Interesting take.

Thanks. They are mutually exclusive.

What if you give up being a sinner to become a Christian and later sin? Giving up sinning does not make you infallible, right?

When you become a Christian you don't lose the ability to sin, but you do lose the ability to enjoy it.

And yet Christ died for sinners

Duh. Before you accept Jesus' free gift of salvation, you're a sinner. After you accept His free gift of salvation, you're a Christian.

My issue with that framing is it implies if you sin you would lose salvation. I think of Christians as both sinners and saints. Similarly to the mystery of Christ being both fully man and fully God at the same time.

Doing some fishing I see.

Just following my Master.

I'll challenge that a bit, though I think we've conversed about this before, as well. When the Apostle Paul wrote, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost (Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι ὧν πρῶτός εἰμι ἐγώ)" in 1 Timothy 1:15, was it before or after he was a Christian? And if it was after, then how could he speak of himself as the foremost of sinners in the present tense? He did not say "I WAS (ἤμην)," but "I AM(εἰμι) foremost of sinners," even as a Christian. Was Paul wrong to consider himself a sinner?

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on Me, A Sinner.

Is a Christian's identity found in Jesus Christ, or in the sin Jesus died to save him from?

Taking your identity from Paul instead of Jesus is an error. Paul is not God. Jesus is God, and a Christian's identity is found in Him, not Paul who testifies of Him.

Is 1 Timothy 1:15 inspired Scripture, or merely the words of Paul?

Christ being fully man and fully God is distinct from sinner or Christian. Jesus was the son of man, yet without sin. If a Christian identifies with Jesus, he identifies with His righteousness in flesh and spirit, since the flesh is crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. My framing doesn't imply, "if you sin you would lose your salvation." It implies that a Christian can't identify with Jesus and sin at the same time. The scripture is clear, that if you confess your sins, he is faithful and just to forgive your sins and cleanse you of all unrighteousness.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. It is because we live in Christ that we can be courageous enough to confess that we are sinners. 1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Jesus answered your question in Luke 18. The man who named himself a sinner went home justified. The other man who thought himself otherwise did not.

Did Jesus come to save sinners, so they could remain sinners? Or did Jesus come to save sinners so they would become the righteousness of God in Christ, and children of God, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, saints, with access to the Father through Jesus alone? All Scripture is inspired, but only one man in Scripture is God. Since a house divided against itself cannot stand, a Christian cannot build their identity on Christ and sin at the same time, or they will fall. If a Christian identifies as a Christian and a sinner, he deceives himself since a man cannot have two masters. A Christian cannot be a Christian and a sinner at the same time if they've chosen Christ Jesus as their master, Lord, and God, because their identity is not defined by their past or their actions, but by who they choose to center their life on, since, "If you confess your sins, he is faithful and just to forgive your sins and cleanse you of all unrighteousness." How the Father relates to you in Christ is how you are to relate to yourself. He alone is the identificational standard. So if a Christian continues to identify as a sinner after being born again, he is implicitly asserting, "I know better than God." But this is God's reality, not your reality. Excluding the Father from defining who you are in Christ is the sin of pride. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me."

"Did Jesus come to save sinners so they could remain sinners?" No. In Christ sins are forgiven on account of his blood shed for us, and his righteousness is counted as ours through faith. That is different from recognizing that we remain, in this life, with a sin nature that is being gradually put to death and that we will only finally be rid of after passing into glory. "Or did Jesus come to save sinners so they would become the righteousness of God in Christ, and children of God, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, saints, with access to the Father through Jesus alone?" Yes, he absolutely did. But again, there is an already/not yet aspect to this. We have a down payment on it now in this life, but it will only be fully realized in the resurrection. Trying to act like we have fully received what is promised to us as Christians here and now is what is referred to as an overrealized eschatology. "All Scripture is inspired, but only one man in Scripture is God." You cannot use that to dismiss Paul's self-identification as a sinner, and even the foremost of sinners, post-conversion. Yes, Christ Jesus alone is God and man, but that does not make Jesus words hold more weight than or overrule Paul's words that are Scripture. If all Scripture is God-breathed, then ALL of it is equally the Word of God, regardless of whether God gave it directly in the person of Jesus, or by the Holy Spirit through Paul. Nor can you ignore something Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit because it doesn't fit with your particular emphasis. If Paul said that he is the foremost of sinners in the present tense, though he was a born-again believer, and if Paul wrote those words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit such that we can consider them the very Word of God, then we must conclude it is not only acceptable but appropriate for Christians to continue to recognize their remaining sin. Not to celebrate it, but to continue to repent of it. "Since a house divided against itself cannot stand, a Christian cannot build their identity on Christ and sin at the same time, or they will fall." I am not in any way suggesting that a Christian should "build their identity on sin" and Christ at the same time. A Christian should be putting sin in themselves to death through the enabling grace of the Holy Spirit secured to them in Christ. They should be dying more and more unto sin and living more and more unto righteousness as they are conformed more and more into the image of Christ "from one degree of glory to another" (2 Corinthians 3:18). Rather, I am acknowledging that Christians still sin, and sometimes sin grievously, despite being Christians. It is a recognition of the reality of remaining corruption, and therefore the necessity of continuing repentance and dependence upon grace, not advocating that Christians should embrace sin or build their identity upon it. "So if a Christian continues to identify as a sinner after being born again, he is implicitly asserting, 'I know better than God.'" That word "identify" is where I think we are getting hung up. When Paul said, "I am the foremost of sinners," was he identifying as a sinner, in the same sense as someone today might "identify" as a cat, or as a woman, though they were born a man? No. That kind of identification embraces what it means to be a cat or a woman and tries to live in accordance with that identification in order to prove that they really are what they identify as. When Paul said, "I am the foremost of sinners," it was a confession of a reality that he could not deny, but that he most certainly did not embrace. Far from any form of pride, Paul was recognizing his absolute dependence upon God and the grace only available through Christ, not only to have forgiveness of sin, but freedom from it and victory over it. We absolutely must take ALL of what Scripture says into account in our understanding. We cannot ignore one thing God says in his Word because something else seems to contradict it. Our identity, the one we should embrace and try to shape our lives around as Christians, is in Christ and his righteousness imputed to us. Yet that does not nullify the fact that until we enter glory, we ARE still sinners who, like Paul, can and should confess that we are still sinners, repenting from it, and putting it to death by the enabling power of the Holy Spirit, and never embracing sin as our pattern of life. If we fail to hold both of these things in balance, then we have wrongly pitted Scripture against Scripture by dismissing something God has said through Paul, rather than rightly using it to help us understand what Jesus said, and what Paul also said elsewhere in his letters.

