J
John1516
Guest
Mary sinless?(Proverbs 30:5-6) All have sinned even Mar.
- Status
G
gmanlq
Guest
Our Lady of Lourdes is another argument I share with some Christians but not usually with Protestants as they usually hold Mary in contempt in some way or another. Some of my Catholic family and friends like to hear about Our Lady of Lourdes.
P
PietroPaolo
Guest
You haven’t read any of this thread have you?
C
curious146
Guest
to eezkl,
so are we to interpret verse 10 “no one is righteous, no not one” as in “no one nation (gentile or jew) is righteous, no not one nation”. The apostle paul was teaching his audience on how to have salvation through Christ as individuals. He cannot have meant how one nation can have salvation through Christ. It just does not make sense. that is why in verse 23 he mentions that “all” have sinned. Went on to explain how are sins are forgiven by the propitiation through the blood of Jesus. He could not have meant propitiation for a “nation’s” sin(s). It just does not make sense.
ultimately, catholics would hold on to such interpretations, no matter how twisted because you will always defer to the church’s teaching… after all they claim infallibility.
i beg you to think about this, if Mary was indeed sinless (the roman church teaches that only Mary and Jesus are/were sinless), she could have been on the cross instead of Christ isn’t it? She being sinless means that she was able to live a perfect life. She could have been the Lamb sacrificed to appease the wrath of God isn’t it? Why would God even bother sending Christ to earth if there is already somebody who could atone for the sins of the world in the person of the sinless and perfect righteousness of Mary? it just does not make any sense…
respectfully,
curious146
so are we to interpret verse 10 “no one is righteous, no not one” as in “no one nation (gentile or jew) is righteous, no not one nation”. The apostle paul was teaching his audience on how to have salvation through Christ as individuals. He cannot have meant how one nation can have salvation through Christ. It just does not make sense. that is why in verse 23 he mentions that “all” have sinned. Went on to explain how are sins are forgiven by the propitiation through the blood of Jesus. He could not have meant propitiation for a “nation’s” sin(s). It just does not make sense.
ultimately, catholics would hold on to such interpretations, no matter how twisted because you will always defer to the church’s teaching… after all they claim infallibility.
i beg you to think about this, if Mary was indeed sinless (the roman church teaches that only Mary and Jesus are/were sinless), she could have been on the cross instead of Christ isn’t it? She being sinless means that she was able to live a perfect life. She could have been the Lamb sacrificed to appease the wrath of God isn’t it? Why would God even bother sending Christ to earth if there is already somebody who could atone for the sins of the world in the person of the sinless and perfect righteousness of Mary? it just does not make any sense…
respectfully,
curious146
P
PietroPaolo
Guest
This is so easily refuted I can do it via syllogism:
Jesus is apart of mankind
Jesus didn’t have original sin
Thus not ALL mankind has sinned from the beginning.
Besides, original sin is not something we do it’s being born into a fallen world with a fallen human nature. Having original sin doesn’t equal ALL have sinned. Babies, the mentally handicapped, Jesus, and Mary are all examples of people who have never sinned.
Keep trying though.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Agreed. But the deposit of faith consists not only of the written word of God, but also of His unwritten word, viz., Tradition. This medium of divine revelation contains truths which the Holy Spirit declares to the one visible and hierarchical Church founded by Christ on his apostles (cf. Mt 16:16-19) concerning the mighty deeds of God in salvation history and theological realities as opposed to objective historical realities such as the issuance of an Apostolic Constitution (cf. Jn 14: 15-18;16:12-13). Sacred Tradition is in fact a source of divine revelation from which even the written word of God proceeds (Lk 1:1-4).
It is because Tradition is infallible that Scripture is infallible. And since the written word proceeds from the unwritten and spoken word, Scripture must be interpreted in light of Tradition. These two mediums of divine revelation comprise two sides of the same coin, and so they mustn’t be divorced from each other or placed in opposition to each other. Tradition literally means “handing on” referring to the passing down of God’s revealed word from the beginning under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, Tradition means all of divine revelation from the dawn of human history to the end of the apostolic age from one generation of believers to the next, and is safeguarded by the Church until Christ returns in glory (Mt 28:20). Tradition may also be said to contain all that is materially presented in Scripture either explicitly or implicitly. It’s because Scripture isn’t always explicit that as a rule of faith it is formally insufficient. Tradition reveals what is explicitly lacking in Scripture, but is there nonetheless as a representation of the spoken word. The written word and the spoken word mutually support each other by a symbiosis having originated from the same Divine source: the Holy Spirit.
