Sola Scriptura Silence

[bradwill911]

Why?

The World Christian Encyclopedia is a legitimate publication. I have been to the publisher’s facility in Cary, NC, and I have held the books in my own hands.

So, amidst all your chuckling and guffawing, would you take a moment to provide a substantive reason as to why you discount the research that goes into the publishing of that book?

Did you get all the way down to the email from the researcher at Gordon-Conwell Seminary, a well-known Presbyterian seminary, which states that their publication, World Christian Trends, corroborates the numbers of the World Christian Encyclopedia?

So, a Presbyterian and a secular source come up with similar numbers, but you scoff because they paint the fragmentation of Protestantism in an unflattering light.

You’ll have to do better because now I’m the one who’s chuckling.

Not sure if it matters, but the Gordon-Conwell Seminary’s numbers are attached. It has the current estimate at close to 40,000. Scroll down to line #43

gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/IBMR2009.pdf

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

May I suggest that if you want to correct Paul, you are a little too late, however you may still talk to his teacher, the Lord Jesus Christ, maybe you can straighten Him up seeing that you are so well versed in scripture.

I’m going to give you the advice I give to all protestants who end up in your position. If you have nothing to say, say nothing.

 

[ralphy]

I’m going to give you the advice I give to all protestants who end up in your position. If you have nothing to say, say nothing.

And here I went an thought I said something. But I guess not. I only speak from the Bible, so I don’t have to anything myself.Thank God. Ralph

 

[ralphy]

Unfortunately, Jerry…all you did here was reinforce the basic Sunday School idea that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Nothing of what you wrote or quoted from shows that we are to go solely to Scripture. In fact, the very action words present in those verses are about “hearing” and “listening”…not “reading”. We hear and listen to human voices, Jerry, not a Book. We ‘read’ books, but those verses don’t say ‘read’. They don’t because God intended His teachings to be done primarily by humans, not a Book. Again, I must clarify (before you begin to claim Catholics care nothing of the Bible) that Sacred Scripture is an immensely significant pillar of the deposit of faith, fully reflecting, documenting and supporting the authentic human teaching (Tradition), but the inspired humans have primacy and inspired succession, and God understood that this is the best way for His Word to be passed down from age to age, because of the huge potential of conflicting private interpretation of the written word.

So, in summary, you did a decent job of proclaiming Jesus as Truth in your post here (which is very Catholic of you), but very little in supporting your errant notion of Sola Scriptura.

God Bless

Do not forget:" Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Amen. Ralph

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

May I suggest that if you want to correct Paul, you are a little too late, however you may still talk to his teacher, the Lord Jesus Christ, maybe you can straighten Him up seeing that you are so well versed in scripture. Ralph

And you could have an excellent discussion with St. James, undoubtedly.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Unfortunately, Jerry…all you did here was reinforce the basic Sunday School idea that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Nothing of what you wrote or quoted from shows that we are to go solely to Scripture. In fact, the very action words present in those verses are about “hearing” and “listening”…not “reading”. We hear and listen to human voices, Jerry, not a Book. We ‘read’ books, but those verses don’t say ‘read’. They don’t because God intended His teachings to be done primarily by humans, not a Book. Again, I must clarify (before you begin to claim Catholics care nothing of the Bible) that Sacred Scripture is an immensely significant pillar of the deposit of faith, fully reflecting, documenting and supporting the authentic human teaching (Tradition), but the inspired humans have primacy and inspired succession, and God understood that this is the best way for His Word to be passed down from age to age, because of the huge potential of conflicting private interpretation of the written word.

So, in summary, you did a decent job of proclaiming Jesus as Truth in your post here (which is very Catholic of you), but very little in supporting your errant notion of Sola Scriptura.

God Bless

Agreed.

Unfortunately for us, Jerry must have found something more productive to do than keep discussing this issue with us, like, say, strangling kittens*

Or, you know, doing good works, like we’re supposed to as Christians.

