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

[blessings123]

Hello everyone. I am new and have been reading some posts on the Immaculate Conception. I just wanted to share something from a book I have been reading, having to do with Mary in scripture.

“And the Lord God said unto the serpent,…I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed.” Genesis 3:14-15:

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14:

“But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” Galatians 4:4:
"We see a crucial statement in Genesis 3:15: 'I will put enmity between you[Satan] and the woman, between your seed and her seed;he will crush your head, and you will strike at his heel.' This passage is especially significant in that it refers to the 'seed of the woman,' a singular usage. The Bible, following normal biology,otherwise only refers to the man, the seed of the father, but never the seed of the woman. Who is the woman mentioned here? The only possibility is Mary, the only woman to give birth to a child without the aid of a human father, a fact prophesied in Isaiah 7:14. If Mary were not completely sinless this prophecy becomes untenable.Why is that? The passage points to Mary's Immaculate conception because it mentions a complete enmity between the woman and Satan. Such an enmity would have been impossible if Mary were tainted by sin, orginal or actural(see corinthians 6:14).This line of thinking rules out Eve as the woman, since she clearly was under the influence of Satan in Genesis 3" Patrick Madrid, "Ark of the New Covenant."

 

[mrs_abbott]

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.

I don’t have a poster in my front yard stating this. The Immaculate Conception is something that I was taught but never questioned. Now I’m questioning it. What’s the big deal?
Yes, I have talked with a priest about this. We are continuing our session over this in a couple of weeks since he is going on vacation.

 

[apophasis]

I do, to the contrary of your assertion, accept that some men are guilty of Adam’s sin – by repeating it.

**“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s offense…”**Adam transgressed a commandment in the Garden which none of his descendants could “repeat.”

What Paul is stating here is that men are not sinners by personally transgressing a definite commandment (like Adam), but by the simple fact that all are born “in Adam” (Mary included, Rom. 5:19).

Adam became a sinner by transgressing a definite commandment ("thou shall not eat of the tree…") which none of us could repeat, the rest of us (including Mary) are BORN sinners. Proven by the fact that “death reigned” from Adam until Moses, “even over those who did not sin in the likness of Adam’s offense.”

IOW, it didn’t require the institution of the Law and personal transgression of its Commandments for men to die. Men do not have to be “transgressors” of commandments to become "sinners. All men were made sinners, and all die, because ALL SINNED (in Adam). The proof being, according to Paul, that death reigns over all mankind in its natural state, even over infants.

The ONLY way God could have ever prevented Mary from being a sinner would have been to prevent her from being one of Adam’s descendants (i.e., exclude her from Adam’s race). He would have had to create her anew, apart from Adam. Obviously this was not the case. Not even Catholicism will go that far - although in its zeal to exalt her they adhere to numerous doctrines that are totally extrabiblical; its doctrine of the “Immaculate Conception,” as you can see, being anti-biblical.

God did not prevent Mary from being “born a sinner” in Adam, and for this reason, Mary died.

And before you go there, no, Jesus was not of Adam’s race. He is not a “son of Adam,” but “the Son of God.” He received his humanity from Mary, not His identity.

 

[giagustine]

Really, how can anybody believe this? Is there anybody who actually believes that e.g. a stillborn baby has committed acts of sin?

The “all” in Romans 3:23 need not include absolutely everyone. Most will readily admit that babies, the mentally retarded, and the senile cannot sin (that is, they are not culpable for their sin). If the phrase in Romans 3—“all have sinned”—means every single human being who has ever lived, then that means even Jesus sinned.

In the same Epistle, Paul writes that “none is righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). Yet elsewhere Noah, Daniel, Job (Ezek. 14:14, 20), Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6) are said to be righteous. Paul obviously does not intend “absolutely everyone” but is stressing the universality of sin for both Jews and Gentiles. This is further supported by the fact that the word “all” in Rom 3:23 in Greek is pantes. It is the same word used in 1 Corinthians 15:22 where Paul says “all” have died. But we know that Enoch and Elijah did not die; they were assumed into heaven. This means that when Paul says “all” (pantes), he does not mean every single one. In fact, Paul says in Rom 5:19 that “many” were made sinners. This means that when Paul says “all” in regard to sinners, he really means “many.”

