Romans 3:23

[campeador]

It always amazes me how Christians take some Bible verses literally and others figuratively and can discern for ourselves which is which.

John 6:55 comes to mind.

 

[CaptainPicard]

Roman 3:23 “For all have fell short of the Glory of God” NOW, I do believe Mary was Sinless, I know what Luke 1 says so you dont have to give me the whole run around about Luke 1. But, its kind of hard to work around Romans 3:23…cause its like…Contradicting itself o.0 Sort of…can you please help me with this. Protestants believe she was sinful, but Luke 1 says she isn’t, Catholics believe she was sinless, but Roman 3:23 says she isn’t. How would Catholics work around Romans 3:23 to make it coincide with there belief on Mary?

Hi JD,
This seems tricky at first, but it’s not too tough when you realize what St. Paul is intending to do. The fact is, St. Paul is setting down a general principle, not intending on making a statement that holds true in every extreme situation. If that was his intention he’d have to say, “all have sinned, EXCEPT Jesus and Mary, and children before the age of accountability (even though they have original sin, they’ve never sinned), and those with mental handicaps… etc.”

It’s similar in 1 Corinthians 15:22. St. Paul writes “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” He’s setting down a general principle. However, Enoch and Elijah did not die, but were taken up into heaven. Does that mean that St. Paul was wrong? No, it’s just that he doesn’t want to get bogged down with details that are meaningless to the discussion.

We all do similar things. Say there is a dance club I really like that I’m telling you about. I might say, “no matter who you go with, you’ll have a great time at that club”. Well, obviously you wont have fun going there with anybody under 21, because they couldn’t get in. Your elderly grandparents wouldn’t be able to dance or do anything and you would have to constantly make sure they were ok. My point is that it is a fun place to dance and you’ll have fun there; I’m not making some dogmatic statement.

Anyway, scripture is tricky for many reasons. It can often be difficult to tell what the author meant to convey and what he didn’t.

 

[Jim_Roberts]

Have infants sinned who don’t know the difference between right and wrong? By definition they couldn’t have because they have to do it intentionally with knowledge of right and wrong. So Paul couldn’t have meant all as in all people, because not all people can sin.

Note: I don’t use Jesus as an example because he is God; how can God fall short of himself?

---

The justice of God is his mercy whereby he declares guility man innocent and makes him so, He does this not as a result of the law, but through forgiveness of his sins in virture of the redemption wrought in Christ Jesus for all who believe. No man can boast of his own holiness, since it is God’s free gift both to the Jews who practices circumcision out of faith
out of faith without the OT religious culture symbolized by the circumcision.

 

[Hail_Linus]

Really? Even though Paul’s words were theopneustos, Gabriel’s words have more weight? You might want to rethink that.

There is a big difference between God’s actual words and words that are divinely inspired. I think you do not understand that when an Angel speaks it is really God speaking directly through him. What else can I say if you do not understand that?

Actually, a much easier resolution would come by rightly realizing that the late development of the immaculate conception has no Biblical basis. Only when this is done can the Scriptures remain in harmony. In the meantime, we get these incredibly creative gymnastics that attempt to maneuver around the obvious: Mary was a sinner. I guess I’m not flexible enough for Catholicism:shrug:

Tell me, how is it that Mary was full of grace prior to Jesus being placed in her womb? Obviously she was born that way (Immaculate Conception).

What seems like creative gymnastics to you is clear to me. I did not learn this from the Church, it is just obvious.

Go ahead, spend your time calling Mary a sinner (which is not in the bible). I’ll continue to called her blessed ( as it says explicitly in the Bible.)

 

[Rogare]

There is a big difference between God’s actual words and words that are divinely inspired. I think you do not understand that when an Angel speaks it is really God speaking directly through him. What else can I say if you do not understand that?

Paul’s words were God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) and inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). I think you do not understand that when Paul speaks it is really God speaking directly through him.

Tell me, how is it that Mary was full of grace prior to Jesus being placed in her womb? Obviously she was born that way (Immaculate Conception).

Please point to me in the Bible where it says Mary was full of grace. Thanks.

What seems like creative gymnastics to you is clear to me. I did not learn this from the Church, it is just obvious.

I would encourage you to listen to the clip of Jimmy Akin I linked in my first post. Even He admits that this is not a plain conclusion that can be reached from the Bible alone. Somehow I doubt you’re an apologist of Akin’s caliber.

Go ahead, spend your time calling Mary a sinner (which is not in the bible).

Yes, it is.

I’ll continue to called her blessed ( as it says explicitly in the Bible.)

One can still be blessed and be a sinner. I would turn your attention to Ephesians 1:6. If you cannot understand this, what more can I say to you?

 

[Rogare]

Hello,
Rogare

Ah, Sola Scriptura. The weight is on you to show us in Sacred Scripture that Sacred Scripture is the only necessary tool of teachings. In the meantime observe that Sacred Scripture tells us the church is the pillar of truth.

The church has deemed Immaculate Conception as truth. Read:

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm

What’s even more funny then anything is that this rebellion against Blessed Mary has only begun recently. I think the early protestants would rush to Blessed Mary’s defense against this new heresy faster then the Church. I guess the rampant male chauvinism of today isn’t flexible to accept a woman as the perfect Christian and creature ever created.

Three things are certain in life: death, taxes, and Catholics attacking sola scriptura out of nowhere. This is a thread about Bible verses that seem to contradict the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Nobody is advocating sola scriptura, we are simply discussing the Bible verses at hand. Please take your red herring elsewhere.

 

[TimothyH]

Could you please quote the exact verse that you are referring to? I don’t read anything like that in Psalm 14.

Some Bibles number the Psalms differently.

1: For the leader. Of David. Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is right.
2: The LORD looks down from heaven upon the human race, To see if even one is wise, if even one seeks God.
**3: ****All have gone astray; all alike are perverse. Not one does what is right, not even one. **
**4: **Will these evildoers never learn? They devour my people as they devour bread; they do not call upon the LORD.
5: They have good reason, then, to fear; God is with the company of the just.
6: They would crush the hopes of the poor, but the poor have the LORD as their refuge.
7: Oh, that from Zion might come the deliverance of Israel, That Jacob may rejoice, and Israel be glad when the LORD restores his people!

The Psalm speaks of “Fools” of which all have sinned and “The Company of the just.” While Paul’s words are not an exact match, if you look at Romans 3:9 (As it is written…) and subsequent verses, there is a profound similarity and some believe he was quoting various themes from the Psalms including Psalm 14.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I see a few problems with the “defenses” of the Marian dogmas here.

First of all, there are explicit statements about the sinless life of Christ- 2 Cor. 5:21 to name just one. There is no such thing regarding Mary. Instead, all we get is a violent treatment of Luke 1:28 that demonstrates the level of Greek proficiency that I would be capable of (which is none). Jimmy Akin himself stated on Catholic Answers live that the immaculate conception has to be read into the text. It is not explicit whatsoever.

So what? The doctrine of the Trinity has to be read into the text and no one complains about that. Just because the Bible doesn’t say “There are three persons and they are one God - the Trinity” doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Just because the Bible doesn’t say “Mary was without sin” doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

there are plenty of things which are not explicit in the Bible and no one questions it. There are also many things which are taken as explicit but were spoken to specific audiences in specific situations and were not meant to be understood as applying directly to us, yet they are not questioned either.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

If you cannot understand this, what more can I say to you?

Why do you feel the need to lecture? We are educated adults and understand exactly what you are saying. We just disagree with your intpereation of it. We are not misunderstanding you. We are disagreeing with the conclusions you draw based on what you read.

Three things are certain in life: death, taxes, and Catholics attacking sola scriptura out of nowhere. This is a thread about Bible verses that seem to contradict the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Nobody is advocating sola scriptura, we are simply discussing the Bible verses at hand. Please take your red herring elsewhere.

Far from a red herring, it is germain to the discussion insofar as anyone insists that anything not explicit in the pages of scripture cannot be any part of Christianity belief. That is patently false based on what scripture itself says.

-Tim-

 

[Miriam1947]

Roman 3:23 “For all have fell short of the Glory of God” NOW, I do believe Mary was Sinless, I know what Luke 1 says so you dont have to give me the whole run around about Luke 1. But, its kind of hard to work around Romans 3:23…cause its like…Contradicting itself o.0 Sort of…can you please help me with this. Protestants believe she was sinful, but Luke 1 says she isn’t, Catholics believe she was sinless, but Roman 3:23 says she isn’t. How would Catholics work around Romans 3:23 to make it coincide with there belief on Mary?

This is a very good explanation of Mary:

youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

 

[Hail_Linus]

Paul’s words were God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) and inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). I think you do not understand that when Paul speaks it is really God speaking directly through him.

Again God-Breathed is not the same as God speaking directly to Mary.

Please point to me in the Bible where it says Mary was full of grace. Thanks.

In Luke 1:28 Where Gabriel says “Hail, Full of Grace.” Not only is she full of Grace, she is greeted with the salutation of Hail, a salutation used for royalty.

I would encourage you to listen to the clip of Jimmy Akin I linked in my first post. Even He admits that this is not a plain conclusion that can be reached from the Bible alone. Somehow I doubt you’re an apologist of Akin’s caliber.

It is only a plain conclusion for some one with advanced hermeneutic skills. I am a professional reader. For the person with average reading skills it would not be obvious.

One can still be blessed and be a sinner. I would turn your attention to Ephesians 1:6. If you cannot understand this, what more can I say to you?

