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

[Blue_Serenity]

You do know that I am a practicing Catholic, right?
I’m not going to argue about Mary anymore, as it’s just going to go around in circles. You’ll pull your sources and I’ll pull mine. You’ll say you’re right and I’ll say you’re wrong. There’s no point and quite frankly, I’m exhausted.
I guess I’m just not up to your standards as a Catholic.

Wow! Then I must be an absolute heretic in the eyes of a Catholic, since I do not believe that Mary is nothing more than a human being like us, chosen by God to give birth to Jesus, and then that’s it.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Wow! Then I must be an absolute heretic in the eyes of a Catholic, since I do not believe that Mary is nothing more than a human being like us, chosen by God to give birth to Jesus, and then that’s it.

Join the club Club Heretic

 

[rr1213]

Wow! Then I must be an absolute heretic in the eyes of a Catholic, since I do not believe that Mary is nothing more than a human being like us, chosen by God to give birth to Jesus, and then that’s it.

Look, even as a Protestant you can’t leave it at that. When the Holy Word of God says that Mary will be considered blessed among women for all time, that has got to mean something. And, even though I do not hold to the Catholic Marian doctrines, I’d submit that blessed for all ages means something more than what you just said.

 

[sandusky]

2 Pet 1:20
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,

That verse does not prohibit personal interpretation, Sandy.

Look at the bold, underlined part.

It says, “no PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE,” IOW, what the prophets and apostles spoke and recorded was not a matter of their interpretation.

You would know that if you had continued reading through in v21:for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.Peter is addressing the transmission of Scripture from the Holy Spirit to the prophets/apostles; he is not addressing the believers obligation to interpret Scripture.

2 Timothy 2:15

[You] be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.That is a command to understand the scripture.

Read the Gospels as well; Christ held those He spoke to accountable for knowing the scripture.

Neither is the Acts 8 passage a prohibition against interpreting scripture.

AlegreFe:

I believe because it is Jesus Christ who taught and preached. And it is Jesus Christ who built His Church on Peter the Rock. God did give us an intellect so as to learn and reach the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the One True Church of Jesus Christ.

Yes, by your intellect you have concluded that the CC is the one true church.

AlegreFe:

You must need glasses or something because charitoō is not the same word as kecharitōmene. It might have the same root word but that doesn’t mean that it’s the same word or that it has the same part of speech, or that it has the same exact meaning. You can say that I am wrong all you want but that doesn’t make you right.

I say again, Sandy, “you are wrong.”

From apophasis Post #312

Sandusky has rightly pointed out that the only other place the word is used is in Eph. 1:6. And there Paul teaches that believers are made “objects of grace” (i.e., objects of divine favor) and has nothing to do with believers being “immaculately conceived.”

Vincent…goes on to state that the only other place the word is used in Scripture is Eph. 1:6…

And from your fellow Catholic, JoeyWarren in his post #293:

“Chartoo can mean to Grace as in Luke 1:28 and Eph. 1:6, provided we understand that this grace is endowed by God…” [The Pocket Word Study of the New Testament, Atlanta Ga., Bernard & Brothers publishing, 1982, pg 348]

“Chartoo: Grace. To Grace… as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28,… as in Eph. 1:6 were believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved” i.e., objects of Grace” [The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, copyright 1992, printed by AMG International, Inc. Pg. 1471]

“Luke 1:28 This is all one word in Greek kecharitomene a perfect passive participle of the verb Chartoo (only here [Lk 1:28] and Eph. 1:6)… Abbott- Smith defines Chartoo as follows endow with charis i.e. 1. (a.) to make graceful; (b.) to endure with Grace (i.e. Devine favor)” [Word Meaning in the New Testament, copyright 1986, printed by Henndrickson Publishing, edited by Ralph Earle Pg. 52]

"0 favored one (kecharitomene). angel’s address of Mary marks her out recipient of God’s special grace (BAG BDAG, 1081). For Luke, she is a model beneficiary of God’s grace (1:48). The: other use of this verb in the NT Ephesians 1:6. [charitoo]

" [The Bible Knowledge Key Word Study, copyright 2002, printed Victor Publishing, edited by Darrell L. Bock, Pg. 180]

“Chartoo to bestow grace upon, Lk 1:28 Ep 1:6”[The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance and Lexicon, by Wigram - Green, 1982, p. 915]You are wrong, Sandy.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Look, even as a Protestant you can’t leave it at that. When the Holy Word of God says that Mary will be considered blessed among women for all time, that has got to mean something. And, even though I do not hold to the Catholic Marian doctrines, I’d submit that blessed for all ages means something more than what you just said.

