All have sinned.. including Mary.

[justasking4]

Good Fella;3565846]That’s just it. You have been refuted. And after you are, you start again from the beginning. :juggle:

Not so. Look at this discussion on the sinlessness of Mary. I would think you know that none of the writers of scripture ever refer to her as being sinless and this is by those who knew her best. Not one ever hints she was ever without sin.
So to claim that she was would at least require you to speculate.

Is that why you Protestants can’t even agree with each other? :shrug

:
There is much protestants agree on.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

Not so. Look at this discussion on the sinlessness of Mary. I would think you know that none of the writers of scripture ever refer to her as being sinless and this is by those who knew her best. Not one ever hints she was ever without sin. So to claim that she was would at least require you to speculate.

We read it differently, ja4! Those who have embraced the Apostolic Teachings understand the writer of the Gospel to mean that being “full of grace” procludes sin.

But, let’s just say for the sake of discussion that all the Marian doctrines were, as you say, “speculation”. Why would this bother you so much? It has been made clear to you that Catholics don’t base their faith on the NT, because it is the reflection, and not the origin of the Teachings (which come from Jesus Himself). So, if Catholics beleive things that you can’t find in your Bible, do you really need to be so upset and provoked by that? Do you visit Mormon threads and berate them with all your hostile rhetoric? Have you considered starting your own forum, so that you can post your anti-Catholic perspective without breaking the forum rules?

If Catholics and other Apostolic Christians wish to believe that Mary is without sin, can you not accept that we see things differently, shake off the dust of your feet, and move on? Have you been able to change anyone’s mind in the two years you have been posting these things?

 

[NeedImprovement]

… Beside which there’s no sense in which it is more logical to say that it’s Mary rather than Christ who will crush Satan’s head. Christ could easily be the one who aroused Satan to arrogance and revolt against the idea of serving one (Christ) who was True Man as well as True God. It need not be Mary who did so.

It is a bit of a leap thoughtwise to be sure. Trying to assert anything here would imply one has an idea of what God was thinking.

Rev Albert Joseph Mary Shamon, in one of his books, “Our Lady Teaches About Sacramentals and Blessed Objects” (pgs 8, 9 & frequently interspersed elsewhere) believes he’s on to one of the tangents of our Lord’s thought. He writes:

"It is beneath the dignity of God to take on Satan directly. God would not give him that satisfaction. So He used St. Michael the Archangel to kick him out of the created Heavens (Rev. 12:7-9), and a frail woman’s seed to crush his infernal head (Gen. 3:15).

“For God the Creator to take Satan on directly would dignify the fiend. Instead, God uses creatures, the weak things of the world, to confound the proud.”

One possible explanation might be (not trying to offend non- Catholics here) as Eve is the mother of all in the human order and the man’s/ Adam’s fall came about with her co-operaton, God might will that it also be through Mary - our mother in the spiritual order (John 19:26,27), that is through her co-operation Christ - the new Adam raised mankind’s dignity far higher than it was before the fall.

If the last 3 paragraphs are accurate, it would mean that nobody is actually wrong or right when it comes to specifying seed gender. The work of the redemption is Christ’s, yet He saw fit to intimately interweave his Mother - the Creator’s Masterpiece, into his work.

Please note dear fellow members: Mine is not a circular argument…it’s a square argument with round corners.

 

[Lampo]

Anything outside the scriptures and not grounded in the scriptures would be the speculations of men.

Where does it state in Scripture which books should be included in Scripture?

 

[Good_Fella]

Not so. Look at this discussion on the sinlessness of Mary. I would think you know that none of the writers of scripture ever refer to her as being sinless and this is by those who knew her best. Not one ever hints she was ever without sin.
So to claim that she was would at least require you to speculate.

:
There is much protestants agree on.

The evangelists knew Mary, but they could not know whether she was sinless. Only God knows who is sinless or not. It is not our business to begin with; and if God wants us to know, he’ll tell us when he pleases. They could only perceive that Jesus was sinless, because they believed he was one with God. Thus, they couldn’t explicitly write that Mary was “sinless”. By the pen of the Divine Co-author they should simply write enough to indicate Mary’s sinlessness. But Christ would reveal to his Church in due time through the Paraclete that Mary was sinless. Her sinlessness is alluded to in the scriptures which has been explicitly revealed to us in the teaching of the Church at a time this revelation could be borne - and should be in God’s time.