Keep calling her a sinner. I am not your Judge. I have nearly two thousand years of Christian teaching to back me. You have at most 500 years.

 

[adrift]

In Luke 1:28 Where Gabriel says “Hail, Full of Grace.” Not only is she full of Grace, she is greeted with the salutation of Hail, a salutation used for royalty.

He knew full well what you referring to. In some translations this verse is Hail most favored one. It is in mho a flawed translation. In other places the same Greek word is translated as grace.

 

[Rogare]

Some Bibles number the Psalms differently.

1: For the leader. Of David. Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” Their deeds are loathsome and corrupt; not one does what is right.
2: The LORD looks down from heaven upon the human race, To see if even one is wise, if even one seeks God.
**3: **All have gone astray; all alike are perverse. Not one does what is right, not even one.
**4: **Will these evildoers never learn? They devour my people as they devour bread; they do not call upon the LORD.
5: They have good reason, then, to fear; God is with the company of the just.
6: They would crush the hopes of the poor, but the poor have the LORD as their refuge.
7: Oh, that from Zion might come the deliverance of Israel, That Jacob may rejoice, and Israel be glad when the LORD restores his people!

The Psalm speaks of “Fools” of which all have sinned and “The Company of the just.” While Paul’s words are not an exact match, if you look at Romans 3:9 (As it is written…) and subsequent verses, there is a profound similarity and some believe he was quoting various themes from the Psalms including Psalm 14.

-Tim-

Unfortunately, God’s people are still sinners:

you are to give him the name Jesus, because** he will save his people from their sins.** (Matthew 1:21)

I could be wrong, but it seems as if you’ve gone from saying that not only was Mary without sin but there are a whole group of people without sin. If I’ve said too much, feel free to correct me.

 

[Rogare]

In Luke 1:28 Where Gabriel says “Hail, Full of Grace.” Not only is she full of Grace, she is greeted with the salutation of Hail, a salutation used for royalty.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Not only is your conclusion based on one single verse, but it is based on a terrible mistranslation by Jerome. There are only two times in the entire Bible where the words “full of grace” are used:

“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14).
“And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people,” (Acts 6:8).

This is the Greek plaras karitos. It is never applied to Mary! Instead, we have a different word. It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean “full of grace” which is “plaras karitos” (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.

I suggest you be more careful with your translations.

It is only a plain conclusion for some one with advanced hermeneutic skills. I am a professional reader. For the person with average reading skills it would not be obvious.

So you esteem yourself higher than Jimmy Akin? Interesting. You should give him a call and correct him! In the meantime, apply your professional reading skills to the original languages.

 

[Hail_Linus]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Not only is your conclusion based on one single verse, but it is based on a terrible mistranslation by Jerome. There are only two times in the entire Bible where the words “full of grace” are used:

“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,” (John 1:14).
“And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people,” (Acts 6:8).

This is the Greek plaras karitos. It is never applied to Mary! Instead, we have a different word. It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean “full of grace” which is “plaras karitos” (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.

I suggest you be more careful with your translations.

Yes I read the Greek too. However, do you really think a person in the 21st century really understands 1st century Greek as well as a translator from the 4th century. Furthermore, as a person that often translates modern documents I can tell you from experience that a word for word translation is often inferior to a translation that conveys the actual meaning of the writer. So while you are absolutely correct in your word for word translation, Jerome who had no motive to lie felt that he correctly interpreted the spirit of the writer and that a word for word translation would be insuffient.

So you esteem yourself higher than Jimmy Akin? Interesting. You should give him a call and correct him! In the meantime, apply your professional reading skills to the original languages.

I do not hold myself in higher esteem than anybody, not even you. But I don’t hold myself in lower esteem either. And I am not exactly disagree with Jimmy Akin, for I agree a Protestant who has been raised to think a certain way about Mary will not be convinced by the text alone.

 

[PJM]

=JD27076;8162458]Umm. If Jesus had to be born from a sinless being, then Mary had to be born from a sinless being, then their parents, then theirs, then theirs, etc the way up to Adam, and we all know Adam sinned.

***VERY ASSTUTE assumption::***thumbsup:

Genesis 4:1 The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. ‘I have acquired a man with the help of Yahweh,’ she said.

Birth is Controlled by God

John.1 Verses 12 to 14: “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. “

AGAPE BIBLE STUDY:** www.agapebiblestudy.com **

Question: How many Old Testament women can you recall who were barren but later, by the will of God, gave birth to men who had an important impact on salvation history? Name the women and their sons

Answer:
Sarah was barren prior to the birth of Isaac (Gen 11:30; 21:1-3).
Rebekah was barren prior to the birth of Jacob/Israel (Gen 25:21-26).
Rachel was barren prior to the birth of Joseph (Gen 29:31; 30:22-23).
Manoah’s wife was barren prior to the birth of the Judge Samson (Judg 13:1-7, 24).
Hannah was barren prior to the birth of the Prophet Samuel (1 Sam 1:1-5, 19-21).

