To be deep in the Bible: For all have sinned

[RyanL]

allischalmers:

The writter of Romans was writting about all humans other than Jesus. .

Ahhh…so we’re making exceptions, now, are we?

Look at the context; the context is personal sin, or sin that we commit. The context (Rom 3:10-20) is not inherited sin (*original *sin). Under this context, you yourself would admit that people who have not passed the age of accountability have not sinned, and this would include infants, toddlers, other young children, and the mentally disabled. Therefore, in context, you would admit millions of exceptions to the “all”, and there are millions who are presently perfectly innocent regarding personal or committed sin.

After this, it becomes a discussion about the possibility of humans lacking original sin, which is seen in Adam, Eve, and Jesus (in other words, there are exceptions you would admit to there as well).

Or do you think that infants sin?

Looking forward to your reply.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Also we know that Jesus was/is sinless, 2 Corinthians 5:21.
Then we have is, God can not lie, Numbers 23:14 "God is not a man that his should lie, and Titus 1:2 "In hope of eternal life, which God that can not lie, etc.
In conclusion, if Paul was writting what the Holy Spirit (God) was leading him to write ,and he was, and Mary was without sin then what Paul wrote in Romans 3:23 is not true. So if one verse in the Bible is false then how we can trust any of the rest of the Bible.

We are not saying that the Bible is in error and we agree that God cannot lie. However, you’re interpretation of the Bible is certainly subject to error. Asteroid makes a good point-what exactly does all mean? Is it used in the litteral “universal” sense or is it in a more limited sense? Interpreted outside of the authority of the Church, all sort of interpretation errors result.

 

[mike182d]

Great explanation:

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of “charitoo.” It uses “kecharitomene,” while Ephesians 1:6 uses “echaritosen,” which is a different form of the verb “charitoo.” Echaritosen means “he graced” (bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass. (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p.175).

from bringyou.to/apologetics/a116.htm

Apparently, Mary is the only person in the New Testament referred to as *kecharitomene *in the original Greek text.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

estesbob:

Why should I be shackled by the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura when discussing theology? The One True Church has validated the Lourdes apparition.

I could be wrong, but I do not believe the Catholic Church requires its people to believe in the Marian apparitions. At any rate, I am not really arguing with you. I have been studying Catholicism since June, and I believe I am very close to becoming Catholic myself. I just feel I should point out that appealing to the Marian apparitions to support Catholic doctrine is not going to sway many Protestants.

God Bless!

 

[Superstar905]

The Iambic Pen:

I could be wrong, but I do not believe the Catholic Church requires its people to believe in the Marian apparitions. At any rate, I am not really arguing with you. I have been studying Catholicism since June, and I believe I am very close to becoming Catholic myself. I just feel I should point out that appealing to the Marian apparitions to support Catholic doctrine is not going to sway many Protestants.

God Bless!

Agreed

 

[MariaG]

The Iambic Pen:

I could be wrong, but I do not believe the Catholic Church requires its people to believe in the Marian apparitions. At any rate, I am not really arguing with you. I have been studying Catholicism since June, and I believe I am very close to becoming Catholic myself. I just feel I should point out that appealing to the Marian apparitions to support Catholic doctrine is not going to sway many Protestants.

God Bless!

And No. You are not wrong. I do not have to believe in any Marian apparition and still be a faithful Catholic.

May God Bless you in your studies and keep you safe.

Maria

 

[estesbob]

MariaG:

And No. You are not wrong. I do not have to believe in any Marian apparition and still be a faithful Catholic.

May God Bless you in your studies and keep you safe.

Maria

There is no requirement that one believe in Marian appartions . But to do so means you are missing out on the Joy of hearing what the Blessed Mother has to say.

 

[mattrue]

God Bless you lambic pen, i wish you well.

 

[MariaG]

RyanL:

Ahhh…so we’re making exceptions, now, are we?

Look at the context; the context is personal sin, or sin that we commit. The context (Rom 3:10-20) is not inherited sin (*original *sin). Under this context, you yourself would admit that people who have not passed the age of accountability have not sinned, and this would include infants, toddlers, other young children, and the mentally disabled. Therefore, in context, you would admit millions of exceptions to the “all”, and there are millions who are presently perfectly innocent regarding personal or committed sin.

