G
gkoomen
Guest
If we are going to be so hyper-literal as to interpret “all” in Romans 3 to include Mary, then it has to include Jesus - He was true man. This is clearly not Paul’s intention.
- Status
B
Barbkw
Guest
God saved Mary from original sin.
R
RevG
Guest
The first comment I have to make here is about your wording. I am not clear if it was intentional or by accident that you use the word “contradict” but to answer that part of the question…the Bible was written in 3 languages by over 40 authors over the course of about 1500 years, every book in the canon tells the message of God and never does any place in the Scripture contradict another place in Scripture…never.
Now to the beginning of your question, Romans 3:23 does say all…since Mary would have to be included in that all, then it is being faithful to the text when you include her, and it is not being faithful to the text if you do not.
Now about Romans 5, there is nothing in Romans 5 to contradict Genesis 3. Romans 5 explains that the people between Adam and Moses did not have the Law yet, because Moses wrote it down, but they still died.
R
RevG
Guest
this is incorrect since Scripture is clear that He (Jesus) is without sin. Jesus is the only spotless lamb of God mentioned in Scripture, thus he would be excluded from the all in Romans 2:23, but Mary does not get this same privilege in Scripture
F
Frankk
Guest
Not really, because it completely avoids the core issue, which is how does anyone know his/her interpretation is correct?? Especially when it differs from someone else’s?No disrespect here Frank but you and others ask the same questions over and over and over and either don’t read the responses or … nevermind.
The answer to your question - simplified: while the Spirit is speaking to them, church leaders don’t hear Him because of their own preferences, hang-ups, culture, upbringing, influences by church doctrine, etc. These get in the way. Poor listening does not make 1 John 2:27 invalid. We learn to listen as we grow. We learn to be obedient as we listen. Refer Rom 8, “he who is led by the Spirit of God is a son of God” and 1 John 2:3, “We know Him if we follow His commandments”. As for an authority given to one church, we define church in different ways. Church is a body of believers. It is that simple. As for the question about whether or not you were baptised into one church, … do you not know that the effectiveness of baptism vests in the condition of your heart, not in the place you were baptised or the person who took you through it? Do you not know that it is about your heart and nothing else? If people choose to find interpretation with men, then so be it. I try to be led by the Spirit and the word, my “rod and my staff” (Psalm 23). Hope that helps.
Ginger, in this regard I disagree that it is off topic. Mary’s sinlessness is ENTIRELY a matter of interpretation.
A
awantz
Guest
I’m assuming Adam and eve were married/ became one. Considering that both verses are correct.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Actually you are incorrect. So how can you merely make an exception for Jesus,but not Mary? You know for a fact God cannot spare anyone from original sin? That is one my issues with Protestanism: Placing limits on what God can or cannot do or would not do.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey RevG…
Well, let’s examine the use of the word all.
Examples of exceptions:
Did all the world go after Christ in the following verse?
“… the whole world has gone after him” John 12:19
Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?
“All of Judea, including all the people of Jerusalem, went out to see and hear John. And when they confessed their sins, he baptized them in the Jordan River.” Mark
Did Caesar tax the people from India, China, and South America in the following verse? Matthew 2:3
“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” Luke 2:1
“When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him”
Every single person in Jerusalem???
What about: “ … Then all the disciples left him [Jesus] and fled.” Matthew 26:56
But we read in just two verses later that Peter did in fact follow Christ in Matthew 26:58. And in John 18:15-16 We read that another disciple followed Christ along with Simon Peter. And this other disciple knew the high priest and was therefore able to get Peter into the gate. This “other disciple,” is John. He even follows Christ all the way to the cross where he is identified as the “beloved disciple.” See John 19:26. The passage in John 21: 20-24 clarifies that he is none other than John, the author of the fourth Gospel.
Did the whole world lieth in the wicked one in the following verse?
“Ye are of God, little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. 1 John 5:19
Romans 15: “I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another.”
