I am curious what people think the word "sinner" means. It has become clear to me that when people use that word it brings different reactions, so… who is a "sinner" and what does that mean?
dictionary.com lists two similar but slightly different options:
The first from American Heritage Dictionary says a sinner is:
- one that sins or does wrong; a transgressor
and then Wordnet says a sinner is:
- a person who sins (without repenting)
I've always viewed a "sinner" as being any and all who sin, however I think Hungry on the Harbor would say that a "sinner" is without repentance…
It reminds me of a story a friend of mine once told where a pastor of a mega church stood up and asked his congregation to "raise their hand, if they know a sinner". His (and my) instance response was "YOU…ME…ALL OF US. WE all know sinners because we all are sinners"…
What is your take?
A sinner is simply a person who is apathetic to the law and disinterested in its application to daily life.
Sinners are people who simply do not wish to, or try to, live out the fullness of the will of God.
What comes to mind, JP, is the parable of the pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:10-14) … while the pharisee doesn’t call the publican a sinner, he does attribute specific sins to people: robber, evildoer, adulterer, and gives thanks that he’s not like the publican … the publican confesses that he is a sinner and asks forgiveness …
Often messages have focused on the proud and self-exalting nature of the pharisee – how about the fact that he accused others of specific sin … that’s never mentioned, though we have the example of Jesus and the woman caught in the act of adultery, where Jesus says “neither do I accuse you” …
It does make me wonder if we should call people sinners at all, when we know the intent of Jesus is to save them AND that Jesus does not accuse them … the pharisee calling the publican a sinner is in stark contrast to the publican who confessed and was forgiven – so the pharisee effectively called one who was forgiven a sinner – the pharisee was in error …
How does calling someone a ‘sinner’ relate to Acts 10:15?
15The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
In my studies of this theme, the scriptures – especially Romans, appear to indicate a sinner is anyone born into this world.
Having been saved, while that person used to be a sinner due to his complete identification with sin in his flesh, after being saved Paul implies it is no longer appropriate for the believer to view himself currently as a sinner, but one who used to be so.
Rather than see ourselves as sinners, we are encouraged to see ourselves as:
Redeemed ones,
Saved ones,
New Creations,
Sons of God,
Born again ones,
Ambassadors sent from Heaven,
etc.
It is not the apostle’s purpose to deny that sin still dwells in the believer’s flesh, but that he is no longer directly identified with that sin. His identification has changed. He has put off the old man and put on the new man. The old man is crucified, etc. His identification is with who he is now “In Christ.” He shares Christ’s identification, and because Jesus is not a sinner, and we are “In Him,” it is inappropriate for us to think of ourselves as sinners.
Of course he is still capable of sinning, and must own and confess his sin, but is unwise to think of himself as a “sinner” any longer.
Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
I think Jesus does a pretty good job of defining what a sinner is in this video:
Jesus Talks To Sinners
Tom, I agree with your issue on perspective, but I think I will disagree slightly in still considering myself a “sinner”. It’s a dichotomy that Believers must be stuck with until the Redemption of our mortal sinful bodies. I think Paul sums it best in Romans 7.
He also says in 1 Timothy 1:
Paul also indicates elsewhere that as Believers we are still in need of that redemption that will cleanse us from sin. We live in the hope of that redemption, but have not yet received it.
I can’t help but conclude that we are stuck in a dilemma, but that Paul was trying to encourage us to neither lose heart in our struggle against sin nor trivialize or dismiss its power over us. I think it is important to recognize that even as a Believer we are still sinners who are hoping for redemption. Just as an alcoholic must always be cognizant of his disease even if he remains sober – he will always be an alcoholic regardless of the time passed since his last drink.
I’m a sinner, but I try to live life “in the Spirit” as if I were free from sin. I also live in the Hope of Salvation – that someday I will be free from this mortal, sinful body.
[Comment ID #23640 Will Be Quoted Here]
This definition doesn’t hold up because it leaves room for personal interpretation for who is or isn’t a sinner. Who are you to decide if someone is “apathetic to the law”? Aren’t we justified by faith? Are we back under the law even after we are told “We are no longer under the Law”?
I think Tom made an excellent point in a previous conversation that is worth repeating: The only unforgivable sin is to refuse to believe and accept the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. God’s Love covers everything else. Isn’t that wonderful? How could you dare attempt to taint God’s Love by judging others? How dare you water down the wonderful Grace given to all of us so freely? How dare you demand that someone perform to your expectations of sinlessness when you could not even save yourself? The arrogance! You, who were not worthy of being saved, have the audacity to say who is worthy of God’s Gift? Thanks be to God who covers ALL of our sins through the blood of Jesus Christ. I, as a sinner, am truly grateful that He has given me that lavish Grace.
