Romans 3:23

[Rogare]

Hi EVERYONE

THIS IS A CHRISTIAN SITE; HOW ABOUT CHRIST RULE OF CHARITY:thumbsup:

Ever read how Jesus talked to the Pharisees? He didn’t always play nice, friend

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Ever read how Jesus talked to the Pharisees? He didn’t always play nice, friend

I hope you are being sarcastic.

 

[Rogare]

I hope you are being sarcastic.

Well, the emoticons would (hopefully) indicate that I was speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, if you really haven’t read the New Testament, Jesus was quite harsh with the scribes and Pharisees.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Well, the emoticons would (hopefully) indicate that I was speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, if you really haven’t read the New Testament, Jesus was quite harsh with the scribes and Pharisees.

He was only harsh in the temple. I guess you could try to make him sound harsh in other occasions, but IMHO, I don’t think he was being too harsh. Sorry about worrying you there with the response, but sometimes it’s hard to tell even with the smilies

 

[ddarko]

I think this is a good question. Anyone care to answer it?

I like this subforum because it is a good way for Catholics to learn and practice how to defend the faith.

First thing to ask here is why is St.Paul writing to the Romans. He is writing at a time where Converted Jews are claiming that they are better than Gentiles because they have the Old Covenant and the Gentiles are claiming they are better than converted Jews because God has chosen them now.

So St.Paul here writes to make it clear to them that they are all equal in the eyes of God. If we look at the full text

“For there is no distinction, 23since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God;”

does not speak about exceptions. In fact, St. Paul is not even dealing with the issue of whether a particular individual may be without sin. He is talking about there being NO DISTINCTION between nations. If we read entire Romans, this is very clear. Just to give an example, read the lines that lead to this verse. St. Paul says the following:-

“9 What then? Are we any better off?* No, not at all; for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, 10 as it is written:…”

and we know he is still talking business about the Jews and Gentiles going at each other for even after the verse in question here, he says the following:-

“29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”

Therefore it should be clear that St. Paul is not talking about individuals here but nations.

But let us, for the sake of intellectual curiosity, entertain the possibility that he might be speaking about individuals.

BUT, to use St. Paul’s words as making no exceptions is problematic beyond the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary. For then, St. Paul would be claiming that “all have sinned” but we know children below the age of reason cannot sin. Even if we say maybe that doctrine is false. What about the case of an infant? Surely, infants don’t sin so therefore have not sinned. Thus, St. Paul would actually be in error if we take it in the sense of making no exceptions to individuals.

Then there is also the problem of how this claim applies in this sense to Jesus. He was born man and yet he had not sinned. So St. Paul’s claim taken this way is more than a little problematic. Jesus’s being free of sin is also on the line.

Therefore, taking St. Paul as claiming there are no individual exceptions cannot be accepted. For to accept such a meaning implies Jesus had sinned, Infants can sin etc or that St. Paul made a mistake which are all absurd conclusions themselves.

So in short, the correct interpretation is that St. Paul is addressing two peoples, the Jewish converts and the Gentiles that converted here. He is making the claim that neither people can say their group is free from sinners. St. Paul is not talking about exceptions here because we KNOW there are exceptions i.e. Jesus, Infants, Blessed Virgin Mother.

Hope that helps.

God Bless

 

[TrueLight]

but we know children below the age of reason cannot sin. Even if we say maybe that doctrine is false. What about the case of an infant?

I don’t know. Some three month olds are quite manipulative in forcing their parents to pick them up.

But seriously, the part I thought was a good question was the below. It’s possible it might have been answered already. I didn’t read the whole thread.

Originally Posted by Rogare

Now, let me pose a question. Who took care of Mary after the death of Christ? John. Is it not odd that John, the current caretaker of Mary, failed to mention that Mary was sinless? I mean, who would have been in a better position to know the sinlessness of Mary than the apostle John? Instead, he makes it quite clear that none are without sin.