After this, it becomes a discussion about the possibility of humans lacking original sin, which is seen in Adam, Eve, and Jesus (in other words, there are exceptions you would admit to there as well).

Or do you think that infants sin?

Looking forward to your reply.

God Bless,
RyanL

I just wanted to repost this to help get us back on track

 

[VociMike]

mattrue:

why would God want his own mother to be tainted by sin and the Devil. You can actually put your own mothers into this equation. As a son or daughter we want to protect our mothers and honor them as in the commandment, “honor thy father and thy mother.”
In Christ, Matt

To view the same idea in a more positive light, Jesus, who is fully God, had a perfect divine Father. By the grace of the Father, Jesus, who is fully human, also had a perfect human mother. This was one of the great gifts which the Father gave to the Son.

 

[VociMike]

RyanL:

Ahhh…so we’re making exceptions, now, are we?

Look at the context; the context is personal sin, or sin that we commit. The context (Rom 3:10-20) is not inherited sin (*original *sin). Under this context, you yourself would admit that people who have not passed the age of accountability have not sinned, and this would include infants, toddlers, other young children, and the mentally disabled. Therefore, in context, you would admit millions of exceptions to the “all”, and there are millions who are presently perfectly innocent regarding personal or committed sin.

One of my guilty pleasures is to ask those who quote “all have sinned” what sin a one-day old baby has committed. The answers I get are just amazing.

 

[Della]

estesbob:

There is no requirement that one believe in Marian appartions . But to do so means you are missing out on the Joy of hearing what the Blessed Mother has to say.

While we do not have to believe in any particular Marian apparition, it has to be for good cause not merely because such things are distasteful to us or our spiritual sensibilities. And, of course, we have to acknowledge that the Church has the right and duty to decide what private revelations (those that have been made public, not our every personal insight or locution) are “worthy of belief” and which are not.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

allischalmers:

The writter of Romans was writting about all humans other than Jesus. It is foolish to think that Jesus could sin , he was one hundred percent human and one hundred percent God. but all others no matter their situation in life have been born in a state of sin.

I suppose you know this because you and the Holy Spirit had a long talk about it and He told you so?

I think what you meant was that you personally believe that the writer really meant to say that all but Jesus have sinned - and he meant it quite literally and not in an idiomatic way. I disagree with you.

Maria G makes a good point “all have sinned and fallen short” implies conduct (or failure to act) by which one incurs personal sin. It is not speaking of a general “state of depravity” or of original sin but of sinful conduct (or sin by omission). Such sin is not imputed to the conduct of those who do not or cannot understand the nature of their act as sinful. So, it cannot include infants or the insane. Similarly, the statement implicitly excludes Christ. Why can it not also implicitly exclude His mother? Your denial of this interpretation does not address the issue, but merely restates your position without further support.

-Peace

 

[CollegeKid]

estesbob:

There is no requirement that one believe in Marian appartions . But to do so means you are missing out on the Joy of hearing what the Blessed Mother has to say.

While I also believe the Catholic Church is the pillar of truth and that we should pay attention to the approved Marian apparitions, the reason it is unwise to appeal to them in debate is because you’re ultimately appealing to *your own belief * to disprove someone else’s belief, instead of appealing to evidence for a belief. You’re starting out with the assumption that your belief is true, a fallacy referred to as “circular reasoning” or “begging the question,” I think. We don’t know for sure since we can’t prove it empirically, but we believe, because that’s what God requires of us. Were you at Lourdes when Mary appeared? I know I wasn’t, so while I may choose to believe in this apparition, if I do, its something I have to accept on faith, because it deals with the supernatural. Appealing to Marian apparitions in an argument about the validity of the Immaculate Conception does not have the same weight as, for example, appealing to the 9/11 attacks would in an argument about the pros and cons of increased airline security. While I wasn’t at the Lourdes apparition, I watched the 9/11 attacks on the morning news, during my algebra class, when I was a junior in highschool.

