"All have sinned" and the IC

[Miguel_Sastre]

I’m starting this thread to look specifically at one line of argumentation used by Catholics to argue that the “all have sinned” passages (Romans 3:23; 5:12) do not mean “everyone without exception.”

These passages are pivotal in discussions about the Immaculate Conception (hereafter, IC). After all, if such passages do not admit of exceptions, then the IC would contradict scripture.

On the other hand, if the these passages can admit of exceptions, then perhaps scripture leaves the door open for the IC.

The Catholic argument seems to be more or less as follows:

1. “All” does not always mean “everyone without exception.” (Agreed.)
2. When Paul says, “all have sinned,” he is (definitely/probably) not thinking of infants or anyone else incapable of sin–where capable means something like “sufficiently rational” to sin willfully and intentionally. (Here I am going to disagree. I will shoulder the burden of proof an argue that Paul really does mean “every human being without exception.”
3. Nor is Paul thinking of Jesus as a sinner. (Agreed, because Jesus is also God and therefore cannot sin or fall short of His own glory.)
4. Therefore, given these exceptions, it is at least possible that Paul is not thinking of Mary either.
   Conclusion: Paul’s “all have sinned” passages do not necessarily contradict the IC and probably do not.

So my strategy will be to deny the second premise. But I would also like to argue the following:

1. If we grant for the sake of argument that “all” does not have to mean “everyone without exception,” but can also mean “all without distinction,” Catholics would still have to show which meaning is intended. In other words, it isn’t enough to point out that “all” can have a range of meanings; rather Catholics have to show that “all” has, or at least probably has, the “exceptional” meaning in Romans 3:23 and 5:12.
2. Further, Catholics have to show more than that there can be exceptions; they also have to show why Mary in particular was such an exception. If they cannot do this, then even if the “all have sinned” passages are merely general, rather than absolute, this still would not allow us to conclude that Mary could have been an exception. In other words, in this scenario, Catholics have the burden of proof to show not only that Mary could have been an exception in Paul’s thinking, but also that she probably was one.

I am also going to make the following (bold) claims.

1. I think I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul intended to teach the universality of sin for all human beings, including infants, including Mary.
2. I also think I can show why Jesus is not, properly speaking, an “exception,” to this rule simply because Paul puts Jesus in an entirely different category.
3. I also think I can make the case that Mary in particular could not have been an exception in Paul’s thinking and that he almost certainly considered her to be a sinner from conception.

Here is my opening argument.

1. Romans indicts both Jews and Gentiles as sinners (Romans 1-3).
2. Jews and Gentiles, together, mean “all humanity.” (Paul divides the human race into these two categories.)
3. All of humanity is sinful by nature. We are born this way. (Romans 5:12; Eph. 2:3)
4. Even if Paul is thinking primarily of adults, there is no evidence to suppose that he is thinking only of adults in the “all have sinned” passages. (Supposition plausible pending proof to the contrary.)
5. Mary was an adult Jew, with sufficient rationality, not to be considered someone incapable of sin, like an infant or someone of diminished capacity. (Mary does not meet the criteria for a plausible “exception,” assuming there are any.)
6. Therefore, probably, Paul would have considered Mary to be a sinner.

Disclaimer: I may be without internet access for about a week starting 12/24. But “I’ll be back” to respond to your posts asap.

Cheers.

 

[promethius]

I’ll skip the fluff and dive right into your argument:

1. Romans indicts both Jews and Gentiles as sinners (Romans 1-3).
2. Jews and Gentiles, together, mean “all humanity.” (Paul divides the human race into these two categories.)
3. All of humanity is sinful by nature. We are born this way. (Romans 5:12; Eph. 2:3)
4. Even if Paul is thinking primarily of adults, there is no evidence to suppose that he is thinking only of adults in the “all have sinned” passages. (Supposition plausible pending proof to the contrary.)
5. Mary was an adult Jew, with sufficient rationality, not to be considered someone incapable of sin, like an infant or someone of diminished capacity. (Mary does not meet the criteria for a plausible “exception,” assuming there are any.)
6. Therefore, probably, Paul would have considered Mary to be a sinner.

1. Previously you stated that Jesus’ divine nature was what prevented him from falling into the “all” category. This is patently false. Jesus was possessed of two entirely different and yet totally complete natures: Divine and human. Both of these natures were perfect and sinless, not just the Divine. Niether fell short of the glory of God.
2. The immaculate conception refers to more than just being without personal culpability for personal sin. It refers to being born without the fallen nature of original sin. Babies are not excluded from this. While they have no personal guilt, they do bear the fallen nature. The question of the immaculate conception is not whether one could go their whole life while living up to God’s expectations (Elijah and Moses prove that one can). The question is whether or not salvific grace could extend to birth to blot out the fallen nature of mankind.

ergo, we know that even Elijah’s and Moses’ salvation depended on the death and resurrection of the Christ. Since we see them in heaven BEFORE Christ’s death and resurrection, we know it is possible that salvific grace extended both backward AND forward in time.