***Mary’s Parents too were baron way into there advanced years. God interceded here but in an even more spectacualr manner. He permiited [caused] Mary to be born without sin. NOT interfering with her FREEWILL, but as an “All-Knowing” and “All-Powerful” God. … Points I assume we agreee on?

Because God is and MUST REMAIN PERFECT in order to Be God" there was no real option here but a sinless birth for MARY [even from a sinful mother and father]. Consider WHERE DOES ORIGINAL SIN COME FROM? IS IT NOR GOD HIMSELF AND COULD GOD THEREFORE TO ACCOMIDATE HIS PLAN FOR THE INCARNATION, NOT CHOOSE TO DO THIS?***

ANYONE trying to apply human logic [the smarter one is the more difficult this becomes] to Divine Mysteries and Miracles is bound to NOT UNDERSTAND God’s Will presicely becasue One is NOT seeking God’s Will ; But Humand understanding.

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[Kay_Cee]

Umm. If Jesus had to be born from a sinless being, then Mary had to be born from a sinless being, then their parents, then theirs, then theirs, etc the way up to Adam, and we all know Adam sinned.

The Catholic Church does not teach that Jesus had to be born from a sinless being.

It teaches that being born from a sinless being was fitting, not that it was necessary.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Paul’s words were God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) and inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). I think you do not understand that when Paul speaks it is really God speaking directly through him.

Sort of. Gabriels message to Mary was literally the direct word of God, while Pauls come through a filter. Inspired, but filtered. That being said, what was said to Mary by Gabriel has been filtered twice, once in Mary’s telling of the event and once by the evangelist Luke (Luke 1:28). So you are both correct, but the emphasis placed by both is where you diverge.

Please point to me in the Bible where it says Mary was full of grace. Thanks.

Luke 1:28 “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”

Full of Grace is sometimes translated as “Highly favored” or “Highly Favored Daughter” and is the greek word Kecharitomene. Neither translation is wrong and in the Greek there is no real difference between the two (obviously, since it is the same word). A thorough study, even by Protestant scholars (which I cannot recall at the moment due to lack of sleep), will show this.

One important thing to note about this word is that it takes the authority of a name or title, thus Gabriel, a messenger of God, is giving Mary the title “highly favored daughter” or “full of grace”.

The second thing to note is that the word grammatically represents a past, present, and future state. A perfect state which has always been. You may read into that as you will, since it is not explicit I will not hold you to our Catholic interpretation (even though I obviously hold it as true).

I would encourage you to listen to the clip of Jimmy Akin I linked in my first post. Even He admits that this is not a plain conclusion that can be reached from the Bible alone. Somehow I doubt you’re an apologist of Akin’s caliber.

Not many people are. However, if you listen to/read more of Jimmy Akin’s apologetics you will see that he is not making the argument that since it is not explicit it should not be held as true. Just as is often stated, the trinity is not explicit and must be “read into” (I prefer to say extrapolated from) the text. The text insinuates but does not state so I can completely understand your stance.

Yes, it is.

As has been shown, no it does not. “all” is not always meant to mean all, I would go so far as to argue that it is only infrequently meant to refer to all. Heck, just read Luke 1:6 “And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame” in reference to Zachary and Elizabeth. They were both just, followed all the commandments, and were blameless before the Lord. Sounds sinless to me. But what do I know?

One can still be blessed and be a sinner. I would turn your attention to Ephesians 1:6. If you cannot understand this, what more can I say to you?

ABSOLUTELY!!! If you ever doubt that someone can be a sinner and be blessed by God, just look at me

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

The Catholic Church does not teach that Jesus had to be born from a sinless being.

It teaches that being born from a sinless being was fitting, not that it was necessary.

Oh yeah… and this ^

 

[Rogare]

I found this in the Faith Database:

Who is the “we”? The Christian community he is addressing and himself. It isn’t about Mary. To bring Mary into it would have been a distraction to the rule he was trying to show. He didn’t mentioned babies either. When you teach children you don’t tell them the exceptions to a rule. You teach them the rule. That is what John was doing. Teaching them the rule not the exceptions.

As has been shown, no it does not. “all” is not always meant to mean all, I would go so far as to argue that it is only infrequently meant to refer to all.

THE FOLLOWING IS OFF TOPIC:

I realize this is completely off topic, but with all these frank admissions that all doesn’t always mean all, how would you respond to an argument for limited atonement that relies on the same premise? I believe in limited atonement, so it isn’t at all an issue for me, but it seems as if you’ve pulled the ground out from underneath yourselves using this type of argumentation.