All have sinned cannot be taken too literally

[Tim_Kirchoff]

The word, “ALL” doesn’t mean “some.” So when it says, “all sinned” it means “everyone” of some group. We can be certain that this group doesn’t include animals because it is impossible for animals to sin. By the same logic, “all sinned” can’t include Jesus, because it is impossible for Jesus to sin.

Say what? Err… have you read the entire thread?

 

[teachccd]

The word, “ALL” doesn’t mean “some.” So when it says, “all sinned” it means “everyone” of some group. We can be certain that this group doesn’t include animals because it is impossible for animals to sin. By the same logic, “all sinned” can’t include Jesus, because it is impossible for Jesus to sin.

Genesis 3:20

20 Adam c] named his wife Eve, d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

Last I checked, Adam and Eve were a part of the living.

By your logic, she would have to be the mother of Adam and herself. Remember, you said all means all…teachccd

 

[sandusky]

Genesis 3:20

20 Adam c] named his wife Eve, d] because she would become the mother of all the living.

Last I checked, Adam and Eve were a part of the living.

By your logic, she would have to be the mother of Adam and herself. Remember, you said all means all…teachccd

That’s your logic.

The statement is in the ***future tense; ***it states that she would become the mother of all the [future to herself] living; furthermore, we know from the preceding testimony that God made Adam and Eve.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So, in your profile, you identify yourself as Catholic but do not hold to the Immaculate Conception or that Mary remained sinless as the Church officially teaches. Better rethink your profile…Just an observation, please correct me if I’m wrong…God Bless…teachccd

Where did I say what I believe on either of those ? I don’t recall mentioning either ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So then, with you identifying as a Catholic, how do you uphold the sinlessness of Mary as held by official Church teachings??

P.S. This is not going off of the topic of this thread since one would only question this verse for this purpose.

I’m working on that one FWIW, ISTM that the universality of the Fall is a more important dogma than the other; so the IC must be interpreted in a way which does not dilute the words of St.Paul: for the reasons given in the first of my posts that you replied to.​

So I don’t have an answer all nicely worked out. I don’t think it’s necessary for me to have one worked one out.

I hope that answers your question

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

[my emphasis]

Context & remainder of section here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#402

The IC can be found here: scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm#490

That “a]ll men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms” is a dogma of major importance - the IC has to be integrated into that, & into the Biblical witness to several others (such as the primacy of Christ, & His Uniqueness), if it is not to float lose of them - & of Him.

In no way can the more important dogmas - of the universality of sin, & those regarding Jesus Christ - be subordinated to the teaching of the Church regarding the BVM. That would be putting the Marian cart before the Christological horse. Otherwise, one ends up distorting the message of the NT, which is Christ-centred from start to finish - as is all creation.

 

[Lev23]

The following verse cannot be taken too literally:

Romans 5:12

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

Let me explain, if we are to take this verse literally true, then we can therefore conclude that Jesus, who is both God and Man also sin.

The word all doesn’t necessary mean all in Scriptural context. If you do, you can just say that Jesus sinned also which is untrue. Scripture does say that Jesus was like us except sin also.

We all know Jesus is sinless, but for the rest of mankind, St.Paul writes-
Galatians 3:22
But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

So does the “whole world” mean the whole world?

 

[Bishopite]

That’s your logic.

The statement is in the ***future tense; ***it states that she would become the mother of all the [future to herself] living; furthermore, we know from the preceding testimony that God made Adam and Eve.

I think the point of what they were saying was that “all” does NOT always mean every single person as I pointed out in Mt 3:4-6. All of Judea was not baptized going to be baptized as they repented from their sins.
If you insist that all of Judea means every single person, then all would include then include babies, who can’t repent from sin they haven’t committed.

 

[natsclem]

In principle, the OP is perfectly correct; but in the context, not.​

If all have not sinned, & all are not under judgement for sin in consequence, not only is the argument of St.Paul made ridiculous & incoherent (in view of what he has already about the shared sinfulness of Jew & Gentile); but, in addition, all cannot receive grace.

Only sinners need grace - the righteous don’t; & this is one of the great paradoxes of the Gospel, that God justifies the ungodly, the guilty, those who deserve death. The righteous need no expiation for their sins; the Father “put forward” His Son as the propitiation for our sins (see 3.25). All that becomes meaningless, if all do not stand under the righteous judgement of God for their sins.

The doctrine of the CC cannot be built upon a basis which nullifies the teaching of the Apostles - it must find another basis instead, one that leaves St. Paul’s words & argument intact.

We are complicating things…

I think it is necessary to differentiate between original sin and acts of sin (commission/omission) in understanding the text Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”. Paul is speaking of humankind being tainted by original sin (the sin that entered into the world because of Adam’s disobedience).

The humanity of Christ is exempted from being tainted because He was born not of a man’s seed but of the Holy Spirit thru the Virgin who thru the foreseen merits of Christ’s victorious redemption was prevented (or made immune) from contracting original sin that her parents are tainted with).

There is no conflict between IC doctrine & Pauline text if we will understand his text as that “all of mankind need to be redeemed by Christ (and that includes the Virgin).”