Identifying yerself as one don't make it so.
Same thing here IMO with folks identifying as sinless new creatures. Identifying yerself as one don't make it so.
This reminds me of trying to convince an atheist there is a God. If you don't want to believe it's true, you'll just simply disagree regardless of the countless of evidence that proves otherwise. The idea that you're looking to experience to discount countless Scripture shows error alone. Paul had no problem telling people not to let sin reign in their lives, I have gone through meticulously and shown Scripture. But if you want to believe everyone is a sinner with a sin nature, it doesn't matter what I say or anyone else.
In regards to if we say we do not have sin the truth is not in us, it's talking once again about the need for a Savior. We know this because the letter is written so that you may not sin. And those who belong to God do not sin. (1 John 5) Asking people well are you without sin is the same thing they did to Paul. What you may not realize is Paul is actually counting all the errors that are not done by faith. Not that he struggled with sin, but that he only knew love in part.
You put people into a box of shame. You tell them they should not sin, but then you also tell them they can never be free of it. Paul did not do this. He referred to himself as a sinner so that he could be all things to all men. He did not refer to believers as chief or even minor sinners. Identity is a big deal. Paul believed it. Oh well, you'll give an account for your life just as I will mine.
C.
In regards to if we say we do not have sin the truth is not in us, it's talking once again about the need for a Savior. We know this because the letter is written so that you may not sin. And those who belong to God do not sin. (1 John 5) Asking people well are you without sin is the same thing they did to Paul. What you may not realize is Paul is actually counting all the errors that are not done by faith. Not that he struggled with sin, but that he only knew love in part.
You put people into a box of shame. You tell them they should not sin, but then you also tell them they can never be free of it. Paul did not do this. He referred to himself as a sinner so that he could be all things to all men. He did not refer to believers as chief or even minor sinners. Identity is a big deal. Paul believed it. Oh well, you'll give an account for your life just as I will mine.
C.
Last edited:
Paul had no problem calling believers saints. Yet today we call them sinners and many feel the need to attack those who identify as saints. Like crabs in a bucket, each one pulling each other down.
If you have a problem identifying believers as saints like the Bible outlines and then use rationalization and OT Scriptures to prove your anti Scripture view, you might want to repent. (That means change your mind).
C.
It is not mere opinion, but the truth of what Paul wrote and how he wrote it under the inspiration of God. What's not credible is the false notion that somehow Paul was a sinful man, and/or he was speaking out of a false humility. No, he was a sinner saved by God's great grace and transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit living in him, and that is what his epistles attest to: a life transformed by God's miraculous grace gift: faith in Jesus Christ the Saviour. There's no looking back.
.
Last edited: