Rom 3:23 For All Have Sinned

  • Thread starter Thread starter callbr549
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

callbr549

Guest
After years of study I’m ready to become Catholic. My protestant wife is maybe almost ready, at least close enough to go the pre-RCIA meeting at the neighborhood church last night. During the discussion something came up about what Immaculate Conception meant and that Mary was without sin.

My wife’s biggest stumbling block now is Rom 3:23 “For all of have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, plus several other references in Romans to the sinfulness of everyone. “How can you say Mary is without sin”, she asks.

I don’t know a good, simple way to answer her. Can anyone here help?
 
The problem with her arguement is that she would have to apply the same logic to Christ, who we know didn’t sin, either.

Our Mother was still saved by Christ, it was just done before she was conceived. You have to remember that God doesn’t work in a time-frame. Time is an invention by God for man.

And Our Mother’s sinlessness does not take away from the work of Christ on the cross, either. It’s not only that Christ was sinless that saved us, it was that He was God-God dying for us.

I’m not sure I helped at all, but I hope I did just a little.

Scout 👋
 
Mary was saved from sin by Grace like the rest of those who were saved, (by Grace) but it differs because her salvation from sin was preventive in her Immaculate Conception. We are saved after the fact, she was saved before the fact…(there is a much better way to explain this – somebody get the Catechism.
 
All? Many Protestants do not baptize infants or children because they are incapable of sin and don’t need baptism. They are also incapable of making a statement of “faith” so they can’t assent to the fact that Christ died for our sins . . .

In Romans 3 Paul is referring not to absolutely “all” but to the generality of mankind. Clearly, a 9 month old baby has not “sinned.”

I hope this will be your wife’s biggest challenge!

God bless you both.
 
If you read the whole passage in context Paul is contrasting and comparing the Jews and Gentiles and is saying in essence…‘there is enough sin to go around’.

Look at the many ways the word ‘all’ is used in the New Testament. It many instances it doesn’t mean ‘every single one’. For instance Jesus said “If I be lifted up I will draw ALL men unto me.” Does that mean ALL will be saved?

dream wanderer
 
Ask your wife why she would take one single verse from Scripture and make a universal application of it, rather than taking the whole of Scripture and what it has to say on the subject? Does the Bible teach ‘total depravity’? No.

The first argument made is a good one. ALL is not always used in a collective sense (the Pope has talked extensively about this) but can be used in a distributive sense. In other words, when the Gospel of Matthew says that ‘all of Judea was baptized’, it’s used in a distributive sense, not with the meaning that every single person in this province was baptized.

Second, the passage seems to be talking about personal sin. Would your wife say that a 2 day old infant has committed personal sin? How about a mentally retarded person? The point is that there ARE exceptions to this verse that are practical and clear.
Job 1:1 seems to imply that Job is an exception. So does Job 2:3. Zechariah and Elizabeth are called ‘just before God’ in Luke 1:6.

With reference to Mary, you can make a Scriptural case (Mary is the NT fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant), a Historical Case (The Church Fathers are clear on her sinlessness and TAUGHT it as Catholic faith), and Logical case (To deny Mary’s sainthood and sinlessness is to deny God’s/Jesus’ saving power and resurrection).

This verse, along with Romans 3:10-19 are the most misunderstood and taken out of context verses in the Bible, IMO.
Have you had her read ‘Rome Sweet Home’ by Scott and Kimberly Hahn? Truly an amazing story of conversion. 👍

GS
 
40.png
callbr549:
I don’t know a good, simple way to answer her. Can anyone here help?
Click to expand...
Is Paul to be taken literally?
Apparently not. There is the obvious exception of “Jesus” to his “all.” We also know children below the age of reason are excluded. Paul refers to this later in Romans 9:11, where Jacob/Esau are said to be sinless before birth. So, at a minimum, this verse can not be used to conclusively prove that Mary sinned.
 
You know how, from the cross, Jesus says, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
He’s quoting the first verse of Plasm 22, which was common among Jews of the first century. All faithful Jews had all 150 Psalms memorized, so if someone wanted to make a point using one of the Psalms, he just quoted the first verse. Jesus was quoting a Psalm of eventual victory; a Psalm that prophesied his crucifiction and resurrection.
Check out Psalm 14:1-5. Paul is using the first five verses of Psalm 14 to make his point about the gift of grace through Jesus Christ. Combine this information with the Scripture noted by Good Samaritan about Elizabeth and Zechariah and Mary, and you will see that Paul is just using a first century Jewish teaching custom.
An especially good point, as mentioned above, is to ask if infants and toddlers have sinned.
 
verse 9 clearly shows “all” is used in the distributive sense:

“What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin”

“All” in this section means all types - both Jews and Greeks. It doesn’t necessarily mean every single one.
 