What the Apostle Paul means is that all people are subject to original sin.

(The above was taken from personal correspondence regarding the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin Mary but seems to be applicable to this question.)

 

[sandusky]

Huiou Theou:

Hence, you are agreeing with me that it does not refer to his death.

I agree with you.
Huiou Theou:

If his “earthly life” were the target, then it is improper to use τετελεσται in John 19:28. For he had one more task to do at that time – for the fulfillment of scripture, otherwise God would be a liar. A different word/mood would have been accurate at that time. So, your comment is inconsistent.

I will repeat – ‘finished’ does not completely describe the meaning – If it did, the word ought to be τελεται in Greek – NOT τετελεσται.
There is a translational bombshell for some translations.

It seems to me that you have a point to make; will you explain what translational bombshell you see?

And, it seems that you believe that the H.S. erred in his choice of words in Jn 19:30; will you point out the error of the H.S.?
Huiou Theou:

I also accept, as a Catholic bias, that Adam’s sin makes all men fit for punishment if they are not baptized.

If baptism is what saves one from eternal punishment then all of the O.T. saints have perished; God does not change, especially with respect to salvation which is eternally by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.
Huiou Theou:

Sandusky,

Many verbs are deponent.
The particular verb is important in that case.
I am not saying any verb we are discussing is deponent, I haven’t done a comparison to find out yet – but if you intend to correct me, be thourough.

None of the verbs we are discussing are deponent verbs; you can find that out by looking them up in a lexicon.
Huiou Theou:

Perhaps I will not agree, but then why complain about it.
Why not show forth an adequate reason for your belief, if you have it.

I am not complaining about your disagreement; I am just stating a fact; see post #438 from apophasis for a fine explanation.
Huiou Theou:

Are you a monogistic Calvanist?

Monergistic Calvinist; yes—a former Catholic.

 

[sandusky]

Jerry-Jet:

And how can Jesus who is God UNITE his humanity with Mary’s if it is post-fall and DEPRAVED?

How does INFINITE God unite with sin?

The Immaculate Conception isn’t about Mary–it is about Jesus!

The only way he could be fully man AND from Mary was with the Immaculate Conception!

The implication of your statements is that it is necessary for Mary to be sinless in order for Christ to be sinless; I don’t believe the CC teaches that; rather, the CC teaches that it is “fitting.” IOW, God could make Mary sinless, therefore He should make Mary sinless, therefore, the CC declares that God in fact did make Mary sinless. Correct me if I am wrong.

If necessity were the issue, then all of Mary’s ancestors necessarily would had to have been sinless as well.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Apophasis,

I am neither Pelagian, nor semi-Pelagian.  I do accept the church's authority with respect to the text in Romans.

I just don’t like the bad Greek made easy type of approach I am seeing.

However, one need not repeat identically Adam’s sin to be guilty of it. One only need only allow someone they are responsible for to sin mortally by consent – without telling or protecting them – to have the likeness of Adam’s sin.

The text:

even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s offense…

shows clearly that the author is separating those who HAVE sinned like adam (repetition) from those who have not.

The repetition would not be identical, in the sense that no one else is the first biological father of the whole human race.
But the essence of Adam’s transgression can be repeated.

Nor am I certain that the meaning of Genesis is purely literal – in the sense of a physical tree, with a physical fruit.
You are entitled to your opinion here, of course – but I won’t go that far off topic in this thread.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sandusky,

I think the very fact that I do not accept English as the primary language of scripture ought to suffice. τετελεσται is not ‘finished’ in English – the Catholic traditional translation is ‘consummated’ because the Catholic translators were aware that τετελεσται is not a mispelling of τετελεται – it is in fact a different word.

I am sorry to hear that you left the Catholic church.