“I have much more to tell you, but you cannnot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of Truth, he will guide you to all truth,”
{John 16, 12-13}

And so the evangelists have provided some “hints”:

“Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you.” {Luke 1, 28}

“My ‘soul’ proclaims the greatness of the Lord.” {Luke 1, 46}

“Most blessed are you among women, ‘and’ blessed is the fruit of your womb.” {Luke 1, 42}

“Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” {Luke 11, 28}

“Do whatever he tells you.” {John 2, 5}

But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one to come. {Romans 5, 14}

You begged for a hint or two. So perhaps Scripture mustn’t be as explicit as you would like it to be after all. Now it’s your turn. Please provide some verses that you think clearly reveal there are three Persons in one God. But keep in mind that it was the Church, not Scripture, that served to explicitly reveal the Trinity to us. The Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (Timothy 3, 15). Protestants can only contend from hindsight bias when appealing to Scripture to support doctrines they hold in conformity with the Catholic Church. :yup:

True, there is much Protestants do agree on, most of which are fundamental Catholic doctrines. But there are many essential doctrines that the Protestant churches differ on. Your tradition is a divided house, because it originated with and rests on the fallible private judgments and speculations of individual religious thinkers and leaders. The Paraclete is not present where there is a disunity of faith. And he is not active in the ecclesiastical sphere outside the One Apostolic Catholic Church founded by our Lord.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;3566405]The evangelists knew Mary, but they could not know whether she was sinless. Only God knows who is sinless or not. It is not our business to begin with; and if God wants us to know, he’ll tell us when he pleases.

Then we agree on this it seems. If Mary were sinless then He would reveal it. Now the only revelation we have are the inspired-inerrant Scriptures and it never says any such thing.

They could only perceive that Jesus was sinless, because they believed he was one with God.

Jesus Himself said He was without sin. Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:21 says essentially the same thing.

Thus, they couldn’t explicitly write that Mary was “sinless”.

Why not?

By the pen of the Divine Co-author they should simply write enough to indicate Mary’s sinlessness.

Thats the problem. The authors of scripture give no such indication in the least.

But Christ would reveal to his Church in due time through the Paraclete that Mary was sinless. Her sinlessness is alluded to in the scriptures which has been explicitly revealed to us in the teaching of the Church at a time this revelation could be borne - and should be in God’s time

.
You can say this but you won’t find such teachings in the scriptures though. Do the scriptures describe her birth in any supernatural way?

“I have much more to tell you, but you cannnot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of Truth, he will guide you to all truth,”
{John 16, 12-13}

Look at whom Jesus is speaking to. Its His own disciples and He is not referring to the church in the later centuries.

And so the evangelists have provided some “hints”:

“Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you.” {Luke 1, 28}

“My ‘soul’ proclaims the greatness of the Lord.” {Luke 1, 46}

“Most blessed are you among women, ‘and’ blessed is the fruit of your womb.” {Luke 1, 42}

“Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.” {Luke 11, 28}

“Do whatever he tells you.” {John 2, 5}

If you read these texts in context you will find they have nothing to do her being sinless. Truly she was blessed but it does not follow that she was without sin. Christians also are blessed but they are not without sin.

But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one to come. {Romans 5, 14}

This is one of the strongest verses that demonstrates why all born of human parents are sinners and why.

You begged for a hint or two. So perhaps Scripture mustn’t be as explicit as you would like it to be after all. Now it’s your turn. Please provide some verses that you think clearly reveal there are three Persons in one God. But keep in mind that it was the Church, not Scripture, that served to explicitly reveal the Trinity to us. The Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (Timothy 3, 15). Protestants can only contend from hindsight bias when appealing to Scripture to support doctrines they hold in conformity with the Catholic Church. :yup:

These are excellent questions but i don’t want to derail this thread. I have been repeatedly accused of doing so and i don’t want to give those against me more ammo…

True, there is much Protestants do agree on, most of which are fundamental Catholic doctrines. But there are many essential doctrines that the Protestant churches differ on. Your tradition is a divided house, because it originated with and rests on the fallible private judgments and speculations of individual religious thinkers and leaders. The Paraclete is not present where there is a disunity of faith. And he is not active in the ecclesiastical sphere outside the One Apostolic Catholic Church founded by our Lord.