*I do not mean to accuse Jerry of strangling kittens in his spare time. I merely sought to illustrate a possible activity which might be more beneficial than any further activity in this thread

 

[Benadam]

Do not forget:" Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Amen. Ralph

You said you only speak from the bible’ I’m pretty sure you would shun any teaching of human origin. How is faith through hearing realized if faith is ’ not the teaching of men’

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Lest we take a verse out of context…

Romans 3 (KJV)

1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

5But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

6God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

7For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

8And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17And the way of peace have they not known:

18There is no fear of God before their eyes.

19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

**28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. **

29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

(On a side note, I actually kind of like using the KJV online, though I don’t own a copy of it myself)

Now it seems to me that in context that Paul is not talking about charitable works at all, but about the same thing he is discussing in this entire chapter: Judaism. Romans 3 is not about the sinfulness of every individual (as verse 23 is often interpreted in the context of discussions about the Immaculate Conception) or about faith as opposed to works bringing about salvation.

In fact, it seems that Paul is talking about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the context of Christianity. Paul is saying that the Jewish converts to Christinity enjoy no particular status over the Gentile converts, but rather, that they are equal in Christ. Paul seems to be arguing that the works of the Law (that is, the Hebrew Law, especially as described in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, and especially as interpreted by contemporary Pharisees) carries no such obligations for Christians. Paul argues that Christianity is not about temple sacrifices or ritual purity, not that Christianity does not require any actions on the part of the believer.

Thoughts?

 

[Jerry_Marino]

Agreed.

Unfortunately for us, Jerry must have found something more productive to do than keep discussing this issue with us, like, say, strangling kittens*

Or, you know, doing good works, like we’re supposed to as Christians.

*I do not mean to accuse Jerry of strangling kittens in his spare time. I merely sought to illustrate a possible activity which might be more beneficial than any further activity in this thread

i do have a job i go to from time to time, anyway i might not be here much longer cause it has come to my attention that i’ve offended some and that was not my intent, i am sorry for my conduct, Scripture first everything else second hand emotions.

God bless you all

 

[ralphy]

Lest we take a verse out of context…

Romans 3 (KJV)

1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

5But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

6God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

7For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

8And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17And the way of peace have they not known:

18There is no fear of God before their eyes.

19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

**28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. **

29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

(On a side note, I actually kind of like using the KJV online, though I don’t own a copy of it myself)

Now it seems to me that in context that Paul is not talking about charitable works at all, but about the same thing he is discussing in this entire chapter: Judaism. Romans 3 is not about the sinfulness of every individual (as verse 23 is often interpreted in the context of discussions about the Immaculate Conception) or about faith as opposed to works bringing about salvation.

In fact, it seems that Paul is talking about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the context of Christianity. Paul is saying that the Jewish converts to Christinity enjoy no particular status over the Gentile converts, but rather, that they are equal in Christ. Paul seems to be arguing that the works of the Law (that is, the Hebrew Law, especially as described in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, and especially as interpreted by contemporary Pharisees) carries no such obligations for Christians. Paul argues that Christianity is not about temple sacrifices or ritual purity, not that Christianity does not require any actions on the part of the believer.

Thoughts?

You know my bible says in Rom 3;23 that “all” have sinned, is that not “every individual”. Ralph

 

[baddog]

You know my bible says in Rom 3;23 that “all” have sinned, is that not “every individual”. Ralph

No, it doesn’t. The most common Protestant objection is the use of Paul’s words “all have sinned”. The word used for “all” in the original Greek version, which is the language in which Paul wrote, is “pas”. “Pas” does not always mean every single one, but the rather a vast majority, most, or a great amount. We can see other times in the Bible where “all” is used, but clearly does not mean every single one:

“I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to admonish one another.” [Romans 15:14]

In this part, “all” certainly does not mean every single one. If it did, the Romans, who had all knowledge, would have had the knowledge of God!