1. Looking at this question, we must RE-think what Paul is saying when we read his statement that “ALL” have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. As you properly state, Paul’s discussion in the early part of Romans (remembering that originally the bible did not distinguish chapters and verses) has SOLELY to do with discussing whether judaizing of the gentiles was necessary in order for them to enter into Christianity. In this discussion, Paul feels it is not so. All have sinned and fallen short does NOT refer to individuals at all. It refers to ALL traditions, gentile, jew, pagan, etc… NONE of those traditions has met the expectations of God.

Your error is the same as any protestant makes: parsing scripture to regard one verse as a stand-alone item. In context we see that no where does Paul indicate that he has switched from talking about traditions to individuals.

From this understanding, we now can realize that it is both possible for salvific grace to extend backwards in time. We know that Paul is not referring to individuals (as Elijah, Moses, and Jesus’ human nature show us) because of examples given and because of the context of the passage.

At this point it is extremely simple to argue both the virginity and immaculate conception of Mary as matters of fulfilling both prophecy and the requirements of the passover sacrifice. Mary was the Temple, the Arc, and her womb was the Tabernacle: a perfect vessel in which Christ, who was both High Priest AND Sacrificial Lamb could reside within before the Paschal Act

 

[thistle]

I’m starting this thread to look specifically at one line of argumentation used by Catholics to argue that the “all have sinned” passages (Romans 3:23; 5:12) do not mean “everyone without exception.”

These passages are pivotal in discussions about the Immaculate Conception (hereafter, IC). After all, if such passages do not admit of exceptions, then the IC would contradict scripture.

On the other hand, if the these passages can admit of exceptions, then perhaps scripture leaves the door open for the IC.

The Catholic argument seems to be more or less as follows:

1. “All” does not always mean “everyone without exception.” (Agreed.)
2. When Paul says, “all have sinned,” he is (definitely/probably) not thinking of infants or anyone else incapable of sin–where capable means something like “sufficiently rational” to sin willfully and intentionally. (Here I am going to disagree. I will shoulder the burden of proof an argue that Paul really does mean “every human being without exception.”
3. Nor is Paul thinking of Jesus as a sinner. (Agreed, because Jesus is also God and therefore cannot sin or fall short of His own glory.)
4. Therefore, given these exceptions, it is at least possible that Paul is not thinking of Mary either.
   Conclusion: Paul’s “all have sinned” passages do not necessarily contradict the IC and probably do not.

So my strategy will be to deny the second premise. But I would also like to argue the following:

1. If we grant for the sake of argument that “all” does not have to mean “everyone without exception,” but can also mean “all without distinction,” Catholics would still have to show which meaning is intended. In other words, it isn’t enough to point out that “all” can have a range of meanings; rather Catholics have to show that “all” has, or at least probably has, the “exceptional” meaning in Romans 3:23 and 5:12.
2. Further, Catholics have to show more than that there can be exceptions; they also have to show why Mary in particular was such an exception. If they cannot do this, then even if the “all have sinned” passages are merely general, rather than absolute, this still would not allow us to conclude that Mary could have been an exception. In other words, in this scenario, Catholics have the burden of proof to show not only that Mary could have been an exception in Paul’s thinking, but also that she probably was one.

I am also going to make the following (bold) claims.

1. I think I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul intended to teach the universality of sin for all human beings, including infants, including Mary.
2. I also think I can show why Jesus is not, properly speaking, an “exception,” to this rule simply because Paul puts Jesus in an entirely different category.
3. I also think I can make the case that Mary in particular could not have been an exception in Paul’s thinking and that he almost certainly considered her to be a sinner from conception.

Here is my opening argument.

1. Romans indicts both Jews and Gentiles as sinners (Romans 1-3).
2. Jews and Gentiles, together, mean “all humanity.” (Paul divides the human race into these two categories.)
3. All of humanity is sinful by nature. We are born this way. (Romans 5:12; Eph. 2:3)
4. Even if Paul is thinking primarily of adults, there is no evidence to suppose that he is thinking only of adults in the “all have sinned” passages. (Supposition plausible pending proof to the contrary.)
5. Mary was an adult Jew, with sufficient rationality, not to be considered someone incapable of sin, like an infant or someone of diminished capacity. (Mary does not meet the criteria for a plausible “exception,” assuming there are any.)
6. Therefore, probably, Paul would have considered Mary to be a sinner.

Disclaimer: I may be without internet access for about a week starting 12/24. But “I’ll be back” to respond to your posts asap.