Another good topic to get into but not here.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

Where does it state in Scripture which books should be included in Scripture?

It doesn’t.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lampo
Where does it state in Scripture which books should be included in Scripture?

Originally quoted by justasking
Quote:
It doesn’t.

I don’t get it. You argue throughout your posts that the Virgin’s sinlessness ‘is not being explicit in Scripture’ or about there being no ‘primary source’ or about there being ‘confusion among the Church Fathers on the teaching’. . .

Yet you accept the canon of Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity. . .despite the fact that neither is ‘explicit in Scripture’, that neither has a ‘primary source’ (no original texts), and that there is ‘confusion among the Church Fathers’ on both.

So pray tell, why do you accept the canon of Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity, but fail to accept the Immaculate Conception?

It is not. . .logical.

 

[NeedImprovement]

…
Jesus Himself said He was without sin. Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:21 says essentially the same thing.

…These are excellent questions but i don’t want to derail this thread. I have been repeatedly accused of doing so and i don’t want to give those against me more ammo…

I’m with you on this one for sure justasking4. You could bolster your point a little more with John 8:46 : “**Can any one of you convict me of sin **? If I am telling the truth, why do you not believe me ?”

Rather than derail the thread or give others more ammo, you may have just provided the first solid building block - something most of us agree on.

 

[justasking4]

I don’t get it. You argue throughout your posts that the Virgin’s sinlessness ‘is not being explicit in Scripture’ or about there being no ‘primary source’ or about there being ‘confusion among the Church Fathers on the teaching’. . .

Yet you accept the canon of Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity. . .despite the fact that neither is ‘explicit in Scripture’, that neither has a ‘primary source’ (no original texts), and that there is ‘confusion among the Church Fathers’ on both.

So pray tell, why do you accept the canon of Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity, but fail to accept the Immaculate Conception?

It is not. . .logical.

Logic can only tell us what “right thinking” looks like. In the 2 cases you bring up i believe the church got the canon of scripture and the Trinity right based on the facts and sound reaoning. When it comes to Mary’s immaculate conception it may be reasonable to believe in it but it has no facts to support it. As you know there is no evidence or historical accounts that are reliable for it (facts).
The other issue you bring i think you are implying is the one of authority. Just because an authority may have been right on one issue or 2 doesn’t not mean they will be right on all issues. We know this is true in all areas of life. We know this is true because men are fallen or they may not have enough data to make the right judgement.

 

[Gara3987]

Unless it’s dogma, doctrine or discipline it’s not ‘information’ at all, rather ‘opinion’, or ‘private’ (non-binding) revelation, regardless of the sanctity of Ven. Mary of Agreda.

Beside which there’s no sense in which it is more logical to say that it’s Mary rather than Christ who will crush Satan’s head. Christ could easily be the one who aroused Satan to arrogance and revolt against the idea of serving one (Christ) who was True Man as well as True God. It need not be Mary who did so.

I understand what you are saying.

The only one who is higher than the Blessed Mother is God Himself and no one else. This is the way God intended it to be. I think that Lucifer would be even more enraged if it were the Blessed Mother who is to fulfill this, reason being, The Blessed Mother was a creature just as we are (she was given graces from God beyond human comprehension though). Christ is the second person of the Trinity, the Son of God, He was Man and God at the same time, therefore he is above everyone, no one surpasses Him. Here is a little history on Approbations of Cuidad de Dios.

The first Pope officially to take notice of "Ciudad de Dios was Pope Innocent XI, who, on July 3, 1686, in response to a series of virulent attacks and machinations of some members of the Sorbonne, known to be Jansenists, issued a breve permitting the publication and reading of the “Ciudad de Dios.” Similar decrees were afterward issued by Popes Alexander VIII, Clement IX and Benedict XIII. These decrees were followed by two decrees of the Congregation of Rites, approved by Benedict XIV and Clement XIV, in which the authenticity of “Ciudad de Dios” as extant and written by the Venerable Servant of God, Mary of Jesus, is officially established. The great pope Benedict XIII, when he was archbishop of Benevent, used these revelations as material for a series of sermons on the Blessed Virgin. On Sept. 26, 1713, the bishop of Ceneda, Italy, objecting to the publication of the “City of God,” was peremptorily ordered by the Holy Office to withdraw his objections as interfering with the decree of pope Innocent XI for the universal Church.

