(Romans 3:23) - "for all have sinned vs. Luke 1:28 (Kecharitomene)

  • Thread starter Thread starter adolfo123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

adolfo123

Guest
So what is the harmony been this two ? I really want so when i am questioned about i can answer with a good biblical responds. thanks…

Also…
What are all the verses used for Mary being sinless in the bible…
 
What are all the verses used for Mary being sinless in the bible…
There aren’t any explicit verses (I think). But ‘full of grace’ implies sinlessness ie, you can’t be full of grace and a sinner at the same time.
 
So what is the harmony been this two ? I really want so when i am questioned about i can answer with a good biblical responds. thanks…

Also…
What are all the verses used for Mary being sinless in the bible…
I think all have sinned in a generic sense…Mary can be without sin and this verse can still be true. It’s like Rom 5:18…“there resulted justification of life to all men”. We know right off that all people aren’t justified. This is idiomatic…Paul was just paralleling the condemnation of all men in the first half of Rom 5:18. So I wouldn’t press “all have sinned” to the extreme.

God bless you,
-BHM
 
So what is the harmony been this two ? I really want so when i am questioned about i can answer with a good biblical responds. thanks…

Also…
What are all the verses used for Mary being sinless in the bible…
For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)

Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares,** “**for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: **“**As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.
 
Why does anyone care if Mary sinned or not. Christ is the one who atoned for us.
 
Why does anyone care if Mary sinned or not. Christ is the one who atoned for us.
Then ask your Christian brothers (and sisters) why this Catholic teaching sticks in their craws so much.

If its not important, why criticize it so vehemently at times?

But, to answer your questions, Catholics feel that the vessel that Christ was incarnated in should be as spotless and as pure as possible. Nothing less would do, just as nothing less would do in the making of the original Ark of the Covenant.
 
Notworthy is right! God hates sin, so why would he choose to take on flesh where sin is? He dwelled in Mary’s womb for nine months and God can NOT dwell where sin is. This is just common sense. Protestants often quote Luke 1:47 to say that if Mary were sinless, she wouldn’t need a savior. Does this hold much water? NOPE, because it is not outside of God’s realm to have saved her before she was born from sin. Reference Genesis 3:15 because the woman God is talking about is Mary in this passage.
 
I would like to thank all that have replied to this thread. I wish more would; I am in the middle of a discussion with someone and i knew all this (stuff) but forgot where to find supporting data (bible passages etc).

But, here is a challenge:

“kecharitomene”: I am told to interpret it as “full of grace” is “excessive” and “most greek scholars” would never intrepret it as “full of grace” nor go to the final conclusion that “kecharitomene” implies or infers “without sin.”

Assuming they are sincere, what is thier data; i.e., who are the linguistic scholars how many? and who are our linquistic scholars and how many?

Can someone out there provide us with an explanation of the vulgar “street” greek word “kecharitomene?” I understand (correct me, if I am wrong) that the greek in most of the bible is “street” language - the everyday man language. Can someone out there provide us with who are the scholars on each side, their reasonings, are there more “them” than “us?”
 
I would like to thank all that have replied to this thread. I wish more would; I am in the middle of a discussion with someone and i knew all this (stuff) but forgot where to find supporting data (bible passages etc).

But, here is a challenge:

“kecharitomene”: I am told to interpret it as “full of grace” is “excessive” and “most greek scholars” would never intrepret it as “full of grace” nor go to the final conclusion that “kecharitomene” implies or infers “without sin.”

Can someone out there provide us with an explanation of the vulgar “street” greek word “kecharitomene?” I understand (correct me, if I am wrong) that the greek in most of the bible is “street” language - the everyday man language. Can someone out there provide us with who are the scholars on each side, their reasonings, are there more “them” than “us?”
Here are a couple of articles that go into explaining the Greek “kecharitomene”:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm

geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/kecharitomene.html
 
Nita,

Thank you so much. This is great, but I need more. Like they sang in “Hair” “give me more, give me more, give me more”

Dona nobis pacem
 
sense we are talking about the kecharitomene : now going about the virgin birth of Christ can the prophecy in Gen 3:15 be viewed as a virgin birth prophecy sense it talks about the seed of the woman and not of the seed of man making this like the prophecy of Isaiah born of a young woman (a virgin) with no father or seed of a human father. Therefore talking about the Mother of Christ and not eve prophetically; the enmity between the both the child and the woman against Satan, would be christ and mary is mother… this total hate for satan(sin)???
 
Thank you Randy, this like the others, is absolutely excellent! ! I spent so much time studying the Catholic faith before I joined and I thought I had a solid grasp on matters like this. I can see I will alwasy be searching.

By the way, the Catechism says that if you love something you will always be studying it. I don’t know if I enjoy debating or learning about my Lord and His Church more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top