Cheers.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0709btb.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102sbs.asp

 

[promethius]

Actually, I will add to my previous discussion: Ecclesiastes 7 is one of the scriptures Paul was referencing in Romans 3. Ecclesiastes 7 refers to the same warning: that those who hold themselves righteous above others lead to their own demise. We are warned niether to hold ourselves as too righteous and wise, nor to be wicked and a fool.

Ecclesiastes tells us the same thing that Paul is RE-highlighting: 18It is good that you should take hold of(Y) this, and from(Z) that(AA) withhold not your hand, for the one who fears God shall come out from both of them.

In other words, the Jews who had converted were wrong to hold their righteousness over the heads of the gentiles and insist on judaizing them, since even by word of the old testament it was wrong to hold onesself too righteous and that those who fear God would come both from the gentiles AND the Jews.

Paul is using a Jewish argument here to refer Jews to the fact that the old testament already told them what Christ had to come and remind them of: that God is the God of all people.

 

[Chesster]

You do realize that for Catholics the IC is a divinely revealed truth and that denying it is equivalent to denying the divinity of Jesus, right?

 

[promethius]

You do realize that for Catholics the IC is a divinely revealed truth and that denying it is equivalent to denying the divinity of Jesus, right?

Erm… the OP is an Evangelical… not a Catholic…

 

[JackVk]

Also, when Gabriel came to Mary, he tells her: "do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. (Luke 1:31)

Doesn’t seem like Mary had any other option than to obey.

 

[davidv]

{snip}Here is my opening argument.

1. Romans indicts both Jews and Gentiles as sinners (Romans 1-3).
2. Jews and Gentiles, together, mean “all humanity.” (Paul divides the human race into these two categories.)
3. All of humanity is sinful by nature. We are born this way. (Romans 5:12; Eph. 2:3)
4. Even if Paul is thinking primarily of adults, there is no evidence to suppose that he is thinking only of adults in the “all have sinned” passages. (Supposition plausible pending proof to the contrary.)
5. Mary was an adult Jew, with sufficient rationality, not to be considered someone incapable of sin, like an infant or someone of diminished capacity. (Mary does not meet the criteria for a plausible “exception,” assuming there are any.)
6. Therefore, probably, Paul would have considered Mary to be a sinner.

Disclaimer: I may be without internet access for about a week starting 12/24. But “I’ll be back” to respond to your posts asap.

Cheers.

Point 3 begs the OP question and is an invalid premise, making you argument invalid.
Even if you could demonstrate point 6, what makes you think Paul was drawing the correct conclusion?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

1. Previously you stated that Jesus’ divine nature was what prevented him from falling into the “all” category. This is patently false. Jesus was possessed of two entirely different and yet totally complete natures: Divine and human. Both of these natures were perfect and sinless, not just the Divine. Niether fell short of the glory of God.

I’ll just focus on this for now.

I stated that Jesus was “also God,” by which I intended to affirm that he is both God and Man. As such, he stands in a unique category. His humanity is perfect. But so was Adam’s and Eve’s before the fall and yet they still had the potential to sin and in fact did sin. It is because Jesus is God that he was able to live a perfect life as a true human being. And it is because he is God that he unable to sin, or else we would have to posit the following untenable proposition, viz., “God can sin,” which would contradict his character, not to mention James 1:12-13.

Paul simply doesn’t describe Jesus as an “exception” to the “all have sinned” clause because it had never entered into Paul’s mind that Jesus could sin (cf, 2 Cor. 5:21). Consider this passage:

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith (Romans 3:22-25).

If you wish to argue that Jesus “could have sinned” but simply “did not,” then you would have to posit the following: 1. That God could fall short of his own glory (but just didn’t). 2. That a man capable of sin brought us redemption (though he did not sin). 3. That a man capable of sin was accepted by God the Father as the propitiation (although he could have sinned, had he chosen to.).

None of those seem like defensible propositions to me and nothing in your rebuttal above even remotely suggests that Paul thought of Jesus as “an exception.” We don’t say “everyone sins except God,” because the “except God” part would be superfluous. For that very same reason, Paul never says, “all have sinned except Jesus,” as that too would have been superfluous, since Paul regarded Jesus as fully God, as well as man.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

1. The immaculate conception refers to more than just being without personal culpability for personal sin. It refers to being born without the fallen nature of original sin. Babies are not excluded from this. While they have no personal guilt, they do bear the fallen nature.

None of this is in dispute…

The question of the immaculate conception is not whether one could go their whole life while living up to God’s expectations (Elijah and Moses prove that one can). The question is whether or not salvific grace could extend to birth to blot out the fallen nature of mankind.

Could you explain a little more about what you think the examples of Elijah and Moses prove? Surely you’re not saying that they were conceived without original sin, are you? Or, perhaps, you are saying they lived sinless lives? As for the question of whether grace could prevent the contraction of original sin, this is also not in dispute. I’m not debating hypotheticals nor what may or may not have been “fitting,” for God to do. I’m simply denying that God did prevent Mary from contracting original sin and from living a sinless life, and I’m appealing to Paul’s doctrine of the universality of human sin to make my case for me.