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Hus, whose name was Job, and that man was simple and upright, and fearing God, and avoiding evil.

I read this to mean Job did not sin. Isn’t Job part of the all in all have sinned? If Job didn’t sin why is it not possable for The BVM to be without sin?
 
40.png
Harland:
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Hus, whose name was Job, and that man was simple and upright, and fearing God, and avoiding evil.

I read this to mean Job did not sin. Isn’t Job part of the all in all have sinned? If Job didn’t sin why is it not possable for The BVM to be without sin?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that avoiding evil means without sin, it is certainly not the equivolent of “full of grace”. I think I need to re-read Job, but I didn’t think he was perfect through the trials…

John
 
Martin Luther held the Immaculate Conception:

“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.”
Martin Luther, (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).

As a Protestant I believed it. I think unbelief in the Immaculate Conception is either un-Christian or (if Christian) from ignorance. The Gospels show the Apostles made many mistakes. Mary and Martha had an argument when Jesus was at their house. John the Baptist had doubts (Matthew 11:3). The Gospels do not show any mistake that Mary made. She followed Jesus and was present at Calvary.

I’d hope that a Protestant minister would be able to teach it. But I am now sadly finding out that many Protestants do not believe the Immaculate Conception. I’m surprised that the United Methodist Church does not subscribe to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

One of Archbishop Sheen’s best articles is “How Mothers Are Made” in the book “Life is Worth Living” – pages 46-52. I’m also going into RCIA / RCIC this year. And I photocopied this article for my wife to read. It is such a supportive article for Christian Mothers to read.

Whistler said of his famous painting “You know how it is. One tries to make one’s Mommy as nice as one can.” Surely this is also true of God. That He would provide Jesus with the best Mother possible. Mary isn’t God. But Mary was as good as God could make her.
 
Think again of Genesis 3:15…

If the woman who was going to have the seed (Jesus) who would
crush the head of Satan was going to be with sin, then
she would have been the seed of the devil. The verse in that case
would have rad, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and your seed’s (woman) seed. Notice that the woman is not associated as being the seed of the devil. Jesus, babies and mentally ill people have not sinned
so the “all” does not mean every single person.

It is evident St. Paul is speaking of personal sins people commit,
as opposed to original sin we inherit. St. Paul does not mean “all”
in an absolute sense, which would include every single person. Some obvious exceptions, again, are Jesus, Adam and Eve before the Fall, and children below the age of reason (and the mentally handicapped). Catholics believe Mary is another exception.

Luke 1:28:
The angel Gabriel calls Mary, “full of grace” (kecharitomene [Gk]=perfected in grace)-- to indicate that she
has fullness of grace.
Also, the Arc of the Old Convenant prefigured Mary, the Ark of the New Convenant. The first chapter of Luke’s gospel repeatedly makes this connection. Mary spent three months in Zechariah and Elizabeth’s house (Luke 1:26, 40), just like the Ark spent three months in the house of Obededom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:11). Elizabeth asked Mary, “How does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
(2 Samuel 6:9). Finally, when Mary arrived, John the Baptist leapt for joy in Elizabeth’s womb (Luke 1:44), just as David leapt and danced before the Lord when the Ark arrived in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:14-16).

God took great pains to prepare and preserve the vessel that
contained his written Word. It was made of enduring acacia wood
and pure gold. God demanded that this holy container be without
stain or defect. Uzzah was struck dead instantly because he dared to touch, and thus profane, the precious Ark (2 Samuel 6:7). If God took such care to preserve the OT Ark from stain, defect, profanation, how much more would He carefully perserve the NT Ark, which carried the even holier cargo of the Living Word,
from all stain and sin?

St.Augustine (354-420 A.D.), writes:

“Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on
account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely
no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what
abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred
upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom
there was no sin?”

Here’s a short ancedote to help in understanding this:
“If a man pulled you out of quicksand, you would say he saved you.
But if he kept you from falling into quicksand in the first place,
you would say that he saved you more perfectly.”

This privilege was given to Mary in view of Christ’s merits. Jesus
was Mary’s Savior. She was redeemed by Jesus Christ just as
we are, except that Mary’s redemption was unique: it was a proactive redemption. The fruit of Christ’s redemption was applied to preserve Mary from sin, as it is applied to us to remove sins contracted.
 
I think it’s good to recall that at creation, Adam and Eve would have been in a state of sinlessness, as they hadn’t committed the sin yet. That demonstrates the possibility that Mary was conceived without original sin.

I’ve heard that St. Thomas Acquinas did not subscribe to the immaculate conception of Mary. Nowadays, the IC is a matter of dogma, and we must accept it.