 

[CollegeKid]

One more thing, I don’t think this has so much to do with the doctrine of sola scriptura, as even the truth of scripture is something we take on faith. As a Catholic I believe in the inerrancy and truth of the Bible, but I know that I can’t prove, with 100% certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt, that everything in scripture is literally true.

 

[JaneFrances]

asteroid:

Here’s another use of the word “all” (pas), this time from the Gospels:

Mar 1:4 John was in the desert, baptizing and preaching the baptism of penance, unto remission of sins.

Mar 1:5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea and all they of Jerusalem and were baptized by him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

If we take “all” to mean “all” then absolutely everyone in Judea and Jerusalem was baptised by John. This would include not only the disciples of Jesus but the Romans stationed there and the entire Jewish authorities and all the priests in the temple.

I don’t think anyone anywhere would interpret the word “all” here as “all” in this way. Anyone with half a brain would make exceptions to the “all”.

So why is it an impossible stretch for many people (including me in the past) to see exceptions to the “all” in Romans 3:23?

There are other verses where “all” (pas) has obvious exceptions.

The point is that if we believe Mary HAS TO BE included in Rom3:23, then we should also believe that the Jewish authorities were in the “all” baptised by John. Which would be daft.

Great point! The Greek word used to mean “All” is indeed “pas” which is used elsewhere in Scripture to mean “every kind,” “many,” “great number.” There is no good Scriptural support for the word “pas” (translated as “all”) to ONLY mean “no exception.”

My very favortite example of “pas” is found in 1 Cor. 15:22:

“Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will come to life again. . .” (Are we to think by reading this Scripture that ALL will be saved? Whew. That’s a load off my mind! No more working towards my salvation with fear and trembling!)

Other good examples of the word “pas” in Scripture are:

“and then all Israel will be saved. . .” (Romans 11:26)

“They are filled with **every kind ** of wickedness. . .” (Romans 1:29)

“In whom you have been richly endowed with every gift of speech and knowledge. . .” (1 Cor. 1:5)

“I am convinced, my brothers, that you are filled with goodness, that you have complete knowledge. . .” (Rom. 15:14)

“At this news King Herod became greatly disturbed and with him all Jerusalem. . .” (Matt. 2:3) SO, EVERY single person in Jerusalem, without exception was deeply disturbed at the news of the newborn king of the Jews? Hmmmm?

There are more examples, of course. The point being that we can pluck out words and verses to make any case we want.

I’d rather, as a Christian, rely on 2000 years of Tradition and sound teaching than base my whole theology on one word from one verse in Romans!

 

[NotWorthy]

VociMike:

To view the same idea in a more positive light, Jesus, who is fully God, had a perfect divine Father. By the grace of the Father, Jesus, who is fully human, also had a perfect human mother. This was one of the great gifts which the Father gave to the Son.

You may want to rephrase that, “To view the same idea in a more simple and positive light…” I like simple. It works better when evangelizing!

With that said, GREAT POINT!!!

Notworthy

 

[NotWorthy]

CollegeKid:

As a Catholic I believe in the inerrancy and truth of the Bible, but I know that I can’t prove, with 100% certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt, that everything in scripture is literally true.

We call that “Faith”.

Notworthy

 

[CollegeKid]

NotWorthy:

We call that “Faith”.

Notworthy

Your preaching to the choir.

 

[estesbob]

CollegeKid:

While I also believe the Catholic Church is the pillar of truth and that we should pay attention to the approved Marian apparitions, the reason it is unwise to appeal to them in debate is because you’re ultimately appealing to *your own belief *to disprove someone else’s belief, instead of appealing to evidence for a belief. l.

Isnt that exactly what we do when we enage in “verse wars” with Protestatnts? Arent we then buying into their false belief of Sola scriptura? . When I debate I not only think Marian apparitions are appropriate but also the infallible teachings of my Church and our rich history of 2,000 years. I will not allow myself to be shackled by Sola Scriptura. Think about it-when discussing whether Mary was born without sin how could we, as Catholics. ignore the fact she confirmed this herself at lLurdes?