Your view sounds pretty much like the Catholics believe. What don’t you believe that they do?

 

[rr1213]

Your view sounds pretty much like the Catholics believe. What don’t you believe that they do?

Pretty much the stuff we have been discussing in these various threads, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Nonetheless, I don’t think that you can just dismiss Mary. She was willing to accept the request made of her, submitting herself to the will of God. She is the Mother of God and is called blessed for all ages. She was told that she was full of grace or most highly favored. Even if you do not accept the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, as I do not, all of what Scripture tells us is that this was one very special…unique…woman.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If Jesus is an exception to “All have sinned” why is it impossible for there to be no other exceptions?

The angels in Heaven also have never sinned and Adam and Eve were created sinless. If God can create them sinless why is it that He couldn’t create Mary sinless?

If the angels in heaven can persevere in being sinless because of the grace of God why is it impossible for Mary to be able to persevere in being sinless with not only the grace of God but as the scriptures say “Full of Grace”–so much grace that angels show their respect by saying “Hail”–so Full as to be complete?

If a person with that much grace cannot defeat Satan–what hope do we have to be perfectly holy and enter heaven for do not the scriptures say that nothing that is imperfect will be allowed to enter it?

 

[rr1213]

If Jesus is an exception to “All have sinned” why is it impossible for there to be no other exceptions?

The angels in Heaven also have never sinned and Adam and Eve were created sinless. If God can create them sinless why is it that He couldn’t create Mary sinless?

If the angels in heaven can persevere in being sinless because of the grace of God why is it impossible for Mary to be able to persevere in being sinless with not only the grace of God but as the scriptures say “Full of Grace”–so much grace that angels show their respect by saying “Hail”–so Full as to be complete?

If a person with that much grace cannot defeat Satan–what hope do we have to be perfectly holy and enter heaven for do not the scriptures say that nothing that is imperfect will be allowed to enter it?

The top angel, Lucifer, and a third of the angelic host according to tradition sinned. Adam and Eve sinned. They are not good examples.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

They are good examples of things that God created that were sinless when He created them.

We are not told anywhere that they were Full of Grace like Mary was but just think–2/3 of the angels who weren’t Full of Grace like Mary was and were created sinless were able to remain sinless.

If they can remain sinless WITHOUT being Full of Grace–How much more so can Mary remain sinless who is Full of Grace!

The fact that Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels sinned and the fact that Adam and Eve sinned is no slight on God–Jesus chose Judas as a disciple and he sinned.

The fact that Judas and Lucifer and Adam and Eve sinned in no way means that Mary could have never sinned–2/3 of the angels were created sinless and never sinned–why could she not do as well as them–especially since she was Full of Grace?

So not only do we know that Jesus was an exception to “ALL” we also know that 2/3 of the angels were exceptions to “ALL”.

How many MORE exceptions to “ALL” would it take for one to believe that Mary who we know was “Full of Grace” could not also be an exception?

And just remember to be Full is to be complete. What does that mean? That means that God could not give Mary anymore grace–He had given her enough Grace to be Full.

How can anyone say that someone with that much grace from God–more than the 2/3 of the angels who remained sinless could not also remain sinless?

 

[rr1213]

They are good examples of things that God created that were sinless when He created them.

We are not told anywhere that they were Full of Grace like Mary was but just think–2/3 of the angels who weren’t Full of Grace like Mary was and were created sinless were able to remain sinless.