Having stated the dogma of the IC of Mary, I don’t know the relevence of it. It’s great for her, but, then what?

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that like Adam and Eve, she is confronted with an action, and, in her case, it would be a sin NOT to take the action, I suppose. She obeys God, and the rest is history.

I think the dogmas of Mary were devised to accentuate the division between Catholics and others, and to accentuate the authority of the Pope. They were put forward at a time when the Church was still smarting from the Reformation. But, I am open to correction on the point.

The acrimony between Catholics and Protestants is very much alive and I note many of each try to accentuate the differences in a very unChristlike manner.
 
The above answers give great reasons for All not meaning every single person. On another level, and for me a gut level emotional one, I would say this:

God hates all sin. How intolerable would it have been for our Lord to be housed even for 9 months in a vessal that was sinful? It is inconceivable to me. Mary was sinless not to be anything special for herself, but because she was the New “Ark” that had to house the Word.
 
40.png
callbr549:
After years of study I’m ready to become Catholic. My protestant wife is maybe almost ready, at least close enough to go the pre-RCIA meeting at the neighborhood church last night. During the discussion something came up about what Immaculate Conception meant and that Mary was without sin.

My wife’s biggest stumbling block now is Rom 3:23 “For all of have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, plus several other references in Romans to the sinfulness of everyone. “How can you say Mary is without sin”, she asks.

I don’t know a good, simple way to answer her. Can anyone here help?
Click to expand...
The dogma has developed from evidence in the Catacombs and the writings of thr Early Church Fathers. Nothing we know about Jesus comes to us that has not gone through their hands - there is absolutely no way around this one.Therefor your wife accepts the Canon in which they listed the table of contents why not this dogma?

**Comparison between “Eve”, while yet immaculate and incorrupt that is to say, not subject to original sin ,and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:

“Justin” (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100),
“Irenaeus” (Contra Haereses, III, xxii, 4),
“Tertullian” (De carne Christi, xvii),
“Julius Firm cus Maternus” (De errore profan. relig xxvi),
“Cyril of Jerusalem” (Catecheses, xii, 29),
“Epiphanius” (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),
“Theodotus of Ancyra” (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
“Sedulius” (Carmen paschale, II, 28).

There are many Patristic writings on Mary’s purity.

He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption."
Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one."
Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94

Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii

Theodotus of Ancyra" terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God (“Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.”).

In refuting Pelagius “St. Augustine” declares that all the just have truly known of sin “except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned” (De naturâ et gratiâ 36).

when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, “Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.”, ii).

To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate (“Carmina Nisibena”). **]
 
40.png
BayCityRickL:
I’ve heard that St. Thomas Acquinas did not subscribe to the immaculate conception of Mary. Nowadays, the IC is a matter of dogma, and we must accept it.

Having stated the dogma of the IC of Mary, I don’t know the relevence of it. It’s great for her, but, then what?

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that like Adam and Eve, she is confronted with an action, and, in her case, it would be a sin NOT to take the action, I suppose. She obeys God, and the rest is history.

I think the dogmas of Mary were devised to accentuate the division between Catholics and others, and to accentuate the authority of the Pope. They were put forward at a time when the Church was still smarting from the Reformation. But, I am open to correction on the point.

The acrimony between Catholics and Protestants is very much alive and I note many of each try to accentuate the differences in a very unChristlike manner.
Click to expand...
Note please that I’m Reformed, but I feel welcome to respond to your comments, mainly because you said you’re open to correction.

First, concerning Thomas Aquinas:
He did not follow the now understood concept of the soul being infused into the body at the point of inception. I’ll be brief, but basically he followed an Aristotlean concept that led him to say that at conception, the body was formed, but the soul went through 3 stages of development ( vegetative, animal, and finally, the immortal human soul). Then the immortal human soul was infused into the embryo, then you have a complete person. He did teach that Mary’s was born free of original sin, but his Aristotelean view did not lend him to say that she was free of original sin at the point of conception. So, bottom line, Aquinas did not argue against the Immaculate Conception, he just understood infusion of the soul into the body (animation) in a different way than we understand it now. (Source - Trigilio and Brighenti’s “Catholicism for Dummies”).

Secondly, concerning the pertinance or practicality of this belief, hmmm. If it’s Sacred Tradition handed down for centuries, found in the writings of Church Fathers, taught to the faithful, expressed in Church Councils, expounded in Papal Letters and Encyclicals, then I think it would be important to understand. At least, if I were Catholic, I’d think the subject of what many people say were the only 2 times the Pope has ever spoken in an ultimately “ex cathedra” way, then it must be pretty important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top