Referring to how Christian tradition was handed on, Vatican ll states: “It was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received – whether from the lips of Christ, from His way of life and His works, or whether they had learned it from the prompting of the Holy Spirit” (Constitution on Divine Revelation, ll, 7). God has been faithful in the transmission of the written word as is evident by the Church’s infallible ruling of which biblical books belong to the canon of Scripture, so God must also have been faithful to His Church in the transmission of His spoken word declared by the Holy Spirit, which manifests in greater fullness what has been revealed by God and committed to writing. Hence, according to Cardinal Newman, Scripture and Tradition aren’t two separate “sources” of divine revelation, but rather two “modes” of transmitting the same deposit of faith. In his words: “Totum in scriptura, totum in traditione.” (“All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.”)
This is the worn out Protestant cliché taken from Romans 3:23: “All (pantes) have sinned.” We also have evidence that “death has spread to all (pantes) men,” in Romans 5:12. Enoch and Elijah therefore couldn’t have been men. And, finally, there is scriptural evidence that “all (pantes) Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26). So we know for a fact that the number of Jews who shall ever live doesn’t exceed the symbolic number of 144, 000 and that each one of them shall be judged righteous (Rev 7), although “not one of them has done good”, including Mary (cf. Ps 53:1-3).
By whose authority do you claim that the Letter to the Romans is an inspired text to begin with? Certainly not the letter’s itself. The Didache could just as well be inspired judging by its contents and the date of its composition in the first century. You can only be certain that Paul’s letter is an inspired work by the supreme extra-biblical authority; the magisterium of the Church. It is the Church - not the Bible - that is the final rule of faith. The Church no more erred when she infallibly ruled which books and letters belonged to the canon of Scripture than when she defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
C
curious146
Guest
to paolo,
i have already mentioned to you why Jesus is an obvious and only exception to the “ALL”. your syllogism is erroneous…in my opinion. If you are truly convinced that Paul is referring to “actual sinning” and not sin in any shape or form (original or actual) then it is what it is. If this is truly the official interpretation of the roman catholic church regarding “all have sinned” then i learned something new today. I believe it is erroneous. you may call me arrogant but i cannot go against my common sense. We agree to disagree (unfortunately the consequence may lead to eternal damnation). It is difficult to argue against a self proclaimed infallible church.
For the last time, i post this question to all of you…
According to the Catholic church, Jesus and Mary are the only ones free from any kind of sin. both original and actual. Wouldn’t that make Mary qualified to have atoned for the sins of man since she is sinless and lived a perfectly righteous life? After all, if she is truly sinless, the perfection that she achieved is no different from the perfection that Jesus achieved.
Thank you all… signing off.
All Glory, Majesty and Honor be to God Almighty through Jesus Christ our only Lord and Savior, in unity with the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen. Amen.
i have already mentioned to you why Jesus is an obvious and only exception to the “ALL”. your syllogism is erroneous…in my opinion. If you are truly convinced that Paul is referring to “actual sinning” and not sin in any shape or form (original or actual) then it is what it is. If this is truly the official interpretation of the roman catholic church regarding “all have sinned” then i learned something new today. I believe it is erroneous. you may call me arrogant but i cannot go against my common sense. We agree to disagree (unfortunately the consequence may lead to eternal damnation). It is difficult to argue against a self proclaimed infallible church.
For the last time, i post this question to all of you…
According to the Catholic church, Jesus and Mary are the only ones free from any kind of sin. both original and actual. Wouldn’t that make Mary qualified to have atoned for the sins of man since she is sinless and lived a perfectly righteous life? After all, if she is truly sinless, the perfection that she achieved is no different from the perfection that Jesus achieved.
Thank you all… signing off.
All Glory, Majesty and Honor be to God Almighty through Jesus Christ our only Lord and Savior, in unity with the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever. Amen. Amen.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
By our nature and as created human beings, not only are we unable to atone for the sins of others, but we are not even entitled to a reward in strict justice. If anyone can merit for us anything from God according to absolute equality of justice, so that we can possibly receive our eternal reward, that person is Jesus Christ, on account of his Divine person being equal to the Father. According to absolute or strict equality of justice this merit must exist between two equals. In his humanity Jesus was sinless by nature because of his substantial grace of union with the Father. As man he was able to reconcile humankind with God and merit for us the reward of eternal life because he owed the Father nothing and was in no need of redemption, unlike Mary, who was redeemed - but in the most perfect way: by prevention. To make salvation formally possible, he merited for us the initial grace of justice and forgiveness, which we have all received by no preceding merit of ours. So Paul writes: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph 2:8-9). Since we hold no rightful claim over God to receive anything from Him, we have the one Mediator between God and humankind to intercede for us before the Father (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). This is the beginning of our journey of faith which Christ has merited for us as a gift of grace by his death on the cross.
