Whom I am chief.

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Brother Bob, Nov 30, 2007.

  1. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    1Ti 1:15This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
    This scripture has been misused and misrepresented more than any other scripture in the Bible. IMO

    The scripture plainly is talking about Christ came to save sinners in the world, of whom Paul said he was chief.

    If Paul was saying, as most on BB say he was, that he was chief of sinners, in the present, then he would of still been lost, for Paul was speaking of whom Christ came to save, when he said sinners of whom I am chief!

    Paul said he was chief of sinners of whom Christ came to save. To read into this scripture, so as to justify sin of Christians, is terrible wrong.

    Again, Paul said he was chief of sinners of "who Christ came to save".

    In this passage, Paul is speaking of the unsaved and not the saved!!

    He that is whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

    BBob, duck :tonofbricks:
     
    #1 Brother Bob, Nov 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2007
  2. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is the response I gave to you in the "other sheep" thread. But you are still trying to re-word the passage.
     
    #2 Allan, Nov 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2007
  3. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have just checked all the 21 versions available in English on Bible Gateway on this verse. 20 out of 21 render this in the present tense by saying, effectively, 'I am the chief (or foremost) of sinners'.

    Personally, I do not recall one single individual on the BB attempting to use this verse to "justify sin of Christians", in any way. If I am mistaken in this, as my memory may be failing apparently, :eek: who did this? But I do seem to recall more than one individual who attempted to put this statement in the past tense. As I've said before, it was The Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to write this, meaning He agreed wioht the sentiment expressed.

    Aren't you suggesting that the Holy Spirit made the mistake in the tense used?

    For you are surely saying that one does not sin as a Christian, apparently. Or at least one does not sin to some undetermined (and unstated) level and still be a Christian.

    I do generally agree with the response of Allan, as to what is being said, here, in this passage. At the same time, I decry any 'loose living' as being consistent with any good testimony.

    "And" (I'm going to) "be found" (along with the great saints in Scripture) "in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;"! (Phil'p. 3:9 - NKJV)

    To paraphrase a political operative, from a few years ago, "It's the Blood, Brother!"

    Just look for me along with the great saints there, although I certainly do not rate as "a great saint", in today's conventional application of that moniker, by any stretch. I'd suggest some 10 of those saints, like Noah, Lot, Rahab, Jacob, Samson, David, Solomon, Peter, Thomas, and Paul.

    BTW, there is not one verse in Scripture to say that any of these ten ever "repented from (or of any) sin", anywhere. But Scripture does say that several of them 'confessed their sin', and/or shortcomings. That is consistent with I Jo. 1:9, at least as I see it.
    'Under the blood' {BTW, a phrase not actually found in Scripture, nor is "covered by or with the blood" [save the robe worn by Lord Jesus Christ, himself (Rev. 19:11 - CEV) for we are "washed" and our sins have been "taken away"(Job 3:5, Heb. 10:4 ff; I Jn. 3:5; Rev. 1:5)] , "As such were some of you, but you are washed, you were sanctified," etc.! (I Cor. 6:11)}

    The way I see it, my crowd includes a drunk, who in his hangover, cursed his grandson who was not even around;
    the greatest cheat of all time who could swindle about anyone, and actually wrestled with the Lord Jesus Christ, all night;
    two of 'the greatest womanizers' who ever lived;
    a murdeer and adulterer;
    a Christ denier;
    the greatest 'doubter' who ever lived;
    the chief of sinners;
    the best known prostitute
    ; and
    the Mayor of Sodom!

    Hey! Nice Crowd!
    :rolleyes:

    But - All were saved by faith, and saved by the blood!

    And a bunch of us old KY farmers are gonna' be with them, including most, if not all (for some I've never known), of my own close family, especially my bride and myself. Praise God, for I'm gonna' get to see 'em all, again! My dad, mom, brother - who was taken home at the age of 50, two sisters- in-law, my nieces and nephews, my sister whom I never saw to ever know, as she was miscarried, my aunts and uncles, and grandparents, all of whom I miss greatly, here. And God is gonna' wipe away all these tears that I shed, even as I type this.
    Ed



    Ed
     
    #3 EdSutton, Nov 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2007
  4. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    I understood what you posted before, I just disagree with it, for Paul was speaking of the unsaved sinners that Jesus Christ came to save, Not save the saved.

    Paul is speaking of those who Christ came to save. Will you agree with that???
     
    #4 Brother Bob, Nov 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2007
  5. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Chief of what?
    Chief of sinners - in his human nature, yes, he saw himself the worst of sinners, even after salvation.
    -Or-
    Chief example of God's grace - i.e., least deserving of salvation of all men? Yes, that too.
     
  6. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Double Post
     
  7. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because you don't recall, does not make it so Ed.

    Originally Posted by Brother Bob
    1Ti 1:15This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

    Here is the scripture itself (KJV). Now, tell me what and who was Paul speaking of. (Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners) of whom I am chief.

    Are you saying that Christ came into the world to saved the saved????

    Luk 5:32I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

    BBob,
     
  8. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    Context!!!! Who was Paul talking about that Christ came to save, the unsaved sinners or the saved???? Who did Christ come to save??

    1Ti 1:15This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.


    He was speaking of the unsaved sinners, of whom I am chief.