Hi FICM,
I love the interplay here. Your logic is excellent, and you know I fully respect you, but I will interject a few more thoughts in the direction I was going late last night, but I won’t have time to develop it as fully as I’d like because I must go to a quarterly business meeting until around 2 PM today.
You quote the NIV:
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
The NIV likes to translate “Greek – sarx” “Flesh” with the interpretive translation of “sin nature,” but I really don’t believe this is Paul’s point at all. He clearly sees this foreign thing called sin, tucked down inside some dimension of our personhood which he calls flesh. He doesn’t seem to identify it as our “nature” but as something foreign within our human nature. We will always have a human nature, even in heaven, but we won’t have sin within our flesh.
So, before he was saved he definitely viewed himself as a “sinner,” but after the work of Christ in his life he, especially in Romans, dissects the human nature, and seems to be implying that he is actually no longer a sinner (though he does still sin) but rather that he sees this foreign thing called “sin” dwelling within him, but that it is not truly “him.”
You quote 1 Timothy 1:
15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.
But, the context, different from Romans, appears to be looking at himself from the perspective of his former life, apart from Christ, than how he really sees himself now.
Notice the broader context of this verse:
1 Timothy1:12And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, 13although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man ; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 15This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.
Because of his many statements of how he now sees himself “In Christ,” it would be inconsistent for him to refer to himself in the “In Christ” ways he does, and still see himself as a sinner.
1 Corinthians 5: 21For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
What say you? Catch up to you later today.
I think that video is hilarious.
I actually showed that video at church a few Sundays ago.
Tom,
Thanks for the banter!
I think I’ve gotten more out of this than I did in your “Basic Doctrine” class. (Sorry if that sounds bad! haha)
In Philippians 3, Paul seems to indicate that the transformation from “sinner” to “righteousness” is more than just a single act, it is a process, and one in which he readily admits he hasn’t finished, and won’t finish until his mortal body is changed to glorify God. He calls this the “mature view” of things.
As a rebuttal to your rebuttal on my position of 1 Timothy, Paul doesn’t say “of whom I was the worst.” He said, “of whom I am the worst.” That speaks to the present tense (of when he wrote it) which means he acknowledges his ability & tendency to sin. I understand the context, but he doesn’t go out of his way to qualify himself as a non-sinner. It seems to imply the opposite. But I will admit it is just an implication.
As far as what is “us” and something “inside us”, I’m not sure I agree. Paul tries to delineate the two by calling one “the Spirit” and the other “the Body”. One is uncorrupted, one is corrupted; one is alive, one is dead. Both are still “Paul”, and it’s similar to the same mystery that Christ could be both God and Man. I think it’s possible for us to live in this duality and identify with both. In my body I am a sinner, but in my Spirit I am righteous.
I think the problem with this whole argument is that it is a matter of semantics. If we simply define a sinner as one who sins, that seems simple enough. But that is no different than calling someone who has driven a car a “driver” (even if they’ve only done it once). But on the other hand, being a licensed driver has strict requirements that must be met, but can we logically produce a set of requirements for the label “sinner” (beyond having merely sinned)? So if I say I am no longer a sinner, is it because I no longer sin? Or is it because I understand that I am no longer under the Law but under Grace? I understand you to mean the latter, but unfortunately, those who aren’t acquainted with the Gospel can only grasp the former. What are the implications of this? Do people then think that you are judging and condemning them through your use of the word “sinner”? The sad truth is that this is often the case, and the IC takes great pains to reinforce this concept. Instead of an emphasis on right-standing with God through faith, performance and legalism are emphasized. If you tell a new Believer that he is no longer a sinner when he himself knows he still sins, won’t he be confused?
These are the reasons I prefer the broader, simpler definition of “sinner” and don’t mind being labeled as such because I recognize that like Paul, I haven’t yet obtained perfection (sinlessness). But I also do recognize that in my Spirit (via the Holy Spirit) I have right-standing in God through Christ. I have this hope: when I am someday fully redeemed, Christ will no longer need to act as the Great High Priest because there will be no more sins to atone for. My mortal body will be traded for the immortal body free from sin.
I sin therefore I am a sinner.
[Comment ID #23640 Will Be Quoted Here]
Let me clarify this. I’m not trying to say some people are sinners and others aren’t. I think this statement I made applies to everyone in the entire world from the beginning of time until now. We all, at one time or another, chose to be apathetic and ignore God’s laws. We all, at one time or another, chose to put ourselves first above the will of God.