 

[Mijoy2]

I’m starting this thread to look specifically at one line of argumentation used by Catholics to argue that the “all have sinned” passages (Romans 3:23; 5:12) do not mean “everyone without exception.”

These passages are pivotal in discussions about the Immaculate Conception (hereafter, IC). After all, if such passages do not admit of exceptions, then the IC would contradict scripture.

On the other hand, if the these passages can admit of exceptions, then perhaps scripture leaves the door open for the IC.

The Catholic argument seems to be more or less as follows:

1. “All” does not always mean “everyone without exception.” (Agreed.)
2. When Paul says, “all have sinned,” he is (definitely/probably) not thinking of infants or anyone else incapable of sin–where capable means something like “sufficiently rational” to sin willfully and intentionally. (Here I am going to disagree. I will shoulder the burden of proof an argue that Paul really does mean “every human being without exception.”
3. Nor is Paul thinking of Jesus as a sinner. (Agreed, because Jesus is also God and therefore cannot sin or fall short of His own glory.)
4. Therefore, given these exceptions, it is at least possible that Paul is not thinking of Mary either.
   Conclusion: Paul’s “all have sinned” passages do not necessarily contradict the IC and probably do not.

So my strategy will be to deny the second premise. But I would also like to argue the following:

1. If we grant for the sake of argument that “all” does not have to mean “everyone without exception,” but can also mean “all without distinction,” Catholics would still have to show which meaning is intended. In other words, it isn’t enough to point out that “all” can have a range of meanings; rather Catholics have to show that “all” has, or at least probably has, the “exceptional” meaning in Romans 3:23 and 5:12.
2. Further, Catholics have to show more than that there can be exceptions; they also have to show why Mary in particular was such an exception. If they cannot do this, then even if the “all have sinned” passages are merely general, rather than absolute, this still would not allow us to conclude that Mary could have been an exception. In other words, in this scenario, Catholics have the burden of proof to show not only that Mary could have been an exception in Paul’s thinking, but also that she probably was one.

I am also going to make the following (bold) claims.

1. I think I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul intended to teach the universality of sin for all human beings, including infants, including Mary.
2. I also think I can show why Jesus is not, properly speaking, an “exception,” to this rule simply because Paul puts Jesus in an entirely different category.
3. I also think I can make the case that Mary in particular could not have been an exception in Paul’s thinking and that he almost certainly considered her to be a sinner from conception.

Here is my opening argument.

1. Romans indicts both Jews and Gentiles as sinners (Romans 1-3).
2. Jews and Gentiles, together, mean “all humanity.” (Paul divides the human race into these two categories.)
3. All of humanity is sinful by nature. We are born this way. (Romans 5:12; Eph. 2:3)
4. Even if Paul is thinking primarily of adults, there is no evidence to suppose that he is thinking only of adults in the “all have sinned” passages. (Supposition plausible pending proof to the contrary.)
5. Mary was an adult Jew, with sufficient rationality, not to be considered someone incapable of sin, like an infant or someone of diminished capacity. (Mary does not meet the criteria for a plausible “exception,” assuming there are any.)
6. Therefore, probably, Paul would have considered Mary to be a sinner.

Disclaimer: I may be without internet access for about a week starting 12/24. But “I’ll be back” to respond to your posts asap.

Cheers.

I just jumped on and did not read any posts beyond this one due to lack of time. I respect your inquisition a great deal, especially when so politely expressed.

I would only suggest at this time that you read many of the beautiful theology behind the dogma of the Immacualte Conception. (perhaps Mark Sheas trilogy (books) on the matter…and much much more…Hahn etc.) You appear to be putting grammer, or the literal meaning behind the words of Paul, before the 2000 year old awesome beauty of the theology behind this dogma. I would say, “so what if he said everybody”, he did not mean each and every single individual, he was directing his words towards mankind, not necassarily the woman who’s whom bore the creator of the universe. Christ said, (paraphrased for time) it is easier to pass a camle thru the head of a needle then to enter the Kingdom of God. He did not mean this in a literal sense.

Christ, needed to enter into this world in an instained vessel. There is much theology to suppoet this need (requirment if you will) and much theology to suppor that He in fact did. Read up, I politely suggest. Do not resort to a new theology, put in place only (perhaps…no probably) in another effort to unknowingly seperate from the 2000 year old church. The dogma is new (the Immacualte Conception) the theology goes back to the church Fathers. It is beautiful. Beyond beautiful, it becomes obvious when realized.

Sorry, have to run Merry Christmas to ALL!!!

 

[promethius]

I’ll just focus on this for now.