It was by the foreseen merits of Christ that Mary received the initial grace of justification in a singular way at the first instant of her conception and all the actual graces she received in her life that efficaciously enabled her to resist the devil and avoid committing any personal sins. That all created human beings in general have sinned and fall short of the glory of God does not necessitate that every single human being must inherit the stain of original sin and commit personal sins. If this were so, then there would be no reason for Christ to merit divine grace for us whether in the form of a divine favour or as an effective influence and means of persuasion. Paul writes to the Ephesians: “Now to him who is able to accomplish far more than we ask or imagine, by the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations.” The apostle wouldn’t deny the possibility of what God could accomplish in Mary by the power of His grace beyond what we would normally expect or even imagine.
Hence, Mary was redeemed by the merits of her Son in a most perfect way. Her redemption wasn’t a liberation from a stain already contracted, but a preservation from contracting it. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that Mary’s immaculate conception means she was in need of redemption and that her initial grace didn’t depend on the foreseen merits of her divine Son. Since Mary was an offspring of Adam and proceeded from him by way of natural generation, unlike Jesus, she should have inherited the stain of original sin as all of us naturally have. Unless God had intervened with His singular grace through the merits of the Divine Son, she would have incurred this hereditary taint on her soul: the deprivation of the original sanctity and justice which our human nature essentially forfeits for itself.
Mary’s preservation from original sin radically differs from that of our Lord and Saviour. Jesus was not redeemed in any way by the merits of another person or even his own. He was preserved from original sin and all actual sins because of the hypostatic union of his humanity to the Divine Word at the first instant his human soul was created through the power of the Holy Spirit upon his virginal conception. Mary relied on the intervention of divine grace to be naturally conceived in the original state of holiness and justice: at complete enmity with Satan and free from slavery to him. And the fullness of grace with which she was endowed through the merits of her Son preserved her from contracting the stains of the pride of life and concupiscence of the eyes and of the flesh. God’s grace also released her from subjection to suffering and death, but nevertheless she experienced these penalties just as our Lord had in his humanity.
PAX
:heaven:
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Correction: What I meant to write was that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that Mary was in ‘no’ need of redemption.
H
Hawkiz
Guest
Are you suggesting that “no one is righteous, no not one” actually means ZERO people? If that is the case, I suggest you pick your Bible up again and search for the word righteous. Biblegateway.com or any concordance can help you do this search. There are over 500 references. Some quick examples that would contradict your personal interpretation of what this ‘clear’ text means:
Noah was declared righteous in Gen. 6:8-10. Are you going to suggest that St. Paul didn’t know about Noah? Or that somehow St. Paul, the Pharisee, was contradicting what God had declared righteous? I shouldn’t have to go any further to demonstrate that this ‘clear’ all inclusive language upon which you rest your case isn’t as clear as you want it to be, but luckily, I can and will…
In Gen. 15 we see that Abraham is also declared righteous. St. Paul himself references this in Romans…are you suggesting that St. Paul wrote an epistle inspired by God that contradicts itself? I should think not. Romans 1:17, 2:13, 3:21-26, 4:3-22, 5:7, etc. etc. etc. all talk about righteous people…AFTER St. Paul says that 'no one is righteous, no not one." Did he lose his mind?
Gen. 18 - there are nameless ‘righteous’ people in Sodom - this is pinned against the also nameless ‘wicked’ people, so it is clearly a conversation with God Himself about finding even 1 righteous person in the most wicked towns on earth.
Deut. 9:4 - the leaders of Israel are ‘righteous’
1 Sam 24:17 - David is ‘righteous
2 Sam 4:11 - a ‘righteous’ man is killed
1 Kings 2:32 - Abner and Amasa are righteous.
Tobit 1:3 “I, Tobit, walked in truth and righteousness all the days of my life.”
Esther 1:1 - All believers in Israel are declared righteous.
Job 32: 1 Job is declared righteous.
Psalm 1:5 There is a congregation of righteous people
Psalm 5, 11, 14, 18, 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 45, 50, 52, 55, 58, 64, 68, 69, 71, 72, 75, 85, 89, 92, 94. All speak of righteous people
Proverbs 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31. All speak about people being righteous.
Eccl. 3:16-17 Righteous people
Wisdom 1:15 again.
Sirach: 44:17 - Noah was not only found to be righteous, but he was found to be PERFECT.
Isaiah 1:27 righteous people
Isaiah 45:13 - Cyrus is righteous
Ezekiel 14:14 - Noah, Daniel, and Job are all declared to be righteous
Hosea 2, Amos, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Zachariah and Malachi all also speak of righteous people.
Matthew 1:19 - Joseph, Jesus’ own adoptive father is declared to be a righteous man.
Matthew 23:25 - Abel is righteous.