I think we sin even if we desire the will of God but put our desires first. We all have at one point not wished to, or tried to, live out the fullness of the will of God. And that makes all of us sinners.
So, what is a sinner? I think it can be summed up in just one word…HUMAN.
The problem I think that we’re having on this topic is the dual levels Paul is speaking on.
In Romans, where he carefully dissects the human personhood, he separates the “true him,” from the sin that dwells in his flesh.
Rom 7:17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Now, if we wanted to pin Paul down, and ask him, “Doesn’t this make you a sinner?” I believe he would say, “In one sense my answer is yes, and I stated that in 1 Timothy 1, but in an even more dissected technical sense, which is what Romans is all about, the answer would be no.”
Paul isn’t schizophrenic on this issue. He too would say that one who sins is a sinner. But, when it comes down to the believer attempting to define who “he really is,” I.e. his truest identity, it seems that Paul is encouraging him to say “I am a man/woman of God,” rather than seeing my essential identity as “a sinner.”
Rom 7:20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
It isn’t the “truest me” that sins, but rather “sin in my flesh” that deceives “the true me,” and convinces the “true me” to give in to sin’s deceptions.
This may all sound like mumbo jumbo, but if you have ever read carefully through Romans 7 you will experience that sense of “mumbo jumbo,” but this is because Paul is attempting to define the undefinable.
So, yes, I am a sinner because I sinned, do sin, and will yet sin, but in my truest identity, no, it is sin in my flesh that sins, and I will take responsibility for what sin in my flesh does but I will not consider that to be the truest me “in Christ.”
Some will say, why is Paul making this careful set of distinctions, and making this whole thing so difficult? I think the answer is a very important one. If I want to break free from the controls of sin in my flesh it is important to see who I am in Christ. If I see myself as a filthy sinner, even though I’m in Christ, I will be far more inclined to live out the image I have of myself. If I see my spiritual birthright in Christ is one who has now become “a new creation,” then, when the devil comes to me and says “hey slime ball, admit it man, you know you’re just a sinner. So, just being a sinner like everyone else quit trying to fool yourself, you know the real you wants to give in to this tempting sin. Why deny the real you? Just give in.” If I’m unclear, at the point of his temptation, as to who I really am in Christ, I’m more inclined to yield to his temptation. But, if I am more aware of who I am in Christ, than who I used to be in his kingdom, then I’m more inclined to reply, “Take a hike dude, you are appealing to who I used to be. I’m a new creation in Christ now. This defines the truest me. It is true your temptation appeals to the sin which dwells in my flesh, but I choose not to identify myself with sin in my flesh, but rather, with who I am in Christ. Thanks, but no thanks!”
David Needham, formerly from Multnomah Bible College, has written an excellent book, making this very point. The title is “Birthright…Christian do you know who you really are?” An absolutely life changing book.
In the day of temptation knowing our truest identity in Christ can make all the difference.
It is in Romans 6 through 8 that Paul is working so hard to help believers break free from the bondage of sin. Apparently to his and the Spirit’s way of thinking, it is very important in the endeavor to see who we truly are now in Christ. Otherwise, we are left adrift as to what on earth he is trying to say in these chapters.
Just for fun, reread 6,7,8 from the perspective I’m suggesting, and see if you think Paul just might be saying what I’m saying here. If after you have carefully read each of his statements, and his distinctions, you still don’t buy it, then I’d love to have you put forth another explanation for what and why he is saying especially in chapter 7.
I look forward to your response…
I understand where you are coming from, Tom, but I see it working the opposite regarding how we view ourselves…
If a child grows up being told he is worthless, stupid, ugly, or that they will never amount to anything, it is a rare individual indeed who will rise above those ‘expectations’.
However, if a child has parents who tell him/her that they were born for a purpose, have a destiny to fulfill, and whose parents believe in them and encourage their strengths, they will have a much better chance of growing up and accomplishing great things.
If we see ourselves as ‘sinners’ it makes it easy to live up (down) to that standard and shrug our sins off as the expected norm for a sinner. “Oh well, what can I expect–at least I’m not as bad as HIM….”
)
If however, we believe what our Heavenly Father says about us, that we are His children, that we are blood bought and sin is no longer our master, we will be less likely to be drawn away and enticed by our lurking and prowling enemy. We will be more inclined to resist the devil, causing him to flee from us, then as we draw near to God, He will draw near to us.
For me the biggest issue I have with the whole subject is the fact that our focus is on sin, rather than righteousness. Whatever we spend the most amount of our thinking on, we are giving it power. That’s why we are told to renew our minds, and to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.