Calvanistic thought is far closer to St. Thomas Aquinas, than my partial Augustinian understanding. I won’t be able to give you much of a common conversation concerning predestination issues at this time – especially on this thread.

Your approach, however, makes me wonder why you are here.
Phrases like ‘catholic bias’ are antagonistic.
If you can’t accept a Catholic teaching, for the sake of argument, nor are you willing to fairly defend your position – then the only thing left is baiting, trolling, and such activity.

I would hope that is not your intent?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

If necessity were the issue, then all of Mary’s ancestors necessarily would had to have been sinless as well.

Although you are correct about church teaching, the necessity chain argument is untenable. John Dunns Scotus is the instigator of the argument used in the dogmatic proclamation.

However, Mary’s mother was not the pure unsaved sacrifice, Jesus was. Jesus did borrow Mary’s flesh – and this flesh had to be pure. Not his person, or his identity, but his flesh.

The sacrificial passover lamb, the type of Jesus, could not have been salvaged after damage. No broken legs, or any other deformities – even if healed – were allowed.
No cheap sheep.

There is nothing in the law stating that the offspring of a deformed animal could not be used in this sacrifice – eg. the descendants of Jacob’s speckled and striped sheep, so intimately involved in the Septuagint references of original sin – were used for sacrifice.

There is no absolute necessity that Mary be saved, but I am not certain that a contingent necessity based on God’s activity in the O.T. was also involved. I have seen nothing in Church teaching which settles the point.

If Jesus’s fleshly line were pure back any number of ancestors – then Jesus’s flesh would be pure. (one is sufficient). A contingent necessity could exist depending on the meaning of the purity laws of the O.T.

The crux of the argument are the two questions:
Why is it fitting and Why would it be necessary?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Apophasis,
In Greek you are “from denial”. A dishonarable habit of bringing up unmentionables for self service by denying that you will do it. I see you surpass your title.

because ALL SINNED (in Adam). The proof being, according to Paul, that death reigns over all mankind in its natural state, even over infants.

This is a slanderous insult to the God Bearer, and the saviour.
Yes, death is a penalty for committing Sin – But you are quoting an English translation which varies from bible to bible.
The Greek orthodox would interpret it differently, and they speak Greek. I accept original sin on church authority as I have stated, but I have yet to see your method of parsing the texts.

There is nothing in Paul’s writing which proves that only sinners suffer death. Don’t give me a scripture that says sinners suffer death, give me a scripture which says only sinners suffer physical death.

Scripture says of God’s faithful – they shall not taste corruption.

So it was that Elija ascended in the firey chariot.
So it is that you can not find his body.
Nor Mary’s.

That sin brought death into the world, I agree. But that it applies to Mary as a personal fault, I have no evidence. I would not dare insult the Mother of my saviour, especially now.

There is this little thing said of Mary, by a prophet of God – in the very temple of sacrifice:

Luke 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
Luke 2:35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

Luke 2:35 και σου δε αυτης την ψυχην διελευσεται ρομφαια οπως αν αποκαλυφθωσιν εκ πολλων καρδιων διαλογισμοι

Notice, the sword which pierces Mary’s soul also.
She is to suffer for the sake of others in some fashion, and this suffering affects her soul – the very soul which is the life principle of the body. Mary may have died, but it does not say for her own sin. What does her piercing reveal about you?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

And to complete the replies,
Sandusky,

If baptism is what saves one from eternal punishment then all of the O.T. saints have perished; God does not change, especially with respect to salvation which is eternally by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.

Jesus can baptize whomever and whenever he so chooses.
If you knew Catholic teaching, you also know of baptism of desire, and baptism of blood. eg. Many of the O.T. saints (prophets) were martyrs.

It is the rejection (explicit disobedience) to Jesus’ command about being baptized after he gave it – that excludes those who refuse water baptism from salvation. Eg. I say to you …

To sum up. The O.T. figures received a baptism, in the ark, in the Red sea, in desire, and often in martyrdom.
Which form the baptism took is not important to me.
What is important is that the baptism was effected by God to those who obeyed.