Of course only God has “all” knowledge.
If “all” in the preceding verses allow for exceptions then surely “all” in Romans 3:23 can allow for exceptions too - yes, no, maybe?
Your thoughts friend?
Poor choice of words for I believe it is definitely WRONG to assume that Romans 5 contradicts Genesis 3 even if it excludes the first woman from Romans 5, but I can certainly understand why someone could justify it…
Many would disagree with you, but not me…
Let’s assume the word “all” means just that, “all” humans. Jesus was fully human but of course He is an exception. If we accept an exception to the word “all” doesn’t it become difficult to prove that there are no other exceptions by simply quoting this same verse?
Well, let’s examine the use of the word all.
Examples of exceptions:
Did all the world go after Christ in the following verse?
“… the whole world has gone after him” John 12:19
Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan?
“All of Judea, including all the people of Jerusalem, went out to see and hear John. And when they confessed their sins, he baptized them in the Jordan River.” Mark
Did Caesar tax the people from India, China, and South America in the following verse? Matthew 2:3
“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” Luke 2:1
“When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him”
Every single person in Jerusalem???
What about: “ … Then all the disciples left him [Jesus] and fled.” Matthew 26:56
But we read in just two verses later that Peter did in fact follow Christ in Matthew 26:58. And in John 18:15-16 We read that another disciple followed Christ along with Simon Peter. And this other disciple knew the high priest and was therefore able to get Peter into the gate. This “other disciple,” is John. He even follows Christ all the way to the cross where he is identified as the “beloved disciple.” See John 19:26. The passage in John 21: 20-24 clarifies that he is none other than John, the author of the fourth Gospel.
Did the whole world lieth in the wicked one in the following verse?
“Ye are of God, little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. 1 John 5:19
Romans 15: “I myself am satisfied about you, my brethren, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another.”
Of course only God has “all” knowledge.
If “all” in the preceding verses allow for exceptions then surely “all” in Romans 3:23 can allow for exceptions too - yes, no, maybe?
Your thoughts friend?
C
Canto
Guest
Coming in late, so sorry if this has been said.
If all have sinned we would also have to include babies right?
Elsewhere St Paul says many have sinned.
All or Many, surely St Paul isn’t contradicting himself.
Then there’s the gospels where all Jerusalem came out to see Jesus.
So every single itty-bitty person bar none came to see Jesus?
No one was busy working, looking after a baby, sick in bed etc and couldn’t make it?
All (in Greek it is pas) does not mean all bar none.
A
apologistmike
Guest
The Trinity is not in the Bible but it is a common theme among Christians. One thing to keep in mind is that Her womb was a Tabernacle. She had to contain the Holy of Holy.Personally, I try always to keep in mind that I could be wrong.
If Mary was totally without sin, I would expect that to be mentioned somewhere in the Bible, but as far as I know, it is not. I am willing to be corrected, of course, so feel free.
The fact that she was full of grace implied that she had special favor with our Father in heaven. It is solely through the mystery of God that we are able to understand that the Tabernacle could not be desecrated or with Blemish.
Who are we to put limits on Gods ability to purify and make a person sinless. Consider it a blessing and a confirmation of Gods desire to have a sinless Son. Original Sin implies blemish.
To error is to be human. This does no mean we have to error. It was Christ alone who took on the sins of the world ( Past, Present and future). That is one of the mysteries of Christianity. Christ was the Pascal Lamb and it was him who was to to be with out blemish according to the law.
However, It does not mean that no other human is incapable to be sinless, as Christ paved the way for this reality to actually be understood. Christ was the first person to dies sinless.
Maybe as part of the mystery that is why Our Blessed Mother left this earth after Christ.
2 cents,
Mike
P
pablope
Guest
Actually…no…for in Luke 1…
5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly
So…“all” does not mean “all”…there are exemptions…as shown by the passage above…
P
PRmerger
Guest
But the point remains, then, that the “all” in “all have sinned” is definitely not an absolute, no?
