Romans 3:23

[Rogare]

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-

So you’re saying that there is no more evidence for the Trinity in Scripture than there is for the sinlessness of Mary? I sure hope not because that would be a terrible blunder.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

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.

I would argue that it does not fit in with the entirety of scripture found in the New Testament, as opposed to the “all not always meaning all” topic which does follow from New Testament evidence.

But thats a topic for another thread. Which you already noted.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

So you’re saying that there is no more evidence for the Trinity in Scripture than there is for the sinlessness of Mary? I sure hope not because that would be a terrible blunder.

No, but there is more evidence for the sinlessness of Mary than there is for the formal sufficiency of scripture

Sorry, that was moderately baiting… But it made me smirk

 

[Nicea325]

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

So the archangel Gabriel simply was relaying his own words and thoughts to Mary? Really? Is that what you believe? The Immaculate Conception has no Biblical basis? Care to show me the chapter and verse where the **canon of scripture **is mentioned?

BTW: Mary was a sinner? How strange? I wonder what Gabriel meant by saying:

For with God NOTHING will be impossible.

So tell me,how you being a mere mortal can place limits on God? You mean it is totally impossible for God to have not let Mary be born without sin?

 

[Juliebug108]

Rogare,

I’m not going to presume to know what your motives are, nor will I assume to know anything about you in general…but your posts are coming off as being condescending, combative, and a tad disrespectful.

Also, you appear to be arguing from the standpoint of Sola scriptura…have you taken a moment to consider that you are not going to make it very far when Catholics do not subscribe to Sola scriptura to begin with? The burden of proof falls on you; not on anyone of the Catholic faith.

You may have an issue with Mary being sinless, but I’d caution you from spending too much time judging the mother of Our Lord… … …

 

[stevekehl]

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?

I wholeheartedly concur with the conclusion that God can not fall short of His own glory. However, the logic about the infant is flawed. Find me an infant who can read and understand Romans 3:23 then we’ll tackle the infant sinning part. Or, infants are guilty of original sin and Paul’s statement is true. We must pick one side or the other. Mary sinning or not sinning is an opinion, by saying Mary was sinless, we limit God’s ability to use flawed people for His purpose. By saying Mary sinned, we limit God’s ability to influence human behavior. And the circle goes 'round and 'round.

 

[Rogare]

So the archangel Gabriel simply was relaying his own words and thoughts to Mary? Really? Is that what you believe?

I don’t recall ever saying that. Please stop the dishonest posturing.

The Immaculate Conception has no Biblical basis? Care to show me the chapter and verse where the **canon of scripture **is mentioned?

A non sequiter and a red herring in one sentence?! Remarkable.

BTW: Mary was a sinner? How strange? I wonder what Gabriel meant by saying:

For with God NOTHING will be impossible.

Once again, I don’t see how this follows.

So tell me,how you being a mere mortal can place limits on God? You mean it is totally impossible for God to have not let Mary be born without sin?

I’m not placing limits on God. I’m simply stating that the Biblical evidence is severely lacking for such a doctrine; you and your cohorts have done little to rebut this.

 

[Rogare]

Rogare,

I’m not going to presume to know what your motives are, nor will I assume to know anything about you in general…but your posts are coming off as being condescending, combative, and a tad disrespectful.

Also, you appear to be arguing from the standpoint of Sola scriptura…have you taken a moment to consider that you are not going to make it very far when Catholics do not subscribe to Sola scriptura to begin with? The burden of proof falls on you; not on anyone of the Catholic faith.

You may have an issue with Mary being sinless, but I’d caution you from spending too much time judging the mother of Our Lord… … …

The original poster had a question regarding Scripture. Why am I being attacked for using Scripture to discuss Scripture. If you’ll carefully look over the thread, I have not one time made an appeal to sola scriptura; rather, multiple posters have attempted to drag this accusation out rather than interact with the text. Once again, please take notice that I have yet to make an appeal to sola scriptura- it’s the Catholic members that are unable to deal with the text that are throwing that out there.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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?