 

[ddarko]

TrueLight:
Hahaha, well I mean, is it a sin?

Would it be a sin to ask “nicely” from someone to do something?

In any case, children are really not in a position to know right from wrong through reason. Hence they cannot sin can they? Or do you want to say reason is irrelevant?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

But seriously, the part I thought was a good question was the below. It’s possible it might have been answered already. I didn’t read the whole thread.

Are you referring to 1 John 1:8? Because the same reasoning applies to interpreting that verse.

Now if you are concerned of the absence in John, I really see no reason why John has to write about Mary being sinless. As far as we know St. Luke had contact with Mary and he has done a fairly good job of conveying the message. So I am not sure why it matters that John didn’t say.

God Bless

 

[Juliebug108]

Hi EVERYONE

THIS IS A CHRISTIAN SITE; HOW ABOUT CHRIST RULE OF CHARITY:thumbsup:

 

[TrueLight]

Are you referring to 1 John 1:8? Because the same reasoning applies to interpreting that verse.

Now if you are concerned of the absence in John, I really see no reason why John has to write about Mary being sinless. As far as we know St. Luke had contact with Mary and he has done a fairly good job of conveying the message. So I am not sure why it matters that John didn’t say.

God Bless

Because it would have been a natural place to honor our Lady. In general John was very poetic and was given a great understanding of Jesus and his relationship to God the Father. Look at the first chapter of one.

It’s odd that he would not have also written about BVM, considering that Jesus left her in his care.

So I think Rogare has a good point.

 

[ddarko]

Because it would have been a natural place to honor our Lady. In general John was very poetic and was given a great understanding of Jesus and his relationship to God the Father. Look at the first chapter of one.

It’s odd that he would not have also written about BVM, considering that Jesus left her in his care.

So I think Rogare has a good point.

Well I am not sure he does due to the following reasons

1. That Mary remained sinless is clear in Tradition
2. Luke’s gospel was likely written prior to 62 AD prior to John’s gospel date (earliest estimates at 80 AD). So one can easily argue as to why should John make a doctrine already made clear by Luke
   (
   St. Thomas who was unaware of the Immaculate Conception Dogma, still manages to show why Mary must have remained sinless using Luke alone

ewtn.com/library/mary/sttomhmy.htm
)

1. John simply did not write about it because it was known and accepted among the early Church at the time of writing.

The point is, there could be any number of reasons. But the main misunderstanding here is that Rogare does not understand the importance of the passages on Luke. So he thinks that they do not say enough. To the contrary, that pretty much says everything we need to conclude that the Blessed Virgin Mary was sinless in her earthly life and also justifies the immaculate conception.

There is another basic error that Rogare is falling in to, perhaps due to the religious affiliation. One cannot interpret Scripture alone. One interprets Scripture and Tradition together as a whole. Thus, since we know from Tradition that Mary remained sinless, and also from Luke, to talk about absence of mention in John as any reason to doubt it is a very weak argument.

Now even more ironic is the fact that John does indeed cover an aspect of Mary that is perhaps not so clearly elaborated in Luke. He is the only apostles that describes Christ entrusting to Mary the role of spiritual mother of the entire human race at the foot of the cross.

So considering the above, I don’t think absence of Mary being sinless in Gospel of John gives any strong reason to doubt a truth that is confirmed in Tradition and Gospel of Luke.

Just to highlight the problem of postulating doctrine by absence, Gospel of John does not mention the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now since John had such a close relationship with Jesus, how could he not include this important event? Are we to consider it a sign that the Ascension did not happen? I think not.

So I think it is rather weak line or argumentation to argue from absence of evidence in one Gospel over things that are otherwise mentioned/supported in other Gospels and Tradition.

God Bless

 

[adrift]

I don’t know. Some three month olds are quite manipulative in forcing their parents to pick them up.

But seriously, the part I thought was a good question was the below. It’s possible it might have been answered already. I didn’t read the whole thread.

I answered in post 19 however ddarko was a superior answer.