Another Protestant objection: it is not true that if Mary were born without original sin she wouldn’t need a Savior. All redemption comes from the Cross of Christ, including Mary’s. She wasn’t born without sin by her own merit, but by an act of mercy on the part of God. If we believe that Jesus saves us from sin and death even after we have committed our own personal sins, why should we balk at the idea that He saved the woman He chose to be His Mother from sin and death even before she was born? Her immaculate conception was brought about by the grace flowing from the Cross, not from anything she did on her own. Mary is in no way a Savior. She is, however, the Mother of the Savior, and as such needed to be as pure as possible.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

You know my bible says in Rom 3;23 that “all” have sinned, is that not “every individual”. Ralph

I was discussing the way in which the verse is commonly interpreted, not what the words of the verse say. It’s off-topic, anyway. Since Romans 3:23 is often used in the discussion of another topic, I took the opportunity to address that particular interpretation which I see as poorly informed. However, neither the text nor the interpretation of Romans 3:23 is the point of my post. My intent in the post was to point out the context of verse 28 of that chapter. I would very much prefer if we stayed on that subject, rather than wandering off.

 

[Benadam]

Lest we take a verse out of context…

Romans 3 (KJV)
1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

5But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

6God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

7For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

8And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17And the way of peace have they not known:

18There is no fear of God before their eyes.

19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

**28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. **

29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
(On a side note, I actually kind of like using the KJV online, though I don’t own a copy of it myself)

Now it seems to me that in context that Paul is not talking about charitable works at all, but about the same thing he is discussing in this entire chapter: Judaism. Romans 3 is not about the sinfulness of every individual (as verse 23 is often interpreted in the context of discussions about the Immaculate Conception) or about faith as opposed to works bringing about salvation.

In fact, it seems that Paul is talking about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles in the context of Christianity. Paul is saying that the Jewish converts to Christinity enjoy no particular status over the Gentile converts, but rather, that they are equal in Christ. Paul seems to be arguing that the works of the Law (that is, the Hebrew Law, especially as described in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, and especially as interpreted by contemporary Pharisees) carries no such obligations for Christians. Paul argues that Christianity is not about temple sacrifices or ritual purity, not that Christianity does not require any actions on the part of the believer.

Thoughts?

I definitely see the box Paul has built around the concept of Christian liberty from this analysis. He isn’t even remotely addressing the moral actions a Christian is obligated to but a system of revelation constructed to reveal sin. A system that reached it’s ultimate meaning in the prophetic heel of Christ crushing the dragon of paradise’s head.

Paul isn’t teaching about what Christians shouldn’t have to do at some future time but what Christ has freed us from in the recent past. A system of revelation of sin. Not to be confused with the cousels of Christ and the diciplines proven to conquer sin the the life of the faithfull.

 

[ralphy]

No, it doesn’t. The most common Protestant objection is the use of Paul’s words “all have sinned”. The word used for “all” in the original Greek version, which is the language in which Paul wrote, is “pas”. “Pas” does not always mean every single one, but the rather a vast majority, most, or a great amount. We can see other times in the Bible where “all” is used, but clearly does not mean every single one:

“I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to admonish one another.” [Romans 15:14]

In this part, “all” certainly does not mean every single one. If it did, the Romans, who had all knowledge, would have had the knowledge of God!

Another Protestant objection: it is not true that if Mary were born without original sin she wouldn’t need a Savior. All redemption comes from the Cross of Christ, including Mary’s. She wasn’t born without sin by her own merit, but by an act of mercy on the part of God. If we believe that Jesus saves us from sin and death even after we have committed our own personal sins, why should we balk at the idea that He saved the woman He chose to be His Mother from sin and death even before she was born? Her immaculate conception was brought about by the grace flowing from the Cross, not from anything she did on her own. Mary is in no way a Savior. She is, however, the Mother of the Savior, and as such needed to be as pure as possible.