Romans 8:5
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
It’s been understood by many…
“Watch your thoughts. They become words. Watch your words. They become deeds. Watch your deeds. They become habits. Watch your habits. They become character. Character is everything.”
commonly quoted as by Ralph Waldo Emerson
I appreciate your points, Tom. Well put. There is a difference between who we are and how we see ourselves. But I’m still of the opinion that we are both “sinners” and “in Christ”. I don’t see that as an unresolvable contradiction.
We should see ourselves as being alive in the Spirit and dead to sin when it comes to temptation. But as far as our current state is concerned, we live in the hope of Salvation (which makes me question the popular Christian-ese saying “I’m saved” as if it has already occurred, but perhaps that’s another debate).
I think the reason why people (including me) have a hard time with this, is because the context of the question raised by Reformed Pope. Too often people use the word “sinners” to describe people who don’t live up to their standards of morality. And it’s in this context that people use it to denigrate others who don’t agree with their religious agenda. Additionally, by calling someone a “sinner” in this context, the speaker is usually implying that they themselves are not a “sinner” and are better than those that are “sinners”. That has nothing to do with our perspective in Christ, but it has everything to do with how we (Believers) present ourselves to the world and how they perceive what our perspective is of them. If the word “sinner” is used as a holier-than-thou derogatory term, then it is no wonder that the world resents us for it.
FICM,
Thanks for all your input. I hear your point. It is certainly a perspective held by some interpreters, and whether you see it exactly the way I do or not is ultimately not as important as the fact that the perspective you do hold appears to be healthy, non-condemnation oriented, positive, and honors Christ.
You make the following comment:
This is almost a Quantum Physics matter, believe it or not. When Paul references the notion of “saved” he does it using three Greek tenses – the Aorist, the Present, and the Future. The Aorist generally implies a more or less completed action, or at the very least some aspect of salvation is a settled action. The Present implies an ongoing action, I.e. process. The Future, an action yet to take place. Therefore, in a Quantum Physics sort of way, we are saved, are being saved, and will yet be saved. Something is completed in it, something is being worked on, and some fullness has yet to take place. God sees us as done, being done, and yet to be done, in the salvational category. Makes sense, if you are seeing the beginning and ending simultaneously.
In this context I love Paul’s statement in Romans:
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Now that is cool. From the eternal perspective I’m already glorified. It’s as though I’m done. Wow!
Romans 4:17
(as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nationsâ€) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;…And (Abraham) not being weak in faith,… did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.â€
When God first told Abraham that he was (already) the father of a great nation, it was 25 years before it came to pass in the flesh….unfortunatly, Abraham jumped the gun a bit at Sarah’s urging, but God still kept His promise, in spite of the ‘appearance‘ of ‘old, dead bodies’.
We can be sure that what God says about our flesh, that it is dead, is true. Dead flesh has no power. A dead man can look at immorality and not be tempted. A dead man can be insulted and not really care. A dead man is not rough, impatient, or unkind.
We have been crucified with Christ. We ARE dead. The life that we now live in the flesh, we live by faith in the Son of God Who loved us and gave Himself for us….
Just as our weakness in the flesh before we were saved ensured that we were damned, our flesh that is now dead is still worthless for producing the fruit that defines godly character. Love, joy, peace patience, kindness, goodness gentleness faithfulness and self control are not fruits of Hungry, or Tom, or JP, or Sam, they are fruits of the Spirit, and are produced by the Spirit, which the Savior has given to those who love Him…
Before someone negatively reacts to the following statement from Hungry:
It has true Romans biblical logic to it.
When Paul writes in Romans:
Rom 6:6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
from my study of the words Paul choses to describe this “brought to nothing,” I have come to the conclusion that he is addressing the “independant power” of sin in the flesh. In other words, from the moment we receive the finished work of Christ on our behalf the power of sin has been broken. Prior to this it ruled in the heart, and while its rulership was tempered by society’s norms and standards, to one degree or another, no man is capable of fully overcoming its formidable power.
But, for those who have come to Christ, sin is dead within us in terms of “its power to force,” someone to sin. I no longer “have to” sin. I may choose to sin. I may allow myself to be deceived by sin. But, because of Christ’s work on my behalf, when I choose to see myself as Christ sees me, I am “truly dead to sin.” Sin can not force a believer to yield to it.
Paul’s whole point in Romans 6 is that we don’t “have to” sin. We could, if we were foolish, re-enslave ourselves to sin’s diminished power, but we don’t have to.
The more we see ourselves the way Jesus’ work defines us, the more we are likely to leave the besetting sins of our lives behind. A man who knows sin’s power is dead within him can live like a “dead man” to sin. Prior to Christ’s work applied to our lives there was no hope for this. After it is applied it is dishonoring to Him to deny this potential.