How can anybody possibly believe that "all have sinned"?

[sandusky]

Ah, so now we are invoking actual guilt for Adam’s sin? Not just a “sin nature” but actual accountability for Adam’s sin? In that case, you must believe that stillborn babies go to hell. How could you not, for they are guilty of Adam’s sin, and they have not repented.

So, Protestants, does this passage actually mean that all are guilty of Adam’s sin? Not just affected by Adam’s sin, but guilty of Adam’s sin?

All, including infants, the mentally infirm, Mary, John the Baptist, Elijah, and anyone and everyone else, sans the stated scriptural exception—Jesus—inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin; each (with the exception of Jesus) also inherit the corruption of Adam’s nature.

That is what Rom 5:12-21 is saying.

VociMike:

But my question is, what acts of sin did the baby commit before it died?

They ate of the forbidden tree in Adam.

You are wrestling with the question concerning the chicken and the egg, and which came first.

IOW, does a child become a sinner when he sins? Or, does a child sin because he is by nature a sinner?

Scripture states the latter; the former is basically Pelagian.

(BTW, I don’t accept for a minute that your interpretation is correct, either of 3:23 or 5:12, but it certainly does raise some interesting points for your theology!)

Of course you don’t!

 

[JoeyWarren]

He says that the translation means “are graced” and he claims it means past tense.
But, it can also mean present tense, as just “in this moment”.
It’s not a very good argument to prove that Mary was sinless her ENTIRE life.

It’s not?

It shows that she sinless at least up unto the time that Gabriel visited.

We could assume Mary was visited by the Holy Spirit shortly there after?

We could assume Mary never sinned while carrying Jesus in her womb?

Are these bad Assumptions?

God gave her HIS full measure of Grace. Did God retract it after Jesus was born?

How about just going on faith that God did not retract it?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Actually it’s a she. MY BAD!

ke

The prefix on charitoo is ke, signifying that the word is in the perfect tense. This indicates a present state which is the result of a completed past action. The action which brought about the state in which Mary is, in other words, was completed before Gabriel’s greeting. Gabriel is viewing the finished results.

This tense seems difficult to render in English, especially with one word, as Gabriel uses. The translator does not only want to indicate that the past action is complete, but also that there is a continuing state as a result. Allowing for more than one word, an example of the tense in English might be “you are certified to teach.” “Are” indicates a present state, “certified” shows that the state is the result of a completed past action.

My head is spinning!!! :whacky:
I need to take a forum break. I’ll reread this when I come back. Grammar, especially in the English language, is not an easy thing to digest.
I’ll get back to you in a little while, I promise.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

This tense seems difficult to render in English, especially with one word, as Gabriel uses. The translator does not only want to indicate that the past action is complete, but also that there is a continuing state as a result. Allowing for more than one word, an example of the tense in English might be “you are certified to teach.” “Are” indicates a present state, “certified” shows that the state is the result of a completed past action.

Do you think the vagueness in Gabriel’s greeting was deliberate, hinting that Mary was like us and sinned?
So the translator altered the text in favor of saying that Mary remained sinless her entire life?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Do you think the vagueness in Gabriel’s greeting was deliberate, hinting that Mary was like us and sinned?
So the translator altered the text in favor of saying that Mary remained sinless her entire life?

Vagueness on Gabriels part? Do you think God would allow Gabriel to be vague? I don’t The Greek is what it is.

The only problem is that I doubt Greek is what Gabriel used to speak to Mary with. He more than likely Aramaic. We shall never know what Gabriel exactly said. All we have is Luke’s Greek.

So, here’s what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us “Kecharitomene” denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:

" ‘Highly favoured’ (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received’; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow’ " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)

“It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means “he graced” (bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). **Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action **(H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).
see members.aol.com/johnprh/conception.html

Source: bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm

This and other mistranslations in the KJV give reason to believe that it was an Act of Colusion of those translating to distort the truth in favor of their own doctrine.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Do you think the vagueness in Gabriel’s greeting was deliberate, hinting that Mary was like us and sinned?
So the translator altered the text in favor of saying that Mary remained sinless her entire life?

I would also note the person’s disclaimer as well.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Do you think the vagueness in Gabriel’s greeting was deliberate, hinting that Mary was like us and sinned?
So the translator altered the text in favor of saying that Mary remained sinless her entire life?

Read Father Mateo’s script on this. He is a Greek Scholar.