We are ALL sinners from birth, “in sin did your mother conceive you”. Show me some scripture for the “immaculate conception” please. Ralph

 

[Randy_Carson]

We are ALL sinners from birth, “in sin did your mother conceive you”. Show me some scripture for the “immaculate conception” please. Ralph

Sure thing, Ralph. Here is the explanation that will clear up this common Protestant misunderstanding:

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.

 

[ralphy]

Sure thing, Ralph. Here is the explanation that will clear up this common Protestant misunderstanding:

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.

You are really stretching it, ALL is All accept it. Ralph

 

[baddog]

You are really stretching it, ALL is All accept it. Ralph

And this is an argument!!! This is a typical example of placing restrictive interpretations on a word just to prove a point. “All” isn’t always all inclusive, as the poster proved.

 

[SSTeacher]

Sure thing, Ralph. Here is the explanation that will clear up this common Protestant misunderstanding:

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.

Hi Randy,

I hope you won’t mind me interpolating. The Catholic objection to the Protestant understanding of Romans 3:23 aside, surely the main problem with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that if sin is the central problem of the human race, as most Christians assert that it is, then the doctrine doesn’t make sense. If I understand the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception correctly, the inference is that God can grant complete immunity from sin to human beings yet grants it only to one. So why not just grant immunity to everybody and save everybody that way? There seem to be only two Catholic responses to this question. It is either ignored or downgraded to a “mystery of faith.” What answer to this question did you receive that satisfied you enough to feel able to cross the Tiber?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[baddog]

We are ALL sinners from birth, “in sin did your mother conceive you”. Show me some scripture for the “immaculate conception” please. Ralph

Was Jesus a sinner from birth? No, so there is one exception.

Gen. 3:15- I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
This passage is messianic. Note that the enmity is put between the serpent and the woman. Now, if Mary was a sinner, she would be in the serpents camp, and there would be no enmity between the serpent and the woman.

Luke 1:27- to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!”
Note that Mary was “full of grace”. Also the verb tense in Greek is past, present, and future. Mary was about 14 years old at the time of the angel’s greeting.

For example, when we first meet Mary in Scripture, in Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greets her with the phrase: “Hail, Full of Grace” – a phrase which most modern Bibles mistranslate as “highly favored one” or even “highly favored daughter.” Yet those words are not in the original Greek. In the Greek, it is “Kecharitomenae” – literally, “Full of grace” or “Perfectly graced” implying an “overflowing” or “abundance” of grace.

Furthermore, the angel Gabriel uses this as a proper name for Mary; and we all know the significance of names in the Bible, right? Names define who and what the person is. For example, Jesus’ Name means: “Yahweh is Salvation.” And, indeed, that’s what Jesus was and is.

So, if Mary is “Full of grace,” how can this be if she was a sinner? One cannot be sinful and “full of grace” or “perfectly graced.” That’s a contradiction.

So, therefore, Mary must have been Baptized into Christ, right? (How else can a person be “full of grace”?) So, the only question is: When was Mary made this? Or, in “Protestant-ese,” when was Mary “saved” ? It must have been before Luke 1:28, right? So, when was it?

We Catholics say that it was at the first moment of her conception in the womb of her mother. Why? Because of Genesis 3:15. Here, God speaks to satan, saying:

"I will place enmity between you (the serpent / satan) and the woman (Eve, or Mary the New Eve), and between your seed (sin /death) and her seed (the Messiah: Jesus), and He (Jesus) will strike at your head (i.e., crush your power), even as you strike at His heel (the Crucifixion).

This verse, according to both Jews and Christians, is the Proto-Evangelion: the first prophecy of the Messiah. And it reveals to us that the Mother of the Redeemer will be placed in opposition to satan, and not under his dominion. Thus, this New Eve could pass a sinless humanity onto her Son, the New Adam.

 

[inkaneer]

You know my bible says in Rom 3;23 that “all” have sinned, is that not “every individual”. Ralph

No it is not each and every indivividual. The Greek word for “all” is pas. That word does not mean each and everyone. Look it up in a concordance. As an aside, if it did mean all then all would include Jesus too. So does pas mean every indidual.