I stated that Jesus was “also God,” by which I intended to affirm that he is both God and Man. As such, he stands in a unique category. His humanity is perfect. But so was Adam’s and Eve’s before the fall and yet they still had the potential to sin and in fact did sin. It is because Jesus is God that he was able to live a perfect life as a true human being. And it is because he is God that he unable to sin, or else we would have to posit the following untenable proposition, viz., “God can sin,” which would contradict his character, not to mention James 1:12-13.

There is no scriptural or historical basis for this claim. Jesus’ human nature was not perfect because of His Divine nature. Jesus human nature was entirely perfect in and of its own rite. If you want to assert that Jesus’ human nature was fallible and only made perfect because He was also possessed of a Divine nature, I’m afraid that claim falls to you on the burden of proof scale.

Paul simply doesn’t describe Jesus as an “exception” to the “all have sinned” clause because it had never entered into Paul’s mind that Jesus could sin (cf, 2 Cor. 5:21). Consider this passage:

…

If you wish to argue that Jesus “could have sinned” but simply “did not,” then you would have to posit the following: 1. That God could fall short of his own glory (but just didn’t). 2. That a man capable of sin brought us redemption (though he did not sin). 3. That a man capable of sin was accepted by God the Father as the propitiation (although he could have sinned, had he chosen to.).

None of those seem like defensible propositions to me and nothing in your rebuttal above even remotely suggests that Paul thought of Jesus as “an exception.” We don’t say “everyone sins except God,” because the “except God” part would be superfluous. For that very same reason, Paul never says, “all have sinned except Jesus,” as that too would have been superfluous, since Paul regarded Jesus as fully God, as well as man.

erm… you’re still labouring under the presumption that Paul is talking about individuals. The reason that Paul doesn’t list the exception of Jesus is not because it never crossed his mind. Paul does not list the exception of Jesus because Paul was never talking about individuals at all in Romans 3. There is nothing to point to the mistaken concept that Paul was talking about individual people. Read the rest of my post and you’ll catch on that you’re not addressing what I said at all.

 

[promethius]

Could you explain a little more about what you think the examples of Elijah and Moses prove? Surely you’re not saying that they were conceived without original sin, are you? Or, perhaps, you are saying they lived sinless lives? As for the question of whether grace could prevent the contraction of original sin, this is also not in dispute. I’m not debating hypotheticals nor what may or may not have been “fitting,” for God to do. I’m simply denying that God did prevent Mary from contracting original sin and from living a sinless life, and I’m appealing to Paul’s doctrine of the universality of human sin to make my case for me.

No. They were conceived with original sin. What I’m saying is that obviously they led lives that measured up to the glory of God, since we see that both are in heaven prior to Jesus’ resurrection (unlike the others who were waiting for Christ). Elijah is also not the only person who was risen bodily into heaven.

In other words, not all fell short, as these people prove. This is because Paul was NOT referring to individuals (and neither was Ecclesiastes 7, which is what text he was referencing), but rather to traditions of faith (gentile and jew)

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

1. Looking at this question, we must RE-think what Paul is saying when we read his statement that “ALL” have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. As you properly state, Paul’s discussion in the early part of Romans (remembering that originally the bible did not distinguish chapters and verses) has SOLELY to do with discussing whether judaizing of the gentiles was necessary in order for them to enter into Christianity. In this discussion, Paul feels it is not so.

I wouldn’t define Paul’s agenda so narrowly, i.e., “has SOLELY to do with”. Paul is in fact indicting Gentiles (Romans 1:18-32), which his Jewish audience would have endorsed with a hearty “Amen.” But then Paul does the unexpected: He goes after the Jews as well (2: 1-29), arguing that–while blessed with many advantages (3:1-2)–are nevertheless equally sinful (3:9). At least that’s how I’m reading it. Out of curiosity, where do you see the Judaizing issue in Romans?

All have sinned and fallen short does NOT refer to individuals at all. It refers to ALL traditions, gentile, jew, pagan, etc… NONE of those traditions has met the expectations of God.

So you assert by fiat. But you offer no supporting arguments to back this up. In fact, I agree that Paul is talking about two classes of men–Gentiles and Jews. But that does not mean he is talking about classes and not the individuals within those classes. After all, “Jews and Gentiles” is just a hendiadys for “all humanity.” Thus, together, “Jews and Gentiles” speak exhaustively of all human beings. Paul isn’t speaking in the abstract about “Jews,” since he includes himself among them (“are we Jews any better off” [Romans 3:9). Nor is he speaking in the abstract about “Gentiles” since he addresses his readers as Gentiles who were once enslaved to sin (cf, 6:19-22). So–no, I’m not buying your claim that Paul doesn’t have individuals in mind.

Your error is the same as any protestant makes parsing scripture to regard one verse as a stand-alone item:

Is that a broadside at all Protestants? Or are you simply making the claim that I’m “taking this all out of context?” Be that as it may, let’s just hope you adhere to your own standard.