Mary didn’t achieve anything on her own. God filled her with His grace which made her the Theotokos, the Mother of God. So I don’t know how this verse goes against the view of Mary by Catholics and Orthodox alike. She didn’t glorify herself by herself, it was through God that she became who she is today.

 

[adrift]

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.

I am not understanding you. Perhaps you could point to the scripture you are referring to.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
So the archangel Gabriel simply was relaying his own words and thoughts to Mary? Really? Is that what you believe?

I don’t recall ever saying that. Please stop the dishonest posturing.

And I never said you did,but I asked if you believe such a position? So please stop jumping to conclusions.

Quote:
The Immaculate Conception has no Biblical basis? Care to show me the chapter and verse where the canon of scripture is mentioned?

A non sequiter and a red herring in one sentence?! Remarkable.

Wow! The canon of scripture is a red herring and non sequiter? Really? Apparently you have no understanding of doctrinal development or the truth truly offends you?

Quote:
BTW: Mary was a sinner? How strange? I wonder what Gabriel meant by saying:

For with God NOTHING will be impossible.

Once again, I don’t see how this follows.

Are you serious? You cannot comprehend how nothing is impossible for God?

Quote:
So tell me,how you being a mere mortal can place limits on God? You mean it is totally impossible for God to have not let Mary be born without sin?

I’m not placing limits on God. I’m simply stating that the Biblical evidence is severely lacking for such a doctrine; you and your cohorts have done little to rebut this.

U-huh…and I asked you to show me the Biblical evidence for the canon of scripture which you called a red herring and non sequiter? Funny how people as yourself also present little to rebuke my challenge. You want proof,yet dodge the challenge on the canon? That is called a double standard.

 

[PJM]

=Rogare;8162871]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

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.

OK

**John 20: 28-31 **"Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name".

John 21:24-25 “This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.***But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” ***

The Bible was never intended to cover every contingency. THAT frond is why Christ gave to the Church HIS Powers of Loosing and Binding. To make laws,to make teachings, and to grant and TEACH RIGHT understanding.John.14: 26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” One puts assunder **Mt. 16:19 **at GREAT peril to ones salvation. Matt.16: 19 “I [JESUS] will give you[HAVE NOW GIVEN TO YOU] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, [ALL OF THEM] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

READ John 14:16-17 and John 17:15-19 and you’ll better understand [GOD WILLING] why the church CANNOT [impossible for her too] Teach in Error on ALL matters of Faith belief and Morals.

2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

**Matt.13:9-12 “**He who has ears, let him hear." Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. “

**Eph.3: 9 to 12 ** “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [SINGULAR: meaning THE CATHOLIC Church] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him. “

**Eph. 4: 1-7 “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body [WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, and ONLY one faith, [Meaning only One set of beliefs] **one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Eph. 2: 18-22 “ for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

**John.10: 16 **“And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

John 17:18-24 "As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. "

Mary in an absolute sense HAD TO BE PERFECT [sinless] in order to become the Mother of God. God COULD NOT be born from an imperfect IN EVERY WAY creature.

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[brumano]

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?

Romans 3:23 is connected to 3:24 “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (3:25 completes the thought) this embraces Catholic Doctrine on Immaculate Mary by the pre extension of the gift of grace from the redemption in Christ. Christ was to come from the begining so to was Mary. In 3:25 this gift is meritted by faith, Mary’s faith is above the faith of all others which we can understand from Luke 1 for Mary was chosen “Thou hast found favor with God”.

Luke 1v28 “Hail full of grace the Lord is with thee” is no runaround it’s the definition of Mary the Mother of God and our Mother.

 

[PJM]

=TrueLight;8162967]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.

AMEN to that my friend!

John is considered the be the author of the Sacramental Gospel. LUKE is considered to be the Marian historian.John does not mention it BECASUE it is NOT germain to anything that HE is TEACHING. Notice how the Gospels compliment each other.