Mark 6:20 - John the Baptist is righteous.
Luke 2:25 - Simeon is righteous.
Luke 23:50 Joseph of Arimathea is declared to be a righteous man.
H
Hawkiz
Guest
And what does St. Paul actually have to say?
Let’s take a full look at Romans please:
Romans 1:17 - the righteous live by faith. If it is impossible to be righteous, does this mean that zero of us have faith? Please explain.
Romans 2:13 “for it is not hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” St. Paul might just believe that it is possible to be righteous after all…or are you going to suggest that " no one is righteous, no not one" applies and it is therefore being claimed by St. Paul that zero people in the history of mankind can do anything that God has asked them to do?
Romans 3 - To be fair to St. Paul, I suggest you read this chapter in its entirety rather than just 8-10. When you arrive at verses 19-20, we learn that St. Paul is telling us that we are not justified by O.T. Hebrew law - this man-made law that is out to ‘trap’ others with its venomous vipers, and people who don’t fear God…and no one is righteous because of this law - no not one person comes to the Kingdom of God because they followed Jewish law alone. St. Paul is correctly reminding his Jewish audience in Rome that their traditional laws are not what offer them salvation. I beg you to actually study the text that you so quickly quote and seek the entire message, not just the messages that ‘prove’ you to be correct. Because when we arrive at verse 21, we see that God has ordained that righteousness can attained and should be sought…because that is what God wants! We are to be righteous because of what Christ did for us! We are called by St. Paul to be righteous IN CHRIST, and not to try to be righteous in the law. Please tell me that you can see this?!? So the bold statement that you use as your crutch, when placed in context, is a piece of Scripture upon which we would actually totally agree. The Church has taught it this way since the beginning and has never swayed from it. Our faith is in Christ alone, not in any work of the law that we do. Our Faith in Christ is given to us as a saving power. And, as St. Paul concludes in vs. 31 of Romans 3, we do not throw out the law even though it does not save us, but rather we uphold what God has asked of us - we Catholics call them Sacraments.
All of Romans 4 reveals further what St. Paul was trying to say: We are called by God Himself to be righteous - God knows we will fall - but He calls us none the less. Please read all of Romans 4. You will see righteousness mentioned over and over - and it is not a righteousness that we can strive for outside of Christ, but rather, it is BECAUSE OF CHRIST that we can achieve it. St. Paul is just as clear in this as he is in the verses you cling to so that you may prove your point. Please take all of Scripture together, and not just your memory verses.
Romans 5:6-8 St. Paul is telling us that none of us deserved for Christ to die for us. Again, I think this is a point on which you will be in full agreement with the Catholic Church. But righteous people must have existed - St. Paul says ‘rarely’ here, not ‘never’.
Further in Romans 5, St. Paul reminds us again that it is only because of Christ Jesus that we can dream of being righteous. But he is calling us to be righteous - so he can’t possibly think that it can’t be done.
Romans 6:13 - we are to present ourselves to God as instruments of righteousness. In vs 15-20, we are to be “slave to righteousness”. We can be righteous slaves by living in God’s grace and being obedient to Him.
Romans 9:30 - Gentiles, not under Jewish laws, achieved righteousness. Do you still hold to the totality of “no not one”?
2 Cor. 5:21 - “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” How can we become the righteousness of God if ‘no one’ can attain it?
2 Cor. 9:9-10 - again we see righteousness is our calling.
Gal. 3:11 -the righteous will live by faith.
Eph. 4:24 - we are created anew - with righteousness!
Enough. I won’t hit you over the head any further with your own words. Scripture, in its entirety, is fully in line with the Catholic Church and ALL of it’s teachings. Given all of the Scripture that I have just provided, is it really such a leap to say that the Mother of our Lord was perfectly created? And I would further beg you to learn exactly what the Church teaches before you denigrate Her more.
Let’s take a full look at Romans please:
Romans 1:17 - the righteous live by faith. If it is impossible to be righteous, does this mean that zero of us have faith? Please explain.
Romans 2:13 “for it is not hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” St. Paul might just believe that it is possible to be righteous after all…or are you going to suggest that " no one is righteous, no not one" applies and it is therefore being claimed by St. Paul that zero people in the history of mankind can do anything that God has asked them to do?