In context we see that no where does Paul indicate that he has switched from talking about traditions to individuals.

You haven’t established that he talking only about one (“traditions”) and not also the other (individuals). I think you may be positing a false dichotomy.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I just jumped on and did not read any posts beyond this one due to lack of time. I respect your inquisition a great deal, especially when so politely expressed.

Welcome.

I would only suggest at this time that you read many of the beautiful theology behind the dogma of the Immacualte Conception. (perhaps Mark Sheas trilogy (books) on the matter…and much much more…Hahn etc.) You appear to be putting grammer, or the literal meaning behind the words of Paul, before the 2000 year old awesome beauty of the theology behind this dogma. I would say, “so what if he said everybody”, he did not mean each and every single individual, he was directing his words towards mankind, not necassarily the woman who’s whom bore the creator of the universe. Christ said, (paraphrased for time) it is easier to pass a camle thru the head of a needle then to enter the Kingdom of God. He did not mean this in a literal sense.

Guilty as charged. I am minding the grammar and I’m trying to follow the flow of Paul’s argument. Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for poetic license, beauty, and the like, especially when I’m reading in those genres. But Romans isn’t that kind of literature. It’s an argument, from start to finish, and as such, has to be read like one. My understanding is that Paul is pulling out all the stops to tell us that everyone single one of us–apart from faith in Christ–stands condemned. I truly think Paul went to great lengths to tell the Romans that everyone is a sinner and that there are no exceptions. So if that is Paul’s claim, then what room is there for the IC? My sense is that it is ruled out.

Christ, needed to enter into this world in an instained vessel. There is much theology to suppoet this need (requirment if you will) and much theology to suppor that He in fact did.

Not to rain on your parade, but I suspect many of your fellow Catholics would want to politely give you the ixnay on the “need” argument. Even Catholic Answers has gone on record to say it’s a bad argument. Click here.

Read up, I politely suggest. Do not resort to a new theology, put in place only (perhaps…no probably) in another effort to unknowingly seperate from the 2000 year old church.

Oh, I have. And I’m actually going back to an even older theology than yours. The Immaculate Conception went from theological speculation to dogma in 1854. Paul’s letter to the Romans is nearly 1800 years older than that!

 

[promethius]

I wouldn’t define Paul’s agenda so narrowly, i.e., “has SOLELY to do with”. Paul is in fact indicting Gentiles (Romans 1:18-32), which his Jewish audience would have endorsed with a hearty “Amen.” But then Paul does the unexpected: He goes after the Jews as well (2: 1-29), arguing that–while blessed with many advantages (3:1-2)–are nevertheless equally sinful (3:9). At least that’s how I’m reading it. Out of curiosity, where do you see the Judaizing issue in Romans?

I’m not arguing against any of this. Paul was hitting against both the Jewish and the Gentile traditions and positing that the only salvation was through Christ’s works.

To sate your curiousity, you don’t look solely in the epislte to the Romans to understand the context in which it is written. In Rome, as in many areas, there was a large debate as to whether the gentiles needed to be judaized before being considered Christians. Paul was patently against this notion, and MUCH of his writing deals with this subject across his various epistles. His actions in the book of Acts make this position quite clear and a historical understanding of the church in Rome makes clear why Paul would address this point here.

So you assert by fiat. But you offer no supporting arguments to back this up. In fact, I agree that Paul is talking about two classes of men–Gentiles and Jews. But that does not mean he is talking about classes and not the individuals within those classes. After all, “Jews and Gentiles” is just a hendiadys for “all humanity.” Thus, together, “Jews and Gentiles” speak exhaustively of all human beings. Paul isn’t speaking in the abstract about “Jews,” since he includes himself among them (“are we Jews any better off” [Romans 3:9). Nor is he speaking in the abstract about “Gentiles” since he addresses his readers as Gentiles who were once enslaved to sin (cf, 6:19-22). So–no, I’m not buying your claim that Paul doesn’t have individuals in mind.

So we agree that Paul is talking about the traditions of the Jews and the summed up various gentile traditions of the greeks and the romans. What I’m saying is that Paul never makes the switch to discussing individuals in Romans 3. I can’t prove a negative. However, since you are asserting the positive: that Paul DOES switch to speaking about individuals rather than traditions, I request proof for your assertion. Otherwise I dismiss your assertion as false with no factual basis of evidence.

Is that a broadside at all Protestants? Or are you simply making the claim that I’m “taking this all out of context?” Be that as it may, let’s just hope you adhere to your own standard.

That’s taking a broadside at all protestants who parse a single verse or two out of a book of the Bible and then try to base an entire theological construct around said verse regardless of whether or not the context of those verses backs their given interpretation.