And here’s another example in which “all” does not mean “absolutely all, without any exceptions”:
Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.–Luke 2:1
Code:
All did not mean all, but just the Roman empire.
Code:
Yet here in Luke it says that the Pharisees were not baptized! "All" apparently does not always mean "all
M
Marybeloved
Guest
You’re saying that Romans says “All” therefore, Mary must be included but not Christ- This is a contradiction! If “All” must mean all and admit of no exceptions (in order to include Mary) then it means All, admits no exceptions, and includes Christ!
Of course we know that Christ is sinless, therefore we know that the “All” in Romans 3 cannot mean the all that you think it means (absolute/no exceptions), as this would imply a contradiction in scripture which no faithful Christian can admit! Rather St. Paul in Romans 3 speaks generally of humanity’s state- not absolutely. We have other indicators of Mary’s sinlessness in scripture: the protoevangelium of Genesis and it’s parallel in Revelations 12, the Ark of the Covenant analogy that St. Luke draws in his gospel, the name by which the angel calls her-“full of grace”, the fact of Jesus drawing his humanity from her- etc- All indicate that she must have been sinless to do what God required of her- So we can say that Mary is another exception to Romans 3, which is not speaking absolutely but generally.
There could be others- The Church does not teach that Mary is absolutely the only immaculate conception- God could have granted the same favor to some other souls in the Old dispensation for his own purposes, we don’t know- but we know certainly about our Lady, so there could be a few other exceptions to Romans 3
.
R
RevG
Guest
I am not going to quote anyone here since there are so many to respond to. When one interprets the Bible they must go back to the original languages, if you can not read Greek in this case then you must rely on a trustworthy commentary. I can assume that you will use a Catholic one, but a real scholar of the Word will seek varying views in commentaries to gain a proper understanding of the context of the passage. The key word here is context. In Bible translation there are several ways to interpret words based on the semantic range of the word. Context determines translation not your theology or the churches theology. The Bible is infallible we need to seek what it says in context and then adjust our own theology to fit the Bible, not try to fit the Bible to our theology.
Now that being said, The all in Romans 3:23 is intended to cover all. The Bible gives exception to Jesus by explicitly saying He is without sin. God gives Jesus exclusion from Romans 3:23 by the fact that Jesus is without sin according to Scripture. The Bible does not at any point ever say that Mary was sinless. This has nothing to do with original sin. One can argue that was the reason for the virgin birth, but that argument has gone on for centuries and will not be solved here. The question was does all include Mary, and according to Scripture she is included since there is no place that says Mary was sinless. The all does not include Jesus since Scripture is again clear He is without sin.
What you are trying to do when you argue that Mary is exempt is called an argument from silence. The argument for her being included is an argument from the text.
Now that being said, The all in Romans 3:23 is intended to cover all. The Bible gives exception to Jesus by explicitly saying He is without sin. God gives Jesus exclusion from Romans 3:23 by the fact that Jesus is without sin according to Scripture. The Bible does not at any point ever say that Mary was sinless. This has nothing to do with original sin. One can argue that was the reason for the virgin birth, but that argument has gone on for centuries and will not be solved here. The question was does all include Mary, and according to Scripture she is included since there is no place that says Mary was sinless. The all does not include Jesus since Scripture is again clear He is without sin.
What you are trying to do when you argue that Mary is exempt is called an argument from silence. The argument for her being included is an argument from the text.
R
RevG
Guest
For you to imply that I am limiting God is an insult that I do not take lightly. I have not tried to limit God in any way. What I have done is point out what God has already said in Scripture. I did not make the exception for Jesus, Scripture did that. I did not include Mary in the “all” of Romans 3:23, again Scripture did that too. God can do whatever God wants to, that is His prerogative for being God, but He has revealed to us through Scripture how He works, if you disagree with what God said in the Bible, then you need to re-examine your theology.