    Luk 5:32I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
     
    #8 Brother Bob, Nov 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2007
  9. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Would you interpret that scripture to mean that Paul was the chief example of God's grace, seeing that he was the least deserving of salvation of all men? If not, what does the passage mean? Like Allan said, are you saying that Paul is saying that he was the chief of sinners? I'm not debating - I just want to be clear on it.
     
  10. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am saying that Paul is saying that he is chief of who Jesus came to save.

    In other words Paul considered himself to be the chief of sinners by including all of his life, before he was saved and after. He persecuted the church of God and said because of it, he was not meek to be called an apostle.

    That is what the scripture says. "Christ Jesus came to save sinners, (the lost) of whom I am chief.

    Paul felt he was the worst sinner that had ever been, not that he was the worst sinner now. but by the Grace of God, I am what I am.

    BBob,
     
    #10 Brother Bob, Nov 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2007
  11. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Okay, I understand now. I think I can live with that. Should I duck my head now?
     
  12. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was the one who was ducking, I been through this before. It bothers me that people use the scripture when they commit adultery to say, well apostle Paul was chief of sinners. I am talking about Christians now, and I do not believe you can use that scripture to commit acts of terrible sin, after you are saved. It seems everyone who ever runs off with a young woman, or molests little boys, the first thing they say is, well apostle Paul was chief of sinners. I hope you see why it bothers me.

    BBob,
     
  13. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Fortunately I've never heard that particular excuse before, but it sure would bother me if I did hear it. I can appreciate your frustration.
     
  14. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with that. However, you have 'accused' some of advocating 'continuing to sin' as believers.

    Fine, then cite where, and name 'em, rather than generalizing and making an attack in absentia.

    Otherwise, this is nothing more than merely an ad hominem attack, which is exactly what is is, as of now!

    [Edited to add!] I'm not referring to your response to me, here about an ad hominem attack, but to the OP reference to these unknown and unstated individuals who suposedly advocate sin, as a lifestyle!


    I'd like to hang around and play, but I have to get back to counting, for now.

    Ed
     
    #14 EdSutton, Nov 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2007
  15. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    It wasn't until you came. If I begin to name names then it would be an ad hominem, but I don't choose to bring anyone into it. I stated that I have seen it posted on here and that is as far as I am going. That is not an ad hominem. Now you accusing me of false statements is.

    You continue to say ITS THE BLOOD BROTHER, but yet you refer to OT for all your references.

    The way I see it, my crowd includes a drunk, who in his hangover, cursed his grandson who was not even around;
    the greatest cheat of all time who could swindle about anyone, and actually wrestled with the Lord Jesus Christ, all night;
    two of 'the greatest womanizers' who ever lived;
    a murdeer and adulterer;
    a Christ denier;
    the greatest 'doubter' who ever lived;
    the chief of sinners;
    the best known prostitute; and
    the Mayor of Sodom!

    Hey! Nice Crowd! :rolleyes:

    If you think the life style of David is what we should follow, then I can understand why you continue to use his name so much.

    Lot of people use him to justify adultery also. You think I am going to name names, go back to your counting.


    Well said, Preach on!

    Ed


    Now is the time for you to give names that I accused in particular. I have stated some use it and they do, but where have I accused some as you put it??? Give names or is this just another false accusation of yours against me?

    So, if I make a statement that some have said that you can die in the act of adultery and still go to heaven, that is an ad hominem. I am beginning to wonder if you know what one is.

    BBob,
     
    #15 Brother Bob, Nov 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2007
  16. Steven2006

    Steven2006
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    2,065
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMO, it seems obvious that Paul was speaking of the sins he had committed before he was saved. However I believe he still looked at himself at that moment as that very man, that was capable of that sin. The closer we draw to the Lord, the more we see ourselves as God would, and just how filthy we are. So I don't think Paul was commenting on sins he was currently committing, just that he knew what he was capable of committing. He was at that point trusting in Jesus to keep him from being that person he was.
     
  17. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with the exception, that Paul was then kept by the power of God and by God's Grace, Paul was what he was, same as we.

    I thank you for stating Paul was stating in that passage, it was the sins he committed before salvation. You are one of a few who understand that scripture.

    BBob,
     
  18. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I, too, have never seen any Scripture by anybody on the BB being used as an excuse to sin.
     
  19. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,454
    Likes Received:
    93
    I seem to remember once that a friend of mine cited that verse in a sermon, then he said, "But I'm gonna have to tell you that I am the 'chief sinner.'" I later asked him why he is an anti-scripturalist, because if he is the chief sinner, then Paul lied. He just thought that was a weird question and didn't answer.
     
  20. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    excuse to sin??? Don't know what you are talking about.

    To try and say that Christians can commit any sin known to mankind, then I have seen it used several times. When that passage by Paul, is not saying he is the biggest or chief sinner right then. If you think so, please tell me what sin he was committing when he wrote the passage.

    The "context" of the scripture is "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners" of whom Paul stated he was chief.
    At the time Paul wrote this, Jesus Christ had already come into the world to save sinners, not right then, Paul felt in his heart that he was the chief of all sinners that had ever been, but by the Grace of God, he was what he was. You can use the word "am" and throw away the context if you want, but it don't change the meaning of the passage. Jesus certainly did not come to save the saved.

    I hope I don't offend anyone by posting their post, but here is just one case on BB it was used, the scripture was used open up the way for Christians to sin, there are many many quotes just like this and more specific.


    BBob,
     
    #20 Brother Bob, Nov 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 30, 2007

Share This Page

Loading...