By contrast, to a Catholic the only way an interpretation of any given verse can be considered valid is if it agrees contextually with its associated discourse and absolutely does not contradict other scriptures. Hence to a catholic understanding, ALL verses MUST be taken in context to make a valid arguement.

Some protestants agree with the catholic church on this, and they are correct in that regard. Some do not, and DO make the error of parsing verses from context. Take that as a broadside if you will, but parsing verses such that they no longer fit with the context of their writing is an error either way.

You haven’t established that he talking only about one (“traditions”) and not also the other (individuals). I think you may be positing a false dichotomy.

It’s really a trichotomy: he’s talking about traditions OR he’s talking about individuals OR he’s talking about both. We both agree he’s talking about traditions. I do not agree that he ever switches to include discussion on individuals. I cannot logically prove a negative, therefore it falls to you to back your claim that he DOES include discussion on individuals with some sort of evidence.

In other words, the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion.
[/quote]

 

[SPH1]

While agreeing with fellow Catholic explanations, I will take a different tack and tend to agree with the OP that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” refers to everyone, including infants, mentally ill, etc. In fact, I’d concede that everyone pretty much continues to sin and fall short of the glory of God AFTER grace, conversion and baptism.

And I assume that everyone agrees that no one goes to the Father but through Christ, including unbaptised infants, mentally ill, etc. (in which case Christ may still act as their unseen savior.)

My take on the IC is similar to the distinction between Christ “ascending” into Heaven and Mary being “assumed” into Heaven. Christ ascended by his own power and nature. Not Mary, who was taken up not by her own power but by God.

So my view of Paul and “all having sinned” is that everyone acting only via their human natures without grace have and will sin. And if Mary were operating only under her human nature she would have also sinned. But she was not operating merely under her human nature and willpower, nor merely under the grace generally accorded to Christians…who continue to sin. Hers was a special grace beyond that, as the IC teaches.

Which is sufficient for me, based on the authority of the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.

But what irks me regarding the OP is his statement “After all, if such passages do not admit of exceptions, then the IC would contradict scripture.” The OP has no authority whatsoever to define Christian doctrine nor does his denomination. All they can offer are their personal, fallible views.

Virtually every Protestant - of whichever denomination - acts as if their interpretation of Scripture is the very mind of God. It is never presented as CATHOLICISM VS SOME PROTESTANT THEOLOGY. No, it is always Catholicism vs Scripture, no matter who is going up against the Holy Catholic Church: Lutheran, Calvinist, Baptist, Jehova Witness, etc.

Scripture also states that “God is not the author of confusion…” 1 Cor 14:33. Shall we assume that the OP agrees that, with the dozens if not hundreds of conflicting Protestant denominations and interpretations, God is not responsible for founding Protestantism?

It all comes down to authority.

 

[steve_b]

If we grant for the sake of argument that “all” does not have to mean “everyone without exception,” but can also mean “all without distinction,” Catholics would still have to show which meaning is intended. In other words, it isn’t enough to point out that “all” can have a range of meanings; rather Catholics have to show that “all” has, or at least probably has, the “exceptional” meaning in Romans 3:23 and 5:12.

“without exception” vs " without distinction" = a distinction without a difference. They’re the same

The context of Romans 3:23 makes certain things clear.

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of.asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. (Rom. 3:10-14, 22, 23) + For there is no distinction; 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.*

1. 
   *]if Paul has Mary in mind with that passage, why would the angel Gabriel address Mary the way he did, not to mention even bring Mary the proposition he is going to give her? Paul would be saying of Mary, she is Not righteous, ignorant, doesn’t seek God, she has turned her back on God, she doesn’t do good, her throat is an open grave, she has a deceptive tongue, venom comes from her lips, curses and bitterness comes from her mouth. She has fallen short of the glory of God. Really? Paul is saying this about Mary?
   *]Look at the greeting of Gabriel. “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.” (Luke 1:28-30). Sound like Paul has Mary in mind above? Nope!!!
   *]Gabriel doesn’t use Mary’s name in the greeting until he sees that she is startled by his greeting. He 1st addresses her as “full of grace”. Since an angel is a messenger from God, and delivers words exactly as they are to be spoken, this phrase of Gabriel, is telling Mary and all generations who read this greeting, how GOD sees Mary. FULL OF GRACE. Note, Mary hasn’t said Fiat/yes yet to Gabriel. She is NOT carrying Jesus yet, Therefore Mary, before God, at this moment, is full of grace… Sound like Paul has Mary in mind above? Nope!!!
   *]In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or "Hail, full of grace, the tense for that word =perfect, and is a passive participle. Meaning, She is perfectly graced ALWAYS, past present future, AND because it’s passive, it shows she didn’t do anything to warrant this condition and status before God on her own doing, it was done completely to her by God.
   MS:
   

   Further, Catholics have to show more than that there can be exceptions; they also have to show why Mary in particular was such an exception.