Romans 3 - To be fair to St. Paul, I suggest you read this chapter in its entirety rather than just 8-10. When you arrive at verses 19-20, we learn that St. Paul is telling us that we are not justified by O.T. Hebrew law - this man-made law that is out to ‘trap’ others with its venomous vipers, and people who don’t fear God…and no one is righteous because of this law - no not one person comes to the Kingdom of God because they followed Jewish law alone. St. Paul is correctly reminding his Jewish audience in Rome that their traditional laws are not what offer them salvation. I beg you to actually study the text that you so quickly quote and seek the entire message, not just the messages that ‘prove’ you to be correct. Because when we arrive at verse 21, we see that God has ordained that righteousness can attained and should be sought…because that is what God wants! We are to be righteous because of what Christ did for us! We are called by St. Paul to be righteous IN CHRIST, and not to try to be righteous in the law. Please tell me that you can see this?!? So the bold statement that you use as your crutch, when placed in context, is a piece of Scripture upon which we would actually totally agree. The Church has taught it this way since the beginning and has never swayed from it. Our faith is in Christ alone, not in any work of the law that we do. Our Faith in Christ is given to us as a saving power. And, as St. Paul concludes in vs. 31 of Romans 3, we do not throw out the law even though it does not save us, but rather we uphold what God has asked of us - we Catholics call them Sacraments.
All of Romans 4 reveals further what St. Paul was trying to say: We are called by God Himself to be righteous - God knows we will fall - but He calls us none the less. Please read all of Romans 4. You will see righteousness mentioned over and over - and it is not a righteousness that we can strive for outside of Christ, but rather, it is BECAUSE OF CHRIST that we can achieve it. St. Paul is just as clear in this as he is in the verses you cling to so that you may prove your point. Please take all of Scripture together, and not just your memory verses.
Romans 5:6-8 St. Paul is telling us that none of us deserved for Christ to die for us. Again, I think this is a point on which you will be in full agreement with the Catholic Church. But righteous people must have existed - St. Paul says ‘rarely’ here, not ‘never’.
Further in Romans 5, St. Paul reminds us again that it is only because of Christ Jesus that we can dream of being righteous. But he is calling us to be righteous - so he can’t possibly think that it can’t be done.
Romans 6:13 - we are to present ourselves to God as instruments of righteousness. In vs 15-20, we are to be “slave to righteousness”. We can be righteous slaves by living in God’s grace and being obedient to Him.
Romans 9:30 - Gentiles, not under Jewish laws, achieved righteousness. Do you still hold to the totality of “no not one”?
2 Cor. 5:21 - “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” How can we become the righteousness of God if ‘no one’ can attain it?
2 Cor. 9:9-10 - again we see righteousness is our calling.
Gal. 3:11 -the righteous will live by faith.
Eph. 4:24 - we are created anew - with righteousness!
Enough. I won’t hit you over the head any further with your own words. Scripture, in its entirety, is fully in line with the Catholic Church and ALL of it’s teachings. Given all of the Scripture that I have just provided, is it really such a leap to say that the Mother of our Lord was perfectly created? And I would further beg you to learn exactly what the Church teaches before you denigrate Her more.
H
Hawkiz
Guest
I think that the portion of your question re: Mary could have been the Lamb has been answered, but I will chime in. (With a short answer this time
)Mary could never have been, never was, never is, and never shall be, the Lamb. She is a created being. Thus her need for a Savior still exists, thus she could not save even herself, no matter that she was perfect. She is not, was not and will not be, God. She is not ‘a’ god, she is not part of God, etc. She is fully a person, and the Church has always said so. Mary simply does not, would not, never will exist without God creating her. In that, she is just like you and me: we would not be here if not for God. We should all acknowledge that as the fact that it is. As creations, we are automatically subservient to the Lord. We are His. Not the other way around. Mary was/is/always will be God’s creation. She knew this: “Let it be done to me according to thy word.” “I am the handmaiden of the Lord.” etc. Never once has the Catholic Church taught otherwise. You make a leap of assumption by claiming that this is even possible. Your argument therefore defies the common sense you claim to have and live by. Why is it so hard to believe that the God of all creation could, by His own divine power, create a perfect vessel for His only Son to enter this world? THAT is what I do not understand about what you hold to believe. I fail to see why God Himself would enter this world on a ‘dirty’ or sinful chariot?
And in a sense, you are right: God COULD have chosen to “poof!” send our Savior to us through many other means…except that He didn’t. He chose to send Him as a baby…fully God and fully man at the same time. He chose for Him to enter this world as a helpless infant…who would require a loving set of parents. God chose this design, not you or me. And as such, we should not fight Him about the ‘how’ or the ‘why did He do it THAT way’ points - but just have faith that He knows what He is doing.