The process of canonization of Mary of Agreda was promoted by the Spanish bishops and other eminent men of the Church soon after her death in 1666. It has resulted so far in securing her the title of Venerabilis, thus clearing the way to her beatification, for which, let us hope, God will soon raise a promoter among the many pious and eminent men who hold in esteem her writings and have learned of her holy life and of the miracles wrought at her tomb.

The Redemptorist Fathers published a new German translation in 1885, which was approved and highly recommended by the Bishop of Ratisbon in the following terms:

“We take pleasure in giving our episcopal approbation to the annotated translation of the Spanish original “Ciudad de Dios” of Mary of Jesus and recommend this book, which will surely edify all readers and be the occasion of great spiritual blessings.”

Ratisbon, September 29, 1885.

IGNATIUS, Bishop of Ratisbon.
​

Notable is the high recommendation of the Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg, Apost. Legate, Primate of Germany, etc.

“According to the decrees of Pope Innocent XI and Clement XI the book known as Ciudad de Dios written by the Venerable Servant of God, Maria de Jesus, may be read by all the faithful.”

"A number of episcopal approbations, the recommendations of four renowned universities, namely, of Toulouse, Salamanca, Alcala and Louvain, and of prominent members of different orders, coincide in extolling the above-named work. The learned and pious Cardinal D’ Aguirre says that he considers all the studies of fifty years of his previous life as of small consequence in comparison with the doctrines he found in this book, which in all things are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Fathers and Councils of the Church. The Venerable Superior-General of St. Sulpice, Abbe Emery, adds: “Only since I read the revelations of Mary of Agreda do I properly know Jesus and his Holy Mother.”

“We therefore do not hesitate in granting our episcopal approbation to “Ciudad de Dios”; and wish to recommend it to the faithful and especially to our clergy.”

FRANZ ALBERT,
​

Archbishop.

Now Back to the Passage Gen. 3, 15. If “he” was to be used I think that it should have been broken into two verses rather than one, It’s like me saying “I am going to have you fight a Woman, and I bet ‘he’ will win against you.” That would make the woman who is female, male. If the Douay Rheims is incorrect then I guess Saint Jerome made a mistake because the Douay Rheims is a Direct translation from the Latin Vulgate. The modern Bibles have many misinterpretations and mistranslations. One of which is [Luke 1, 28] it should be “grace” not “favored”;
“A person may be highly favored with any number of talents and abilities, or with good looks or plenty of money, and so forth. But does that mean he or she is therefore “full of grace”? We understand Our Lady to be “full of grace” in the sense of being absolutely full of God’s divine life (Sanctifying Grace), so that there is no sin in her soul whatsoever. What a difference in meanings!” -Tan Books-

 

[guanophore]

Logic can only tell us what “right thinking” looks like. In the 2 cases you bring up i believe the church got the canon of scripture and the Trinity right based on the facts and sound reaoning.

If this is your basis for discerning the Truth, then no wonder you are having so much trouble with the Apostolic Teachings!

God’s ways are as far above our ways as the heavens are above the earth. The flesh (human reason) falls completely short when it comes to grasping divine Truth. Only through grace, and the Revelation of God can we “get it right”. I agree that Divine Revelation builds upon nature, but there are some things, like the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Immaculate Conception, that defy reason. The thinking that we can rely on what we understand to be “facts and sound reasoning” will leave us far short of what God has in store for us.

When it comes to Mary’s immaculate conception it may be reasonable to believe in it but it has no facts to support it. As you know there is no evidence or historical accounts that are reliable for it (facts).

If you really believe that “historical accounts” should be considered “facts” then this also is a major factor in being unable to discern spiritual truths. Most historical accounts are nothing more than people’s opinions, or as you are fond of saying “speculations” and should not be considered “facts”.