 

[TrueLight]

Well I am not sure he does due to the following reasons

1. That Mary remained sinless is clear in Tradition

Well eventually, it all comes down to Tradition.

1. Luke’s gospel was likely written prior to 62 AD prior to John’s gospel date (earliest estimates at 80 AD). So one can easily argue as to why should John make a doctrine already made clear by Luke

Clear how? Hail Mary full of grace doesn’t automatically translate into the immaculate conception. It can mean God has blessed her immensely and chose HER to be the mother of his son. That doesn’t mean Mary is sinless.

Now even more ironic is the fact that John does indeed cover an aspect of Mary that is perhaps not so clearly elaborated in Luke. He is the only apostles that describes Christ entrusting to Mary the role of spiritual mother of the entire human race at the foot of the cross.

That is not so clear. Mary as the spiritual mother based on that verse is interpretation. The literal meaning can just be “Now I wont’ be with you anymore, but my most loved mother, I leave you in the care of the disciple I love the most and vice versa.”

1 Corinthians 1:
27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

God can choose people who are not worthy to perform his miracles. If he wanted, he could have used a normal woman who sins and sanctified her womb for his son. God can do anything and make it all work out.

I do believe in the immaculate conception because the Church says it is so. And if I’m going to quote new testament scripture, which the Church tells me is inspired, then I’m going to have to accept that the Church also defined the immaculate conception.

Yes, I’ve come a long way.

But I’m just saying in debating with a Protestant, the verses in Luke and John are not by any means conclusive.

ewtn.com/library/mary/sttomhmy.htm

Good link that shows the belief of the early church fathers.

 

[Rogare]

Well eventually, it all comes down to Tradition.

Clear how? Hail Mary full of grace doesn’t automatically translate into the immaculate conception. It can mean God has blessed her immensely and chose HER to be the mother of his son. That doesn’t mean Mary is sinless.

That is not so clear. Mary as the spiritual mother based on that verse is interpretation. The literal meaning can just be “Now I wont’ be with you anymore, but my most loved mother, I leave you in the care of the disciple I love the most and vice versa.”

God can choose people who are not worthy to perform his miracles. If he wanted, he could have used a normal woman who sins and sanctified her womb for his son. God can do anything and make it all work out.

I do believe in the immaculate conception because the Church says it is so. And if I’m going to quote new testament scripture, which the Church tells me is inspired, then I’m going to have to accept that the Church also defined the immaculate conception.

Yes, I’ve come a long way.

But I’m just saying in debating with a Protestant, the verses in Luke and John are not by any means conclusive.

Good link that shows the belief of the early church fathers.

Excellent response!

The honest Catholic must admit that without Sacred Tradition there is no conclusive evidence for the immaculate conception. Period. Now, this doesn’t pose an issue for Catholics; but since we are talking about Biblical evidence, it is nonexistent.

Secondly, the whole infant exception doesn’t matter here. Specifically, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was born free from original sin. Obviously a Christian community at Rome would be aware of the sinlessness of Jesus. I don’t understand why you think Paul would have to remind a group of Christians that Jesus was sinless.

An honest observer would think that with the enormity of Mary to the RCC there would be a little more than a mistranslated Luke 1:28 to build an entire Mariology off of. Not only that, but the sources for these Traditions are very late. A 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th century Christian would most likely be appalled by such a tradition.

 

[TrueLight]

Excellent response!

The honest Catholic must admit that without Sacred Tradition there is no conclusive evidence for the immaculate conception. Period. Now, this doesn’t pose an issue for Catholics; but since we are talking about Biblical evidence, it is nonexistent.

Secondly, the whole infant exception doesn’t matter here. Specifically, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was born free from original sin. Obviously a Christian community at Rome would be aware of the sinlessness of Jesus. I don’t understand why you think Paul would have to remind a group of Christians that Jesus was sinless.