If they can remain sinless WITHOUT being Full of Grace–How much more so can Mary remain sinless who is Full of Grace!

The fact that Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels sinned and the fact that Adam and Eve sinned is no slight on God–Jesus chose Judas as a disciple and he sinned.

The fact that Judas and Lucifer and Adam and Eve sinned in no way means that Mary could have never sinned–2/3 of the angels were created sinless and never sinned–why could she not do as well as them–especially since she was Full of Grace?

So not only do we know that Jesus was an exception to “ALL” we also know that 2/3 of the angels were exceptions to “ALL”.

How many MORE exceptions to “ALL” would it take for one to believe that Mary who we know was “Full of Grace” could not also be an exception?

And just remember to be Full is to be complete. What does that mean? That means that God could not give Mary anymore grace–He had given her enough Grace to be Full.

How can anyone say that someone with that much grace from God–more than the 2/3 of the angels who remained sinless could not also remain sinless?

The reference in Romans is to mankind, not angels. Read Romans 1.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

So tell me how that Jesus who is fully God and fully man is not part of makind!

 

[mrs_abbott]

Pretty much the stuff we have been discussing in these various threads, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Nonetheless, I don’t think that you can just dismiss Mary. She was willing to accept the request made of her, submitting herself to the will of God. She is the Mother of God and is called blessed for all ages. She was told that she was full of grace or most highly favored. Even if you do not accept the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, as I do not, all of what Scripture tells us is that this was one very special…unique…woman.

I totally agree with you!

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Look, even as a Protestant you can’t leave it at that. When the Holy Word of God says that Mary will be considered blessed among women for all time, that has got to mean something. And, even though I do not hold to the Catholic Marian doctrines, I’d submit that blessed for all ages means something more than what you just said.

Sorry, I was rushed in my response and left out a few things. I agree with what you are saying here.

 

[Equus_Pallidus]

This post keeps sending me emails even though I only said something once. Grrrrrrrrrr!

 

[eliasaph99]

This post keeps sending me emails even though I only said something once. Grrrrrrrrrr!

Go to any page on the thread. At the top of the page there is a tab called “Thread Tools.” Click on it and select unsuscribe.

I’m getting a little sick of it too. Clearly, you’re tired of beating the same old dead horse.

I couldn’t resist…

 

[eliasaph99]

I totally agree with you!

I want to point out to you, Mrs. Abbot, that this kind of response is the type of response which is upsetting to many of those who have responded to your posts. You have just stated that you totally agree with someone who denies the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. At the same time you profess to be a practicing Catholic.

In the language frequently used by Catholic apologists and theologians, this is called creating or causing scandal. It is improper for a Catholic to publicly deny the Dogmas and Doctrines of the Faith. If a Catholic has private doubts or intellectual dispute with a particular Dogma or Doctrine, they should speak to their priest or other Catholic spiritual adviser (i.e. a sponsor for a returning Catholic, a knowledgeable friend, a nun, etc.).

However, to openly dispute that which the Church is proclaiming as Truth is to do violence to the unity of the Church. It should always be refrained from.

I will pray that your understanding of these doctrines is furthered so that you may see the Truth of them.

 

[Equus_Pallidus]

I want to point out to you, Mrs. Abbot, that this kind of response is the type of response which is upsetting to many of those who have responded to your posts. You have just stated that you totally agree with someone who denies the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. At the same time you profess to be a practicing Catholic.

In the language frequently used by Catholic apologists and theologians, this is called creating or causing scandal. It is improper for a Catholic to publicly deny the Dogmas and Doctrines of the Faith. If a Catholic has private doubts or intellectual dispute with a particular Dogma or Doctrine, they should speak to their priest or other Catholic spiritual adviser (i.e. a sponsor for a returning Catholic, a knowledgeable friend, a nun, etc.).

However, to openly dispute that which the Church is proclaiming as Truth is to do violence to the unity of the Church. It should always be refrained from.

I will pray that your understanding of these doctrines is furthered so that you may see the Truth of them.

So someone deny’s the Immaculate Conception. Hrmmm, let’s see what the prophets had to say.