It's not a false dichotomy. It's a true dichotomy. When a person prior to Christ identifies as a sinner, admitting it is confession of what's true and the mercy he needs. And the Pharisee, pretending he's not a sinner prior to Christ, is lying. But once a man comes to Christ, admits he's a sinner in need of salvation, accepts Jesus as his Lord and Savior, and is born again and becomes a child of God, his old sin identity is crucified with Christ. And then the Father identifies that man through Christ, not sin, because no man can have two masters, and Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me." Therefore my dichotomy is correct, but your categories and sequence are wrong.

Since Christians are new creatures in Christ Jesus, sinning is optional.

You still haven't dealt with my argument. Was Paul incorrect to refer to himself as "the foremost of sinners" though he was a Christian? If so, then how does that fit with divine inspiration of ALL of Scripture? If not, then why should Paul consider himself so great a sinner while we should not? Are we better than Paul?

In 1 Timothy 1:15 Paul, writing as an apostle, to other Christians, calls himself the foremost of sinners in the present tense. You also didn't address 1 John 1:8, another post-conversion verse. From John the apostle, to other Christians. In Colossians 3:5 Paul commands believers to put to death what is earthly in you, which only makes sense if something earthly remains to be put to death. Sanctification is a lifelong process. Luke 18 is a warning. The Pharisee stopped praying the sinner's prayer because he thinks his identity has moved past it. It is not a stage you graduate from.

Is that what God told you?

1 Kings 8:46: "there is no one who does not sin." The Pharisee thought he'd found the exception. So did Levi.

If you reject intimacy with God in your manner, you are aiming down. I hope you stop.

A sin in Hebrew is to err, or miss the target, in simple English to make a mistake. And such were some of you. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Matthew 5:17 Faith without works is dead James 2:14-26 Righteousness is a filthy rag Isaiah 64:6 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans 6:1-2 To say all in all, that our relationship with the divine can only be understood in the manner in which a parent understands. When your child is unruly you punish them, when they do good you reward them, sometimes they make honest mistakes, and you forgive them, and bring them back to where they should be. But when they’re unreconcilable it’s time to let them be on their own. But there’s also a falling away from grace, and some come back, and others don’t. Solomon vs. Mark of The Beast. A parent loves their child regardless of what they do but must do what necessary. Ezekiel 18:23 I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of El. John 3:3 The Wicked will burn up in their sins, their data file overwritten with new holy data, a total eradication from the universe, hence the second death. The first is the mortal death caused by physical sin, the second death is death of spirit caused by wickedness of the soul. A just merciful creator who loves his creation would not indefinitely punish a finite being for infinity. Further more eternal life is the reward, if burning in hell is a punishment forever, you still have eternal life which is a preferred state of being than to be null, naught, or void, hence no more. So therefore since enteral life is the reward it is fair to assume the lack of life is the punishment. 1, & 0. That is my conclusion folks.

I wasn't aiming down. I know I am a sinner.

That's not the precipice I'm referring to.

The true precipice is thinking you've arrived.

I think the Bible, a book which says it's perfectly fine to slaughter an entire nation of people who did nothing to you and who posed no threat to you, can safely be ignored as a guide to morality.

The Nations that Yah commanded to wipe out usually partook in bestiality, public rapes, human sacrifice, homosexual orgies, and other such acts of depravity. These weren’t wholesome chungus nations to be clear.

So you actually think that "Yah" knew for sure that the whole nation, even the little kids and moms, deserved to be murdered immediately without the slightest evidence, and you yourself worship this god?

23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? 25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? 26 And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. 27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes: 28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. 29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake. 30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. 31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake. 32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. 33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place. - Genesis 18:23-33 KJV

Utter nonsense. The source of so much of the insanity and malevolence in the world today.

Is that what God said when you talked to Him about it?

He wasn't just talking to me. He said it in 1 John 1:8, where I can't revise it to flatter myself.

If you want to center your identity on Paul, so be it. But you will be missing the greatest gift, identity in Christ. You are one with Jesus Christ. "Let them be one with me as I'm one with you." Paul is good theology, but Jesus is perfect theology. I choose Jesus as my center.

1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

"Paul is good theology, but Jesus is perfect theology." That sounds like a denial of inerrancy. If Paul's theology is God-breathed Scripture, then it is perfect theology. I want to base my identity on God's Word; all of it.

The Bible didn't bleed for you.

satan can also quote Scripture.

No, but God did, in his the person Son, and he inspired every word of it, including Paul referring to himself as a sinner. Are you seriously denying the divine inspiration of the Pauline epistles such that we should view Paul's words as less than the very word of God by which we must shape our doctrine and life?

You've twice told me I'm hearing voices, and have now compared me to satan. Thank you, Levi, my brother in Christ.