I hope that you will actually take the time to read the scripture that I have brought to your attention - even if you hold that it (and not the Church or sacred tradition) is the only source of Truth, and you take the time to actually study what it says - I am confident that you will become Catholic - whether you actually convert or not - because everything that the Church teaches is found in scripture. I have found NO topic that is not covered in scripture. I pray that you will find peace on this and all else that you struggle with. I apologize if I came off as snotty (my wife tells me I can sound mean spirited even when I don’t intend to - so I listen to her and try not to). I offered up so much scripture because I understand that verses are sometimes the only thing that those outside the Catholic Church will see as valid. I understand that most of my evidence goes against what you want to claim - I can not change what scripture says, and when we look at all of it, we can see that God’s plan for us has remained the same since the beginning: His design is flawless in every way. Mary is included in that design. I pray that you will lose your hostility towards the Mother of Christ and I ask that she pray to her Son on your behalf.
Peace in Christ - we are not as far apart in our beliefs as you think!
H
Hawkiz
Guest
I hope this isn’t off topic, but I would just like to say:
I am so thankful that I am Catholic! One of the many benefits is that I don’t have to be the first or only thinker on topics like this!!! For all of the great Catholic minds that have gone before me, I say THANK YOU! Including some of the giant brains right here on this forum! If it weren’t for the wonderful teaching of the Magisterium, I could easily be led astray by the next preacher I encounter. Thank you to all who have studied, taught, spoken out, studied some more, and most of all, prayed on these and so many other subjects.
Amen
I am so thankful that I am Catholic! One of the many benefits is that I don’t have to be the first or only thinker on topics like this!!! For all of the great Catholic minds that have gone before me, I say THANK YOU! Including some of the giant brains right here on this forum! If it weren’t for the wonderful teaching of the Magisterium, I could easily be led astray by the next preacher I encounter. Thank you to all who have studied, taught, spoken out, studied some more, and most of all, prayed on these and so many other subjects.
Amen
G
gmanlq
Guest
Curious,
Catholic teaching regarding Paul’s “All have sinned” statement points to people of the age of reason and that is all. He is not talking about original sin. You miss the context as understood by Catholics and taught by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church for over 2000 years. No surprise as you are a Protestant and would never recognize the Catholic Church teachings when they don’t fit what you like to believe. The Catholic Church has recognized many exceptions to Paul’s statement including Mary, Jesus and children that die before understanding right and wrong. What you are doing is quite Protestant of you in finding a verse to support your protest. The fact is Paul could not read the hearts of any man or woman to make such a bold claim unless he actually saw said man or woman commit a sin. Again I reiterate that he was not referring to original sin. We don’t even know for sure if Paul actually was around the Virgin Mary to even make such a moral determination about her sinlessness. Further, if Paul is saying that all have sinned (except for Jesus which by the way he doesn’t so again context my friend) then that would make him equivalent to God in the sense that Paul would have to know the hearts of every person on the planet and of course the Catholic Church knows that he was not God. The Catholic Church correctly concludes that Paul was speaking about people who are old enough to choose to sin.
G
gmanlq
Guest
Curious,
You are making progress. Cool.
I will try to answer your question. Mary is a mere creature and could not save herself nor anyone else. That is why she mentions that God is her savior in Luke 1:47. She did NOT achieve her sinless life as that was a single gift of grace from God. Jesus is the only person in history that could create his own mother and he did so perfectly. Mary was saved from any stain of sin, original or committed. Do you get it? She is sinless because of her son God/Jesus made her so. God can do it and he did it for Mary. Hope this helps brother.
P
PietroPaolo
Guest
- It is not obvious that Paul was excepting only Jesus. You’re error is common in Protestantism, you are proof-texting, taking one verse completely out of context and absolutizing it.
- To demonstrate that my syllogism is erroneous, you’ll have to do more than just say it is. You’ll have to show that either one of it’s premises are false, that the logic is invalid, or that one of the terms is being used ambiguously. Just saying it’s wrong doesn’t cut it.
- Jesus didn’t save us because he didn’t sin. He was able to save us because He was GOD. Mary wasn’t God. Even though she didn’t sin, she still couldn’t save us. Our offense against God was an infinite offense b/c it offended against an infinite being. No one could pay the infinite price due except an infinite being. The only infinite being is God. Therefore only God could atone for our infinitely offensive sins. Mary is finite. Even being sinless she could not atone infinitely for us. Therefore, Mary (on principal) even being without all sin could not save us.
- Finally, Adam and Eve were both created without sin. Are you saying God couldn’t have preserved Mary from all sin?
G
Good_Fella
Guest
If Paul didn’t have Jesus in mind when he wrote “all have sinned”, then he must have had someone else in mind. As I mentioned, the Greek word for “all” in Romans 3:23 is *pantes *(a derivative of pas) which allows for exceptions. What Paul is saying is that all human beings are subject to original sin and consequently have a sinful nature. Catholics concur that Mary was subject to inherit this stain like the rest of us, but by a singular grace she was spared contracting it, and as a result she did not inherit a sinful nature. The difference between Jesus and Mary is that her Son wasn’t subject to original sin. The word “all” is to be understood in a collective sense rather than a distributive sense to each and every individual.