VEN. SOR MARIANNE DE JESUS TORRES (17th Century)

“Dogma of the faith of the Immaculate Conception will be proclaimed during a time when the Church will be strongly attacked.”

This came to pass 250 years later on December 8, 1854. At the time the Pope was quite literally a prisoner in the Vatican, and the Church was under attack from revolutionaries throughout Europe.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I am not looking at E-Sword, but at the Nestle-Aland Greek NT, and at Robertson’s Word Pictures, which I have linked for your perusal as well—Lk 1:28; Eph 1:6.

Lk 1:28 is a perfect, passive, participle; it is hardly a special conjugated form, (unless, of course, one has a particular bias).

echaritōsen is not so much a different form, but a different tense (the timing of the gracing, if you will)—aorist, active, indicative (state of being).

The only difference is the timing. The perfect is concerned with the moment, and continuing action; the aorist happened in the past, and is not concerned with continuing action; the action may continue; it may not continue; the aorist is not concerned with that, but only states that it happened in the past.

Also, you didn’t answer my question: This word is used in only one other place in the NT, and that is in Eph 1:6 of all believers; therefore, according to the reasoning of your argument, all believers must be sinless as well; do you believe that?

Um, no.

The word a-orist is Greek for not having boundaries.
Strictly speaking, it does not give information about when an event happened – but is focused on the relationship.
eg. the cat GOT/GETS the mouse would translate the aorist --but since English does not have the aorist tense – it is generally translated as simple past tense. Sometimes, the Greek writer does in fact mean past tense.

In κε-χαριτω-μενη the repeat beginning sound (ke), is temporal
augment which leads one to suspect that the word is aorist –
but the ending of the word makes it a perfect participle.
Perfected action is permanently completed action – the fancy title ‘participle’ simply means a word which may be adverbial and adjectival at the same time. A ‘verbal adjective’ is not a normal English part of speech (Hence translation may easily mistranslate.). But, this word describes a state which stresses the permanence or finality of the action whenever it occur(ed).

Mary was not graced at the moment the angel came, but already perfectly Graced.

In John 19:30-31, the perfect participle of another word is – τε-τελεσ-ται. This last word, spoken by Jesus on the cross is permanent – as is the sacrifice. Try applying your logic to this word, which uses the same aorist temporal augment.
There is something special about the crucifixion, and Mary’s gracing.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sandusky,

Again, in Rom 3:23, and 5:12, sinned in the Greek is an historical (constative, complexive, narrative) time-frame. IOW, those two verses state an historical fact; namely, in God’s mind, when Adam sinned in the garden, all sinned, ie., EVERYONE ever conceived in the womb sinned in Adam (cf Ps 51:5; Rom 3:23; 5:12). The only stated exception to that is Christ

There are several big words in your arguments – constanative, complexitive, narrative – these are adjectives coined by someone that are extremely rare to the average reader.
I don’t see that they help your argument.

Rom 3:23 applies to nations, and culpability as a nation – not as an individual. The idea is that Jews are no better than Greeks, etc. Individuals are not in discussion.
Nationality does not cart blanche excuse one from the Guilt of Adam.

Rom 5:12 does apply to individuals – and this is a very important passage, along with Ps. 50/51 in discussing the meaning of original sin. Do you have the skill to actually parse the very difficult Greek here ?

There are other things to look at, eg:
Ps 58:3, Is 48:8, Jer 1:5.

 

[cet]

Babies are not guilty of actual sin. They do have the original sin from their parents.

Babies do not have the means to reason. To commit a sin, one must know it is a sin, full acknowledge that it is wrong, and full consent.

Babies do not have understand right and wrong, are not sinners.

Why are you discussing original sin, when there is nothing that is called original sin in the bible, and the bible actually teaches quite the opposite?

Ezekiel 18:19-20
“Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

The calamity whe have to bear from Adam and Eve is the consequence of the sin they did, not the guilt. It wasn’t our choice but their’s… If we sin, we must bear our own sin. not our forefather’s…

Kind Regards
-c-