The issue is not covered because SALVATION is of, FROM, and THROUGH Jesus Christ, not Mary. Further there is an issue of COMMON LOGIG, even an elementary understanding of God’s Divine Nature KNOWS that God is. 1. All Powerful, 2. All Good, 3. All Wise and 4. and PERFECT. [a limited list]. Thus being aware that God is PERFECT one is [ought to be] able to understand that MARY HAD TO BE PERFECTED BY GOD in order that Christ COULD [only sinlessness makes it possible] become the Mother of a PERFECT GOD. BOTH our Lords Divine Nature and His COMPLETE Human nature HAD TO BE PERFECT. Ths could only come from a sinless Mother; Once God decided on the way of salvation WOULD BE through the Incarnation.

Adam and Eve caused Original Sin; but God is the source of Adam and Eve,of Mary and all of us. It is God who assigns this “birth-burden” and So God is fully campentent to permit MARY [the Mother of His Son] to be born without sin.

It’s no more complicated than these realities. GOD IS IN CHARGE. What’s so hard to accept about that:shrug:

God Bless you my friends,
Pat

Making too much of Mary in the early church would have caused many possibile difficulties for the Gospels. This is an ACCOUNT of the Life of Jesus; NOT an account of the Life of Mary!

 

[Hail_Linus]

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.

Mary’s Parents were not sinless. Their is an ancient Christian tradition that says God was involved with the birth of Mary to make her sinless. Unlike Jesus, Mary did have a human biological father named Joachim. Her mother’s name was Anne. Neither parent was said to be born without sin. This is an oral tradition although it does appear in the non-canonical Protoevangelium of James which appears to have been written in the early second century. BTW, we still have the bones of Anne. Some are in France and some are in Canada.

I realize this probably means nothing to you but you did us.

 

[Rogare]

And I never said you did,but I asked if you believe such a position? So please stop jumping to conclusions.

Despite your heavy implications which you are trying to avoid, I’ll answer the question. Of course Gabriel is an angel from God carrying a message from Him. I do not believe angels act autonomously.

Wow! The canon of scripture is a red herring and non sequiter? Really? Apparently you have no understanding of doctrinal development or the truth truly offends you?

Yes, it is. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand: that is by definition a red herring. I would ask you to look the term up. Of course I understand doctrinal development, but once again that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Are you serious? You cannot comprehend how nothing is impossible for God?

I have no idea where this conclusion came from. I believe in an all-sovereign omnipotent God; probably much more so than the RCC allows with its libertarian free will views.

U-huh…and I asked you to show me the Biblical evidence for the canon of scripture which you called a red herring and non sequiter? Funny how people as yourself also present little to rebuke my challenge. You want proof,yet dodge the challenge on the canon? That is called a double standard.

This thread is not addressing the canon of Scripture. If you’re that reading-challenged then perhaps these are not the forums for you. Once again, look up red herring.

The canon argument is really about as trite as it gets when it comes to RCC arguments. It’s about as hard to disprove as Robert Sungenis’s geocentrism. If you really think this is an issue, it demonstrates just how little study you’ve done on the topic of apologetics. Perhaps you should go back to checkers; we’re playing chess here.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And I never said you did,but I asked if you believe such a position? So please stop jumping to conclusions.

Despite your heavy implications which you are trying to avoid, I’ll answer the question. Of course Gabriel is an angel from God carrying a message from Him. I do not believe angels act autonomously.

Avoid? Avoid what?

Quote:
Wow! The canon of scripture is a red herring and non sequiter? Really? Apparently you have no understanding of doctrinal development or the truth truly offends you?

Yes, it is. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand: that is by definition a red herring. I would ask you to look the term up. Of course I understand doctrinal development, but once again that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You understand doctrinal development? Then why the attitude about the canon? Here I’ll use your own words:

Despite your heavy implications which you are trying to avoid the canon of scripture is also DOCTRINE which cannot be changed once it has been ratified. You claim the Immaculate Conception has no Biblical basis,thus I want you to show me why you accept the canon,if NOTHING in Scripture implicitly or explicitly supports it?