If you think this passage is intended to be understood in a distributive sense, then you have yourself a problem. We read in Luke 1:5-6 that the priest Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth “both were righteous in the eyes of God observing ‘all’ the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly”. If the word “all” does not allow for exceptions, then Paul could not have had these two people in mind as well as Jesus when he wrote “all have sinned”. You don’t suppose he thought, that because Zechariah and Elizabeth faithfully observed each and every commandment and divine ordinance blamelessly, they could atone for the sins of the entire human race, do you? I don’t think so. You would have to admit that they must have offended God at some point in their lives in some manner rendering them blameworthy. And thus you would have to concede that the word “all” (pas/ pantes) allows for some exceptions and should be understood in a collective sense when reading Romans.
So what you are saying is that Paul means “everyone” has sinned. But what Paul means is that everyone (except Jesus) is subject to contracting the stain of original sin. He is not saying that everyone (besides Jesus) has committed personal sins without exception. The apostle doesn’t have personal sins at the forefront of his mind, though they do result from the sinful nature we have inherited from Adam on account of his sin.
To better understand what Paul has in mind in Romans 3:23 we should examine Romans 5:12, 19 [NKJV].
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
In Romans 3:23 and 5:12, Paul writes that “all have sinned” and “all sinned”, through the sin of Adam, but in Romans 5:19 he writes “many were made sinners” by the disobedience of Adam. If we understand the meaning of “all” (pantes) in the distributive sense to each and every individual human being, then we have a contradiction. The word “many” in v.19 is polloi in the Greek. What Paul means here is that all human beings are collectively subject to original sin (including Mary), but not everyone rejects God with the help of his grace (including Zechariah and Elizabeth).
The many who were made “sinners” refers to the entire human race which is subject to original sin and is in need of redemption by the merits of Christ. It doesn’t refer to everyone having personal guilt because of their actual sins which they themselves have committed. Paul is concerned with the penalty of separation and the collective need of reconciliation with God on account of Adam’s sin.
Thus what Paul means in Romans 3:23 is that all human beings are subject to original sin and in need of redemption. As I mentioned above in this thread, Paul’s letter could apply to Mary as well, since she too was in need of redemption. As a child of Adam, she should have contracted original sin, and she would have if God hadn’t intervened with His grace by the foreseen merits of His only-Begotten Son. Catholics don’t deny that Mary was in need of a saviour like everyone else. But Adam’s personal guilt did not apply to her. God blamed the serpent for what had happened in the Garden of Eden (cf. Gen 3:15). So the favour God showed Mary in His mercy (cf. Lk 1:30; 48) could not have negated His justice. The Lord has “done great things” for Mary (cf. Lk 1:49).
PAX
:heaven:
E
ezeekl
Guest
Verse 10 of Romans 3 should be interpreted in light of verses 1-9 of Romans chapter 3. So what do we see in verses 1-9? We see Paul asking the questions,“Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?” [verse 1] and “9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin,” [verse 9]. Then verse 10 says, “as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one;’” So here it is clear that Paul is comparing the relative merits of being either Jew or Greek and saying that neither is better than the other. This comparison between Jew and Greek is brought on by Paul’s antagonists, the Judiacizers who objected to the conversion of Greeks [Gentiles] insisting that they must first become Jews and subject to the Mosaic Law. Paul opposed this and was backed up by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem [See Acts 15]. But the Judiacizers remained a thorn in Paul’s side everywhere he went. This culminates in Romans when Paul tells them flat out that they may think they are hot but they are not.
As for verse 23, the so called “all have sinned…” verse please look at verse 24 where Paul qualifies “all have sinned” where Paul says men have been, “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins”. Now look at what the angel says to Mary, “Hail full of grace…” So here is two questions for you. #1 How could Mary be “full of grace” before the Age of grace began? #2 How could Mary be “Full of grace and still be a sinner? The Catholic position answers these two questions without doing violence to the scriptures. God, with the fore knowledge that Mary will consent to her role in the Incarnation, causes Mary to be conceived immaculately [without sin]. As such, her Immaculate Conception was"justified freely by his grace” and is based upon “the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”. So Mary needed Jesus for her salvation even though her salvation occurred before hand. Without Jesus then Mary is not immaculately concieved.
Yes, we do claim infallibility and with scripture to back up the claim too. Understand what Mt 16:18-19 really says. Peter is given power to bind and loose both on earth as well as in heaven. What other man has the power to bind and loose in heaven? Please tell me because I can’t think of anyone. Even the president of the USA cannot bind in heaven but a poor fisherman from Galilee could.