The other issue you bring i think you are implying is the one of authority. Just because an authority may have been right on one issue or 2 doesn’t not mean they will be right on all issues. We know this is true in all areas of life. We know this is true because men are fallen or they may not have enough data to make the right judgement.

You are right that it is a matter of authority. Jesus never revoked His promise to guide the Apostles into al truth, and He never revoked His promise that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail. To say that this somehow died with the Apostles is contrary to what even they themselves taught.

 

[LilyM]

Now Back to the Passage Gen. 3, 15. If “he” was to be used I think that it should have been broken into two verses rather than one, It’s like me saying “I am going to have you fight a Woman, and I bet ‘he’ will win against you.” That would make the woman who is female, male. If the Douay Rheims is incorrect then I guess Saint Jerome made a mistake because the Douay Rheims is a Direct translation from the Latin Vulgate. The modern Bibles have many misinterpretations and mistranslations. One of which is [Luke 1, 28] it should be “grace” not “favored”;

He didn’t say ‘you have to fight a woman’ - he said ‘you have to fight a woman AND her child’, in which case it’s perfectly OK to say ‘I bet HE (the child) will win’.

The Latin Vulgate, as great a translation as it is, isn’t perfect - no translation is. There’s no reason to automatically believe, simply because it’s older or was done by St Jerome, that it’s necessarily correct on this matter.

St Jerome could and did make mistakes y’know - he didn’t believe the books of the Septuagint (the Deuterocanonicals) were inspired scripture, for example, even after they were formally placed in the canon, though he translated them anyways.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3567194]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Logic can only tell us what “right thinking” looks like. In the 2 cases you bring up i believe the church got the canon of scripture and the Trinity right based on the facts and sound reaoning.

guanophore;
If this is your basis for discerning the Truth, then no wonder you are having so much trouble with the Apostolic Teachings!

Without logic you would be unable to discern the difference between Apostolic Teachings and how to bake a cake. Logic is foundational to all right thinking.

guanophore;
God’s ways are as far above our ways as the heavens are above the earth. The flesh (human reason) falls completely short when it comes to grasping divine Truth. Only through grace, and the Revelation of God can we “get it right”. I agree that Divine Revelation builds upon nature, but there are some things, like the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Immaculate Conception, that defy reason. The thinking that we can rely on what we understand to be “facts and sound reasoning” will leave us far short of what God has in store for us.

Without sound reasoning i.e. logic you would not be able to begin to grasp the revelation that God has given us in the Scriptures. I would agree that reason can only take us so far in our understanding of God but nonetheless it is essential for our understanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie B
When it comes to Mary’s immaculate conception it may be reasonable to believe in it but it has no facts to support it. As you know there is no evidence or historical accounts that are reliable for it (facts).

guanophore;
If you really believe that “historical accounts” should be considered “facts” then this also is a major factor in being unable to discern spiritual truths. Most historical accounts are nothing more than people’s opinions, or as you are fond of saying “speculations” and should not be considered “facts”.

Not necessarily so. I am able to discern spiritual truths. However, some spiritual truths require historical facts to support them. For example we know that Christ died on the cross for our sins. For this to be true, it would have to be historically true that Christ died on the cross. Historical accounts are not just opinions if their accounts match up describing the core events in the same way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie B
The other issue you bring i think you are implying is the one of authority. Just because an authority may have been right on one issue or 2 doesn’t not mean they will be right on all issues. We know this is true in all areas of life. We know this is true because men are fallen or they may not have enough data to make the right judgement.

guanophore;
You are right that it is a matter of authority. Jesus never revoked His promise to guide the Apostles into al truth, and He never revoked His promise that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail. To say that this somehow died with the Apostles is contrary to what even they themselves taught.

No doubt Christ intended for their to be some authority in His church. The issue between us is the nature of this authority. Is this authority to be infallible and incapable of error or is it capable of error with some self correcting mechanism?

 

[guanophore]

Without logic you would be unable to discern the difference between Apostolic Teachings and how to bake a cake. Logic is foundational to all right thinking.