Quote:
Are you serious? You cannot comprehend how nothing is impossible for God?

I have no idea where this conclusion came from. I believe in an all-sovereign omnipotent God; probably much more so than the RCC allows with its libertarian free will views.

And I have no idea where your overgeneralization of RCC libertarian free will views comment comes from?

Quote:
U-huh…and I asked you to show me the Biblical evidence for the canon of scripture which you called a red herring and non sequiter? Funny how people as yourself also present little to rebuke my challenge. You want proof,yet dodge the challenge on the canon? That is called a double standard.

This thread is not addressing the canon of Scripture. If you’re that reading-challenged then perhaps these are not the forums for you. Once again, look up red herring.

And once again, study and learn how not all doctrines are explicitly laid out in the Bible.And if your in that much in DENIAL about the canon,then perhaps you should consider taking a history class.

The canon argument is really about as trite as it gets when it comes to RCC arguments.

Trite? Much like your denials about the canon? Of course because it is not convenient for you because it is logically sound and also very true.

It’s about as hard to disprove as Robert Sungenis’s geocentrism. If you really think this is an issue, it demonstrates just how little study you’ve done on the topic of apologetics. Perhaps you should go back to checkers; we’re playing chess here.

And perhaps you should go back to coloring and connecting dots-and your point? This issue at hand is not the validity of apologetics,but your failure to accept that the Bible does not teach** explicitness **about everything;thus,you would be capable of understanding the Immaculate Conception and all other doctrines. You have demonstrated your lack of education,especially on doctrinal matters.

 

[PJM]

inally Posted by Rogare
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

NOT AT ALL

Not everything in the Biblr is literal; right?

“An eye for an eye”, "take the plank out of your own eye before trying to remove the sliver from your brothers eye, and “if your eye is your problem; RIP IT OUT”…

NO: Certainly absolutes are taught: “I AM” the Lord your God; “thou shat not Kill”, “Unless you are born AGAIN of water and Spirit you cannot enter into the gate of Heaven,” "Thou art Peter and apon [you Peter] This Rock, I SHALL [now have], built My ONLY Church.

2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were*** with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts***. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

Matt.13:9-12 “He who has ears, let him hear." Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them,** "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.**” For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. “

Eph.3: 9 to 12 “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things***; that through the church [SINGULAR: meaning THE CATHOLIC Church**] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him. “

**2nd. Tim. 3:16 **All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work

**2 Peter 3: 14 –17 **“Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures”

God Bles you my friend,
Pat**

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I wholeheartedly concur with the conclusion that God can not fall short of His own glory. However, the logic about the infant is flawed. Find me an infant who can read and understand Romans 3:23 then we’ll tackle the infant sinning part. Or, infants are guilty of original sin and Paul’s statement is true. We must pick one side or the other. Mary sinning or not sinning is an opinion, by saying Mary was sinless, we limit God’s ability to use flawed people for His purpose. By saying Mary sinned, we limit God’s ability to influence human behavior. And the circle goes 'round and 'round.

I never denied original sin (it seems like you imply that. Forgive if I’m wrong). And how does Mary being immaculately conceived limit God’s ability to do anything?

What if God chose Mary to be saved from original sin? Why can’t God do that? As for the cycle where people say ‘if Mary had to be conceived without original sin, then her mother did, etc.’, I don’t know why people think that. Mary didn’t HAVE to be conceived immaculately, but God chose her to be conceived without original sin, because its the proper and right thing to do (God has to have a good mother ). Her parents don’t have to be conceived without original sin because Mary isn’t God.

 

[PJM]

=Nicea325;8166751]Avoid? Avoid what?

You understand doctrinal development? Then why the attitude about the canon? Here I’ll use your own words:

Despite your heavy implications which you are trying to avoid the canon of scripture is also DOCTRINE which cannot be changed once it has been ratified. You claim the Immaculate Conception has no Biblical basis,thus I want you to show me why you accept the canon,if NOTHING in Scripture implicitly or explicitly supports it?

Hi EVERYONE

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