   The fact you can even question Mary’s special and exceptional place before God is stunning to me.
   MS:
   

   If they cannot do this, then even if the “all have sinned” passages are merely general, rather than absolute, this still would not allow us to conclude that Mary could have been an exception. In other words, in this scenario, Catholics have the burden of proof to show not only that Mary could have been an exception in Paul’s thinking, but also that she probably was one.

   What,… God can’t create Mary without sin and preserve her from sin? Like this somehow is a rock He can’t lift? Look at my points 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. He already did it.
   
   Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. (Jude 24-25)
   MS:
   

   I am also going to make the following (bold) claims.
   

   1. I think I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul intended to teach the universality of sin for all human beings, including infants, including Mary.
   2. I also think I can show why Jesus is not, properly speaking, an “exception,” to this rule simply because Paul puts Jesus in an entirely different category.
   3. I also think I can make the case that Mary in particular could not have been an exception in Paul’s thinking and that he almost certainly considered her to be a sinner from conception.

   Here is my opening argument.
   

   1. Romans indicts both Jews and Gentiles as sinners (Romans 1-3).
   2. Jews and Gentiles, together, mean “all humanity.” (Paul divides the human race into these two categories.)
   3. All of humanity is sinful by nature. We are born this way. (Romans 5:12; Eph. 2:3)
   4. Even if Paul is thinking primarily of adults, there is no evidence to suppose that he is thinking only of adults in the “all have sinned” passages. (Supposition plausible pending proof to the contrary.)
   5. Mary was an adult Jew, with sufficient rationality, not to be considered someone incapable of sin, like an infant or someone of diminished capacity. (Mary does not meet the criteria for a plausible “exception,” assuming there are any.)
   6. Therefore, probably, Paul would have considered Mary to be a sinner.

   Cheers.

   Your argument doesn’t fly .

 

[kepha1]

Welcome.

Guilty as charged. I am minding the grammar and I’m trying to follow the flow of Paul’s argument. Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for poetic license, beauty, and the like, especially when I’m reading in those genres. But Romans isn’t that kind of literature. It’s an argument, from start to finish, and as such, has to be read like one. My understanding is that Paul is pulling out all the stops to tell us that everyone single one of us–apart from faith in Christ–stands condemned.

That’s not Paul, it’s Luther and Calvin. They (and I suppose you) take depravity to extremes. Falling short does not mean condemned. I “fall short” of coming to a full stop at a stop sign sometimes but I do it carefully. (at the risk of getting a purgatorial ticket)

I truly think Paul went to great lengths to tell the Romans that everyone is a sinner and that there are no exceptions. So if that is Paul’s claim, then what room is there for the IC? My sense is that it is ruled out.

Then rule out the sinlessness of Adam and Eve when they were created.

Not to rain on your parade, but I suspect many of your fellow Catholics would want to politely give you the ixnay on the “need” argument. Even Catholic Answers has gone on record to say it’s a bad argument. Click here.

It’s still a good read. God saw the IC was fitting. The Ark of the Covenant was fittingly holy too. The Protestant vision of reality doesn’t allow for anything of this world to be holy.

Oh, I have. And I’m actually going back to an even older theology than yours. The Immaculate Conception went from theological speculation to dogma in 1854. Paul’s letter to the Romans is nearly 1800 years older than that!

Theological speculation is another Protestant myth. The dogma pronounced in 1854 does not mean no one believed it before that time. It was pronounced because some people were questioning it (yes, Catholics are allowed to think) and the Pope was heavily petitioned by the faithful to clear things up. Your poverty is having a New Adam without a New Eve.

 

[tester]

…That’s taking a broadside at all protestants who parse a single verse or two out of a book of the Bible and then try to base an entire theological construct around said verse regardless of whether or not the context of those verses backs their given interpretation.

By contrast, to a Catholic the only way an interpretation of any given verse can be considered valid is if it agrees contextually with its associated discourse and absolutely does not contradict other scriptures. Hence to a catholic understanding, ALL verses MUST be taken in context to make a valid arguement.

Some protestants agree with the catholic church on this, and they are correct in that regard. Some do not, and DO make the error of parsing verses from context. Take that as a broadside if you will, but parsing verses such that they no longer fit with the context of their writing is an error either way…

but it is not just one verse: it is not just one use of the word “all”.
here are 4 more verses with 7 references, in context, to a complete, full amount (2 "all"s and 3 "no one"s and 2 " not even one"s)

*Romans 3

9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin*.
10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; **
11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God**.
12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is** no one who does good, ** not even one.”

Paul’s **divinely inspired writing **is driving the point home that “all” means “all” and “no one” means “no one” and “not even one” means “not even one”.

The most important question is, **If Paul actually wanted to mean “all” what else would you want him to say ? **

If the Holy Spirit writing through Paul doubled the number of "all"s, the "no one"s and the "not even one"s would that make difference?