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209fea2.asp

You may want to print it out and read at your leisure since it is very lenghty.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Read Father Mateo’s script on this. He is a Greek Scholar.

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209fea2.asp

You may want to print it out and read at your leisure since it is very lenghty.

I will try and read it sometime soon. I printed it out and you’re right, it’s quite lengthy.

 

[rr1213]

The only problem is that I doubt Greek is what Gabriel used to speak to Mary with. He more than likely Aramaic. We shall never know what Gabriel exactly said. All we have is Luke’s Greek.

I don’t think it matters what the actual Aramaic words were, assuming they were in Aramaic (maybe it was telepathy, who knows?). The words used in the inspired text would be what is authoritative.

 

[Syele]

Ah, so now we are invoking actual guilt for Adam’s sin? Not just a “sin nature” but actual accountability for Adam’s sin? In that case, you must believe that stillborn babies go to hell. How could you not, for they are guilty of Adam’s sin, and they have not repented.

So, Protestants, does this passage actually mean that all are guilty of Adam’s sin? Not just affected by Adam’s sin, but guilty of Adam’s sin?

(BTW, I don’t accept for a minute that your interpretation is correct, either of 3:23 or 5:12, but it certainly does raise some interesting points for your theology!)

I already said multiple times that I don’t believe babies go to hell, they are not held accountable for their actions until the age of accountability. I really don’t see the point of repeating myself ad nasuem.

We are not directly guilty of Adam’s sin, but we are affected so that our fallen nature causes us to be likely to sin. As I said, our disagreement seems to be the difference between definitions of the word sin. You appear to believe it is not sin unless you are accountable for it? I believe it’s sin if it is not something God approves of, reguardless of accountability.

 

[Syele]

Humanity does know what is right and wrong. In his subconsciousness a man may know good and evil. Since God has written his “will” upon man’s heart and mind."

God’s nature of course cannot change. He was always in the Beginning, and he had no end.

I truly think you are misguided with what the nature of sin is. I will pray for you that you will understand.

Not all sin are the same. There is sin that is deadly, and a sin that is not deady.

1 John Chapter 5 verse, 16-17,

*“If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.” *

Whoa! When did I say a babies sin was deadly?? I think you misunderstood me… by alot.

 

[VociMike]

I already said multiple times that I don’t believe babies go to hell, they are not held accountable for their actions until the age of accountability. I really don’t see the point of repeating myself ad nasuem.

I know this. I also think that you are using the term “sin” where Catholics might speak of a “grave act”. Sin to us includes the component of free will. An entity (animal or human) without free will may commit a grave act, but cannot commit a sin.

We are not directly guilty of Adam’s sin, but we are affected so that our fallen nature causes us to be likely to sin.

Yes, this is much more in line with Catholic (and Orthodox) thinking than sandusky’s view of the matter.

As I said, our disagreement seems to be the difference between definitions of the word sin. You appear to believe it is not sin unless you are accountable for it? I believe it’s sin if it is not something God approves of, reguardless of accountability.

What if a poisonous snake bites a person and that person dies? Does God disapprove? What if another person deliberately poisons that person instead. Does God disapprove then? What is the difference in God’s reaction?

 

[Syele]

I know this. I also think that you are using the term “sin” where Catholics might speak of a “grave act”. Sin to us includes the component of free will. An entity (animal or human) without free will may commit a grave act, but cannot commit a sin.

You are correct. I am not Catholic, so naturally would not use the Catholic definition. a “grave act” isn’t necessarily a “mortal sin” AFAIK. As a Protestant… I call both sin. In fact, the definition of sin taught to my dd and other children at my church is, “Sin is anything you think, say or do that is displeasing to God.”

What if a poisonous snake bites a person and that person dies? Does God disapprove? What if another person deliberately poisons that person instead. Does God disapprove then? What is the difference in God’s reaction?

Well a poisionus snake is not human, it has no free will to be under the same laws as humans. Of course God would disapprove of a person poisioning another person. God’s laws set forth in Scripture are the laws for humans to follow, not animals.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Whoa! When did I say a babies sin was deadly?? I think you misunderstood me… by alot.

I pointed a verse which makes it clear to you that sin can be deadly, or mortal sin which we Catholic believed.

I may misunderstood you when you say infants are capable of sinning. I don’t believe they are capable since they lack the means to decide what is evil and what is good.

To fully commit a sin, the human being has a free will to make a choice, do good or evil.

An infant is not capable of deciding what is good and what is evil. The baby had to be taught what is morally right and immorally wrong.

