Can a believer sin?

I believe no. While we should all try and grow (progressive sanctification), some do not do a very good job at working towards that and stumble more than others. It doesn't mean they are not saved. However, in my opinion if someone can live a lifestyle of sin, with no remorse or conviction from the Holy Spirit to repent, that person should do some real soul searching as to if he was truly saved.

 

1. And what does context say? I have quoted several commentators and NT scholars who are much smarter than I and they all seemingly took eimi as I am, referring to Paul's life after his conversion, and not before. They too were working with the context.

2. Tell me, Bob, what doctrine is at stake here for you?

 

That is the KJV and other translations but the word "am" in Greek according to Strong's could be "was" or "have been".

 

The same as you, it has been used over and over when trying to justify sins of a Christian, that Paul was chief of sinners, as if Paul was always chief of sinners while trying to teach others not to sin. (context)
It does not make sense, for anyone to try and teach me not to sin, while he is committing that very sin or worse. I just do not believe that an Apostle of the Lord was still "chief of sinners". (context again) "repent ye, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand", that is the message or as Jesus told the woman, "go and sin no more".
Preachers have a job to do, and that is to tell the whole world to repent of their sins, not become a "chief sinner", and everytime someone uses that "Paul was chief of sinners" to justify sin, then you are teaching people "so what if you sin, Paul did", that is a message that will cause people to go to hell, and I care whether they are saved or lost.

 

1. Now we can honor that truce. It seems like you are not going to let up on your good friend Strong's despite all the evidence to the contrary of your particular choice of Strong's.

2. I'm done with 1 Tim 1:15 and your use of Strong's; it's going nowhere.

 

Yes, it's a concordance, not a lexicon. Just like Young's Concordance. Young was a Greek scholar, but his concordance (although he wrote grammars, etc.) was nothing more than a compilation of the words used in his translation.

Try the BDB. It's available free for eSword. I'll email you a copy if you PM your email addy to me.

 

Bob, Strong's compiles the way the word is used throughout Scriptures, not the specific way that it's used in this passage. The present tense cannot be past tense under any "context", although present tense could be future in prophetic context.

 

The way I understand what John was getting at in 1 John is that there were two types of erroneous doctrines were being put forth. antinomianism and perfectionism. Antinomianism basically said that man was not held accountable for to any moral law. He only had to believe he was justified. Perfectionism, basically believed in the sin nature was eradicated. Much of what John wrote in 1 John was to show the errors in both of these doctrines. That is why one the surface it appears to almost contradict at times.

"My little children I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;" 1 John 2:1

Poof there goes perfectionism

"No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:9

Poof there goes antinomianism

Note John does not say "he cannot commit an act of sin", but rather "he cannot sin". And the way I understand from the Greek experts that I have read, the tense of the words and how they are used, it means to practice sin habitually. It is not talking about one act of sin.

I think the rest of the verses in 1 John including verse 5:18, that at first glance appear to contradict each other are also just making these points.

 

It all becomes clear now.

 

Here is another book where Paul talks about it in a similar way as John. In Gal 5:21 where he says.... "I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. The KJV translates it as "do", the NASB as "practice". When I look up the Greek the word is used in the present participle tense, which is described as : "expresses continuos or repeated action."

 

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"?

 

No, I agree with that 100%, absolutely. The way I understood what I have read on the matter is that there were groups that believed that after conversion they could then live under no obligation to obey any laws of ethics or morality. They felt they then basically had a license to sin with no consequence. Maybe they were extreme or hyper antinomians, I am not an expert, on it. But I don't think one can be saved, and then, feel they have a license to sin at will. That is what I was speaking about. But I do believe we are saved by grace through faith alone most definitely. Maybe I chose my wording poorly in my explanation.

 

See my explanation in post #94.

I might add that comment is a little bit insulting.

 

LOL thanks. Well, after my botched up use of 'antinomian', I hope at least some of my explanation made some sense to you anyway.

 

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.