None of the verbs we are discussing are deponent verbs; you can find that out by looking them up in a lexicon.

Perhaps that is why you don’t understand what I have said to you. It isn’t H.S. that has erred, it is those who write the lexicons. I do primary research in Greek, verifying lexicons against texts – congugating verbs according to the standard grammatical rules. etc.

I verify the use of some words by checking all of scripture, LXX, NT, and some extrabiblical sources of Greek. The context, and any changes are noted to see what exactly is the denotation and connotation of every word of interest.

There is far more to Greek than a lexicon and the particular labeling of one grammar book, or another, and that particular author’s labelling of grammar – that is a start, but it will never replace primary research. That is how I know the congugation of (the end, purpose, or finish) root τελε becomes τετελεται, which is NOT the word used in John, which has an extra (s) τετελε(σ)ται. That extra σ means the stem ended in a mute.
( eg. ending in τ, δ, θ, λ ) the mute changes to sigma (σ) before adding the ending ται in a perfect participle.

This is basic Greek – even Protestant grammar books have it (eg. moody’s bible institute, Dr. Munce. etc.)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Small correction:

John Duns Scotus – developed the argument which was used in deciding to define the Immaculate Conception. The fittingness of the singular grace is described by him. It is his instigation which is in the background of the dogmatic definition.

The actual definition of the Immaculate conception, in 1854, does not actually contain the words “it is fitting.” It contains only the expression of the immaculate conception being for the reason of Jesus’s incarnation.

However, the document related to the assumption of Mary such that she suffered not corruption – which is obviously tied to the immaculate conception – does use the words “it is fitting.” – from St. John Damascene.

 

[AlegreFe]

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.

You said it, not I.

You are in my prayers.

 

[AlegreFe]

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.
(emphasis added)

Thank you for your respect. No wait, Jesus thanks you.

 

[AlegreFe]

AlegreFe;1815114:

20

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

30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah
the prophet and said, “Do you understand
what you are reading?”
31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone
instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in
and sit with him.
Acts 8:30-31That verse does not prohibit personal interpretation, Sandy.

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

That verse DOES prohibit personal interpretation.

sandusky:

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.

Yes that is right, that verse does say that the scriptures were written by men moved by the Holy Spirit. That is why we cannot interpret the Scriptures from our own personal/private interpretations. Jesus Christ left us a Church to instruct us in the interpretation. Only the Pope and the Bishops united with the Pope can interpret Scripture to instruct us. That is where Acts 8:30-31 comes in. That is why I put both 2 Peter and Acts 8 together.

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.

That is a command to Timothy from Paul about false teachings. Paul calls Timothy his “child” because Paul taught Timothy. As a Bishop, Paul appointed Timothy to teach the Word of God. Timothy is approved by God as a successor to Paul to interpret and teach the Word.

Paul is in prison and is stressing to Timothy that he should be firm in his faith and to protect his community from false teaching without being afraid of attacks.

Keep in mind that Paul is talking to Timothy here; Paul as Bishop wrote this letter to Timothy as his successor.
15 Be eager to present yourself as acceptable
to God, a workman who causes no disgrace,
imparting the word of truth without deviation.
2 Tim 2:15 (NAB)

15 Carefully study to present thyself approved
unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
2 Tim 2:15 (DR-V)

We should actually be reading both letters to Timothy plus some of Acts to get the whole context of this verse. We are not :nope: “official sucessors approved” by God… but Timothy is! :yup:

more in next post…

 

[AlegreFe]

…cont.

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

Please read the rest of my post. Here I’ll put the other part here so that you can read it if you haven’t already.

My intellect, however, is not what is driving me to believe. My faith (verb) is driving me to believe. And that “faith” is a gift from God. The “be all” and “end all” that makes me Catholic is not because I “agree” with the Church. It is because I have Faith in Jesus Christ. I have faith in everything that Jesus has taught and not just have faith in Him as to “accept Jesus as my Lord & Savior” as that is not enough.
I have faith because God gave it to me as a gift.