 

[Mannyfit75]

You are correct. I am not Catholic, so naturally would not use the Catholic definition. a “grave act” isn’t necessarily a “mortal sin” AFAIK. As a Protestant… I call both sin. In fact, the definition of sin taught to my dd and other children at my church is, “Sin is anything you think, say or do that is displeasing to God.”

The Catholic Church definition of sin comes from the verse.

1 John Chapter 5 verse, 16-17,

“If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal(venial). There is sin which is mortal (mortal sin); I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”

Catholic definition of sin is clearly in the Bible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125

1851 It is precisely in the Passion, when the mercy of Christ is about to vanquish it, that sin most clearly manifests its violence and its many forms: unbelief, murderous hatred, shunning and mockery by the leaders and the people, Pilate’s cowardice and the cruelty of the soldiers, Judas’ betrayal - so bitter to Jesus, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ flight. However, at the very hour of darkness, the hour of the prince of this world,126 the sacrifice of Christ secretly becomes the source from which the forgiveness of our sins will pour forth inexhaustibly.

III. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SINS

1852 There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."127

1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#II Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[VociMike]

Well a poisionus snake is not human, it has no free will to be under the same laws as humans. Of course God would disapprove of a person poisioning another person. God’s laws set forth in Scripture are the laws for humans to follow, not animals.

But why does God disapprove of a human being poisoning another, but not of a snake poisoning a human being? Let’s add a third case – a toddler finds some rat poison under the sink, thinks it is the chocolate drink powder his mother always gives him, puts some in some milk, and gives it to a toddler friend who dies. Now, ignore for a moment the question of where are the responsible adults in all of this. Does God disapprove of this toddler’s actions the way He disapproves of the adult deliberately poisoning another? Or does He withold disapproval as in the case of the snake? Or what?

 

[Syele]

But why does God disapprove of a human being poisoning another, but not of a snake poisoning a human being? Let’s add a third case – a toddler finds some rat poison under the sink, thinks it is the chocolate drink powder his mother always gives him, puts some in some milk, and gives it to a toddler friend who dies. Now, ignore for a moment the question of where are the responsible adults in all of this. Does God disapprove of this toddler’s actions the way He disapproves of the adult deliberately poisoning another? Or does He withold disapproval as in the case of the snake? Or what?

An accident is not the same as doing something on purpose. God is not stupid. He knows this. Your example borders on ridiculous. A more likely case of a toddler sinning would be a kid who KNOWS that they are not supposed to do something and rebelliously does so anyhow. God doesn’t approve of rebellion but will not hold a kid accountable who does not fully understand the consequences of his action.

As I have already explained. I’m not Catholic. I understand the Catholic way of seeing it. As you already pounteed outmost of this is semantics. I say “Sin you aren’t held accountable for” you say “Grave matter but not mortal sin.”

What is this fixation on snakes and poison?

 

[Syele]

Manny my point isn’t to announce Catholics are wrong about the definition of sin. I can agree to disagree on the definition… but that dosn’t mean my definition is not Biblically based…

1 John 3:4

4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

(Sin: a breaking of God’s Law.)

**1 John 5:17
**

17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death

Sin: unrighteousness… some sin does not result in death

This is what I have been saying… you break God’s laws or act in a way that is not righteous, you are sinning… some sin does not result in a penalty. The punishment for sin is death (Romans 6:23) but some sin doesn’t result in death. Why? Because God is merciful, not because it wasn’t sin in the first place.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny my point isn’t to announce Catholics are wrong about the definition of sin. I can agree to disagree on the definition… but that dosn’t mean my definition is not Biblically based…

1 John 3:4

4Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

(Sin: a breaking of God’s Law.)

**1 John 5:17
**

17All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death

Sin: unrighteousness… some sin does not result in death

This is what I have been saying… you break God’s laws or act in a way that is not righteous, you are sinning… some sin does not result in a penalty. The punishment for sin is death (Romans 6:23) but some sin doesn’t result in death. Why? Because God is merciful, not because it wasn’t sin in the first place.

We can agree that sin is the breaking of God’s Law. Sin does bring death to the soul, and through Jesus, our sins can be forgiven if we repent and be truly for our sins. God created us out of love, and give us the gift of free will.

I don’t believe the Protestant concept that all sins are the same. Not all sin are equal.

You of course believe that they are all equal. I don’t want to derail the topic, so I won’t bring the issue of mortal and venial sin. That should be in a new thread.