No, being sinless does not place Mary on any cross nor does it make her deity. Mary had a role to play in the Incarnation of being the Theotokos, the Mother of God, because God’s plan of man’s salvation which we call the Incarnation, included her in that role. Mary had a supporting role in the redemptive work of Christ but as she told the servants at Cana, “Do whatever He tells you.”
F
Filioque
Guest
The argument of a hard and fast ALL would carry more weight if the Bible was written in english in the 20th Century. One of the major fallacies of the new doctrines invented by Protestant theologians after the 16th Century is falling into the temptation of divorcing themselves from the context in which the Sacred Scriptures have been interpreted from the days of the Apostles. The language as it was spoken or written in the time of it’s writing.
As an example. If you read that a robbery took place today in which a bald man was observed taking cash from an AA member. You could insist that a man with no hair was seen taking cash from a member of Alcoholics Anonymous. Well Bald is an old English word meaning white haired. AA in the UK is Automobile Association.
So the certainty you have about the word ALL in the scripture passage, written two thousand years ago in a language other than English is based on your understanding of a translation made in the 1600’s. I’d investigate the subject a bit more, and see if what you’ve been told is the Gospel truth, and invented not by the first Protestants, (Luther, Calvin et al who held to Mary’s spinelessness) but rather an invention of the past couple of centuries; as opposed to what the Catholic Church has held unchanged from the time of the Apostles. With God’s grace, you may come to see a different and more authentic Gospel than the one you seem to want to teach.
C
curious146
Guest
hello guys. wow. i honestly don’t know where to begin. i’m just going to respond to one issue. Interpretation.
The word of God is rational. It is not illogical. “all” means all. “none” means none. there is no exception. if there was, you use “almost all”, “some”, “all except”. Whether it be in english or greek or hebrew. whether it be written 2000 BC, 100 AD or 1795, the rules of logic does not change. To break the rules of logic is to mean irrationality. No sane professing christian will ever say that the word of God is irrational.
The reason Jesus is not included in “all have sinned” is because, although he is 100% man, he is also 100% God.
The argument that the word “all” allows for an exception because Enoch and Elijah did not die when “death spread to (all) men” and they did not die is just false. It is a complete misunderstanding of the text. Instead of redefining the meaning of “all”, we should be asking what “death” can mean in this text.
Consider this: In Genesis it says “…on the day you eat of this fruit, you shall surely die.” When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, did they die that very same day? No. They still lived hundreds of years. Why? Because when the Bible teaches about death and dieing, it does not always mean “physical” death (Heart stops beating). It also refers to “spiritual” death (eternal separation from God).
There are a lot of words in the bible like “death”, “faith”, “justify”, etc. that may have different meanings depending on the context. If one definition leads you to an illogical conclusion, it must be wrong. The word of God is rational.
I apologize if i appear to be confrontational. i’m not. just driving a point. peace… i need to sleep… i will respond about the other issues next time i find the time.
To God be the Glory through the Lord Jesus.
The word of God is rational. It is not illogical. “all” means all. “none” means none. there is no exception. if there was, you use “almost all”, “some”, “all except”. Whether it be in english or greek or hebrew. whether it be written 2000 BC, 100 AD or 1795, the rules of logic does not change. To break the rules of logic is to mean irrationality. No sane professing christian will ever say that the word of God is irrational.
The reason Jesus is not included in “all have sinned” is because, although he is 100% man, he is also 100% God.
The argument that the word “all” allows for an exception because Enoch and Elijah did not die when “death spread to (all) men” and they did not die is just false. It is a complete misunderstanding of the text. Instead of redefining the meaning of “all”, we should be asking what “death” can mean in this text.
Consider this: In Genesis it says “…on the day you eat of this fruit, you shall surely die.” When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, did they die that very same day? No. They still lived hundreds of years. Why? Because when the Bible teaches about death and dieing, it does not always mean “physical” death (Heart stops beating). It also refers to “spiritual” death (eternal separation from God).
- “…Death spread through all men” 2. Enoch and Elijah did not die 3. Therefore Elijah and Enoch must not be men OR “all” must inherently allow for an exception. This is the kind of logic that you are trying to argue. Both your conclusions are ILLOGICAL. Therefore, “death” must mean something else other than physical death. The only logical interpretation is “death” in this verse means “Spiritual” death.
There are a lot of words in the bible like “death”, “faith”, “justify”, etc. that may have different meanings depending on the context. If one definition leads you to an illogical conclusion, it must be wrong. The word of God is rational.
I apologize if i appear to be confrontational. i’m not. just driving a point. peace… i need to sleep… i will respond about the other issues next time i find the time.
To God be the Glory through the Lord Jesus.
- curious146
- Status