My faith will not increase according to my intellect. I cannot force faith with intellect. It takes my free will to want faith and it takes for God to give me that faith. I am so grateful to God for giving me His gift of faith. God chose me, I have no idea why He would chose me, to have faith and therefore gave it to me. For those who are weak in their faith, just pray and ask God for it. But you have to be open and willing to accept the gift. You cannot rely on your intellect or trying to understand why certain doctrines exist, in order that your faith increase. No matter how hard you try to understand or agree with certain doctrines, it will not increase your faith.
(emphasis added… I would bold the whole post because it is ALL relevant and you should read everything I have said, but if I did put it all in bold, it would be the same as if I didn’t bold anything).

God gave me the gift to have faith that Jesus Christ built the Church on Peter the Rock. And I certainly want to be included in Jesus’ prayer for Peter to have faith so that I won’t be sifted like wheat with the rest of the people who don’t have faith.

Jesus is only talking to Peter here that Satan will try to attack the Apostles who are appointed Bishops of the Church, and separate them from the Church (with the rest of us), and scatter them like sifted wheat. All those Protestant churches are sifted wheat that have been scattered like sheep without a shephard. Which is why so many different denominations exist.
31 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has
demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed that your own
faith may not fail; and once you have
turned back, you must strengthen
your brothers.”
Lk 22:31-32
Jesus tells Peter that HE is the one to strengthen his brothers. Jesus is not telling any of the other Apostles here to do that. Peter is our first Pope.

I pray that you come back to the Church.
You have been deceived by those who have sifted the ignorant people in the Church to leave. I pray that all fallen away Catholics come back to Jesus Christ who is substantially present here in the Catholic Church in all the Tabernacles.

 

[AlegreFe]

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.

That is what I thought when mrs abbott asked me if I knew she was a practicing Catholic. I wanted to reply to her post 394 but instead chose to refrain from saying anything so that she wouldn’t get the wrong idea again and think that I’m attacking her. But you’ve said it for me!

eliasaph99:

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.).

I most certainly agree!

This forum is for the public and therefore you (mrs abbott) are publically denying the Faith.

eliasaph99:

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 agree!

eliasaph99:

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

No matter how much someone tries to understand certain doctrines, it will not make them see the Truth. It might help a little but if someone is stubborn they will not want to see no matter how well they might understand something. It takes for the Holy Spirit to soften their hearts and open their eyes to the truth. They need to have the scales removed from their eyes by the Holy Spirit in order for them to see the Truth of the Catholic Church… and that is the WHOLE Truth and not just some of the Truth as some “cafeteria Catholics” chose to believe.

 

[AlegreFe]

Perhaps she was not focusing on what I said about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption…

But that is what she (mrs abbott) has been protesting here. She has been questioning the Immaculate Conception of Mary. She does not want to accept that but is trying to understand by talking to her Parish Priest. That is my understanding; please correct me if I’m wrong mrs abbott. You are still in my prayers along with all Catholics who are “on the fence” and/or luke warm and all fallen away Catholics.

 

[mrs_abbott]

But that is what she (mrs abbott) has been protesting here. She has been questioning the Immaculate Conception of Mary. She does not want to accept that but is trying to understand by talking to her Parish Priest. That is my understanding; please correct me if I’m wrong mrs abbott. You are still in my prayers along with all Catholics who are “on the fence” and/or luke warm and all fallen away Catholics.

Good morning, fellow Catholic bashers! How are you doing?
I am not doing so well, as I am sick. So, for the sake of ending all conversation graciously, you can go on believing that I am wrong and you are right.
But, just for the record, I don’t deny Mary and how the CC views her. I’m simply questioning it to better understand how that conclusion was arrived upon.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Good morning, fellow Catholic bashers! How are you doing?
I am not doing so well, as I am sick. So, for the sake of ending all conversation graciously, you can go on believing that I am wrong and you are right.
But, just for the record, I don’t deny Mary and how the CC views her. I’m simply questioning it to better understand how that conclusion was arrived upon.

Get well soon! I liked reading your posts. I thought you made good points and I am anxious to read more.