An honest observer would think that with the enormity of Mary to the RCC there would be a little more than a mistranslated Luke 1:28 to build an entire Mariology off of. Not only that, but the sources for these Traditions are very late. A 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th century Christian would most likely be appalled by such a tradition.

Not that I want to bolster your arguments, but hey, we gotta keep it real.

The point is, Catholics have to get used to the kinds of points Protestants will bring up and be able to refute each and every one of them, if not from the Bible, then other sources. However, if one can refute using the Bible, which is highly respected by the Protestant - even better.

 

[CopticChristian]

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?

I credit Scott Hahn, bible study Romans, for this answer. This is taking a text out of context. If you look at the epistle it is a dialogue to Christians of 3 types. The Gentile, Jew, and Judaizing Christian. The Judaizing Christian similar to Galatians wants to impose circumcision and the Old Covenant on the Church of Rome. The begging of Chapter 3 starts out directing attention to that Judaizing Christian,…ie what advantage and then says there is no one righteous, Psalm XIV, and then prior to 3:23 read and discover that the Judaizer believes that they are free from sin, the Gentile is unclean all because of the Old Covenant and circumcision. Pauls point is that Jew and Gentile are under the power of sin and just because you are of the Old Covenant you are also prone to sin.

The notion that all have sinned does not state with the exception of Jesus and all unborn babies but that sort of dialogue does not explain what Paul is saying in context. The context is the audience of Jew and Gentile. The Jew is under the power of sin. The Gentile is under the power of sin. The Jew is not exempt. The all is the audience in this letter and in context is stating a principle concerning the Old Covenant and the Jew.

 

[Rogare]

I credit Scott Hahn, bible study Romans, for this answer. This is taking a text out of context. If you look at the epistle it is a dialogue to Christians of 3 types. The Gentile, Jew, and Judaizing Christian. The Judaizing Christian similar to Galatians wants to impose circumcision and the Old Covenant on the Church of Rome. The begging of Chapter 3 starts out directing attention to that Judaizing Christian,…ie what advantage and then says there is no one righteous, Psalm XIV, and then prior to 3:23 read and discover that the Judaizer believes that they are free from sin, the Gentile is unclean all because of the Old Covenant and circumcision. Pauls point is that Jew and Gentile are under the power of sin and just because you are of the Old Covenant you are also prone to sin.

The notion that all have sinned does not state with the exception of Jesus and all unborn babies but that sort of dialogue does not explain what Paul is saying in context. The context is the audience of Jew and Gentile. The Jew is under the power of sin. The Gentile is under the power of sin. The Jew is not exempt. The all is the audience in this letter and in context is stating a principle concerning the Old Covenant and the Jew.

So then everyone outside of the audience here is exempt from this generalization (aside from Christ, as I addressed in a previous post)?

Let me be even more specific: is it true or false that every person with a biological dad has a sin nature?

 

[ddarko]

Well eventually, it all comes down to Tradition.

Well it does have to come down to Tradition. If I interpreted the book of John, apart from any of the other gospels, I would be in error, right? I might even conclude that the Ascension did not happen. Like wise, Tradition is part of Scripture as much as Scripture is part of Tradition. So unless we interpret both together as a whole, we only have half the picture.

So we cannot interpret Scripture or Tradition by it-self BUT together.

Clear how? Hail Mary full of grace doesn’t automatically translate into the immaculate conception. It can mean God has blessed her immensely and chose HER to be the mother of his son. That doesn’t mean Mary is sinless.

Well, St. Thomas makes a good case as to why Mary must have been sinless by using the Angels words. It makes clear how Mary must be sinless.

Btw, one could ask the same question about whether Jesus was sinless? Where does it explicitly state in the Bible that he was sinless?

That is not so clear. Mary as the spiritual mother based on that verse is interpretation. The literal meaning can just be “Now I wont’ be with you anymore, but my most loved mother, I leave you in the care of the disciple I love the most and vice versa.”