I am not discounting logic at all, and I am not saying it isn’t foundational to right thinking. But I am saying that what is right and wrong is not necesarily based on your fallible logic. Truth is based on Revelation,and while God allows us to understand revelation through logic, it is through the Spirit that Spiritual things are discerned, and not so much the “thinking”. The human mind is too limited to grasp the fullness of God and His revelation. That is why our faith is called a mystery. At some point, one must take a leap of faith. Children are pre-logic, and that is one reason that Jesus instructs us to come to Him “as little children”. Children do not try to wash all of reality through logic, but can apprehend and appreciate Truth that comes by other means.

Without sound reasoning i.e. logic you would not be able to begin to grasp the revelation that God has given us in the Scriptures. I would agree that reason can only take us so far in our understanding of God but nonetheless it is essential for our understanding.

I can agree with you for the most part, but that is one reason that our faith is not based on the Scriptures, but the Teaching of Jesus. It can be grasped by children, the illiterate, and the simple minded who are not able to apply logic.

Not necessarily so. I am able to discern spiritual truths. However, some spiritual truths require historical facts to support them. For example we know that Christ died on the cross for our sins. For this to be true, it would have to be historically true that Christ died on the cross. Historical accounts are not just opinions if their accounts match up describing the core events in the same way.

You are free to limit your understanding and acceptance of the Divine Revelation all you desire. What is confusing is your fervent and persistent desire to limit the rest of us.

No doubt Christ intended for their to be some authority in His church. The issue between us is the nature of this authority. Is this authority to be infallible and incapable of error or is it capable of error with some self correcting mechanism?

This is a question that you have already answered for yourself, so I will not even open another thread, since it does not belong on this one. You have rejected the Apostolic Authority appointed by Christ, so you cannot accept the infallible teaching about Mary, or anything else that you cannot see in your bible.

 

[Lampo]

Without logic you would be unable to discern the difference between Apostolic Teachings and how to bake a cake. Logic is foundational to all right thinking.

Is it logical thinking that there are three persons in one divine nature? Please logically explain the Trinity to me so that I can understand it completely.

 

[Lampo]

It doesn’t.

So you believe something outside Scripture. How is this not, according to you, a “speculation of men?” You said anything outside Scripture is a “speculation of men” didn’t you?

 

[brkn1]

I don’t get it. You argue throughout your posts that the Virgin’s sinlessness ‘is not being explicit in Scripture’ or about there being no ‘primary source’ or about there being ‘confusion among the Church Fathers on the teaching’. . .

Yet you accept the canon of Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity. . .despite the fact that neither is ‘explicit in Scripture’, that neither has a ‘primary source’ (no original texts), and that there is ‘confusion among the Church Fathers’ on both.

So pray tell, why do you accept the canon of Scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity, but fail to accept the Immaculate Conception?

It is not. . .logical.

The Trinity is very “explicit in Scripture”:

(1 John 5:7) “For there are Three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are One.”

The word Trinity is just shorthand for that verse. There are plenty of other verses to confirm the Trinity also, but that should be explicit enough for now.

 

[bpbasilphx]

How has Mary sinned? Be specific; give book, chapter, and verse.

And if Romans 3:23 is to be understood absolutely, it means that Jesus sinned. How did Jesus sin?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The topic is “All have sinned… including Mary”, Does that include Jesus too?? When it is said that All have sinned. That means All. So may I conclude that Jesus is a sinner too.
The christians have a funny way of doing things. They are adamant to call every one a sinner. But they do not like Athat Jesus should be a sinner. Why is that?? Are we to decide this matter as to who is a sinner and who is not. Why not we leave that to God Almighty??

The context of St.Paul’s quotation of those words “all have sinned…”, is part of an argument which makes perfectly obvious that Jesus is not included.​

**And since God has “put forward [Jesus] as the propitiation for our sins” (see Romans 3 again), the issue has been decided. And Hebrews 4, which says explicitly that Jesus is without sin. And he says this too, in 2 Corinthians: **

• 2Cr 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
  **If Jesus were like us alienated from God by sin, & under the Righteous Wrath of God which is due to sin, & an enemy to God (as all men are by nature) because of sin, how could He be our Saviour from sin ? He is Our Saviour, therefore, He could not be under the penalty & curse & wrath & alienation & defilement which are the result of sin,but is the God-appointed & God-given Sacrifice for, Redeemer from, & Victor over, all sin & all sinfulness. **