If you want to hurl insults and generalizations it would be better for you to keep your opinions to yourself. Getting offended and making blanket misrepresentations about things you are obviously unfamiliar with is rude and offensive. You did not take issue with Protestantism, you took issue with God and His Holy Bible, when that happens you should adjust your understanding to meet his teachings.
A
adrift
Guest
It seems you are ready with insults yourself.
So all have sinned please tell me what sin a baby has committed? My child died at birth what sin did she commit?
M
Marybeloved
Guest
You are being inconsistent.
The Greek word there pas has several meanings
- Every individual absolutely, no exception, everyone, the whole part
-Some in all groups/types -Like saying “all people” when you mean people of all types
-Collectively or generally
You cannot make square circles, my friend- No exceptions means no exceptions- If you assume that that is the meaning of Romans 3, then you’re calling Christ a sinner and the scriptures wrong and contradictory- If the meaning was the first, then St. Paul would have explicitly excluded Christ in that sentence, but he did not, therefore we know he could not have been speaking absolutely-
.
P
pablope
Guest
Actually, RevG…to read in context, one must also not just read the verse in isolation…one must also read the whole book and chapter…and the rest of Scripture so that it harmonizes and does not contradict the rest of Scripture. What you are doing is isolate a verse and extract your doctrine from it.
This is the catholic way…mark-shea.com/tradition.html
Nope. It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church. In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the common teaching from the apostles included the then-unwritten command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mt 28:19). It included the as-yet-unwritten common knowledge of Peter’s mystical revelation by the Holy Spirit (“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” [Acts 10:15]). It included the experiences of Paul and Barnabas in preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). It is through this Sacred Tradition that James reads Scripture and sees in Scripture, not a judge or “final rule of faith” but a witness to the authoritative decision of the Church in Council. For he says not “we agree with the Prophet Amos” but rather that the words of the prophets “agree with” the Council (Acts 15:15). In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture. And so materially sufficient bricks of Old Testament revelation, which we thought were made to build into a synagogue are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead.
The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:29). And so, the biblical Council, just like the modern Catholic Church, develops a doctrine which, to “Bible-only” eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it (Rom 3:31).
This pattern of seeing Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition is absolutely crucial to understand, because failure to grasp it accounts for an enormous amount of misunderstanding. Evangelicals who have received (usually without realizing it) a pair of contact lenses colored by the Tradition of the Closure of Public Revelation can “see” that Tradition implied in Paul’s commands to Timothy. Yet we do not derive the doctrine from Scripture. Rather, we see it reflected there. But since Evangelicals have not received the contact lenses with the Tradition of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, they are unable to see it reflect there. Instead, they imagine that doctrine is arrived at by Catholics sitting down with a Bible and saying, “Let’s see. What is the most tortured and extreme reading I can get out of Matthew 1:25 today? Hey! Let’s say Mary remained a virgin perpetually!”
The Church does not sit down and derive the dogma from the tortured reading of a few isolated texts of Scripture. Rather, it places the Scripture in the context of the Tradition handed down by the apostles and the interpretive office of the bishops they appointed.
P
pablope
Guest
G
Good_Fella
Guest
The nascent Church in apostolic time interpreted the OT in light of sacred Tradition. There is nothing explicit in the Hebrew Bible or the Septuagint concerning the divinity of Christ. Thus the Bible isn’t the sole medium of divine revelation, being formally insufficient, although materially sufficient. The Holy Spirit declares to the Church what is a true revelation from God through both the written and unwritten word of God: the deposit of faith. Meanwhile exegetes don’t comprise the final teaching authority of the Church. The divine mandate rests with the appointed teaching authority - the Magisterium - with the guaranty of the Holy Spirit.
The Bible does say that Mary was “full of grace” (Lk 1:28) and at total enmity with Satan and his offspring - sin and the corruption of death - together with her divine Son (Gen 3:15).
PAX :heaven:
- Status