Sure, of course. No one is denying that there are infinite possible interpretations. When I first said things like we have to reject proposition X because it leads to conclusions such as Jesus has sinned, this was assuming one was willing to agree that Jesus had not sinned. BUT, one can come up with a logically consistent interpretation which does include the fact that Jesus had sinned.

The point was never to say that Protestants interpretation is logically inconsistent. It can only be show that it is perhaps less likely given one accepts some true teaching X and Y etc. But it is more than likely that one can simply discard those problematic truths X and Y. For one can as a protestant is not bound to keep any doctrine absolutely other than what one has interpreted.

So the point of the reply was to show why the Catholic interpretation is also a valid interpretation.

We do not accept the Catholic interpretation because it is the only possible interpretation BUT because it is what is taught by the Church.

God can choose people who are not worthy to perform his miracles. If he wanted, he could have used a normal woman who sins and sanctified her womb for his son. God can do anything and make it all work out.

But I don’t think anyone disagrees here. What you say is entirely correct. The point of the Aquinas argument is that it would be inappropriate for the Angelic being to refer to Mary in such a way if God had not given her these qualities.

I do believe in the immaculate conception because the Church says it is so. And if I’m going to quote new testament scripture, which the Church tells me is inspired, then I’m going to have to accept that the Church also defined the immaculate conception.

Yes, I’ve come a long way.

But I’m just saying in debating with a Protestant, the verses in Luke and John are not by any means conclusive.

Excellent!

Actually my reply was never intended to convince a protestant that the Catholic doctrine is true.

As I said before, the defense of the doctrine can only show that it is a logically consistent interpretation that rests well with other Catholic dogma and doctrine.

But to make the protestant accept the doctrine and dogma, you have to explain to him why they must believe in the Church and give full assent to it.

God Bless

 

[Rogare]

Btw, one could ask the same question about whether Jesus was sinless? Where does it explicitly state in the Bible that he was sinless?

Well, since you asked:

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens (Hebrews 7:26)

He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. (1 Peter 2:22)

You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. (1 John 3:5)

Got anything similar for Mary?

 

[ddarko]

Excellent response!

The honest Catholic must admit that without Sacred Tradition there is no conclusive evidence for the immaculate conception. Period. Now, this doesn’t pose an issue for Catholics; but since we are talking about Biblical evidence, it is nonexistent.

What are you talking about?

Did you take the time to read what St. Thomas Aquinas writes about in that link?

Secondly, the whole infant exception doesn’t matter here. Specifically, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was born free from original sin. Obviously a Christian community at Rome would be aware of the sinlessness of Jesus. I don’t understand why you think Paul would have to remind a group of Christians that Jesus was sinless.

How can the Christian community of Rome be aware of the sinless nature of Jesus? For all you know, Jesus could have privately sinned.

This is why your initial point was so shaky. You claimed John should claim that Mary was sinless. But John living with her does not entitle him to make such a judgement. How can John know the heart of Mary or Jesus?

So in the end, who writes about Mary or Jesus being sinless is irrelevant. If Luke did it, so be it.

An honest observer would think that with the enormity of Mary to the RCC there would be a little more than a mistranslated Luke 1:28 to build an entire Mariology off of.

Well I mean if you reason in terms of quantity of reference, you have big problems here.

Nowhere does the Bible explicitly talk about the Holy Trinity for an example. Do you think its also bogus?

Not only that, but the sources for these Traditions are very late. A 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th century Christian would most likely be appalled by such a tradition.

Actually, you need to get your facts straight.

Mary as the Second Eve:-

• Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 100),

• Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.22.4),

• Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ 17),

• Julius Firmicus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),

• Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses 12.29),

• Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),

• Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and

• Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).

Absolute purity of Mary:-

• The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (Hippolytus, “Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me”);

• Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa");

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

• Maximus of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");

• 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" (On Nature and Grace 36).

• Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V.");

• it is evident and notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);

• she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);

• she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);

• 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).

• The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).

• 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").

• Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

courtesy of newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

So I would appreciate it if you did some research and actually got to KNOW what you were talking about.

God Bless