Roman 3:23

Discussion in 'Non-Anglican Discussion' started by BibleHoarder, Apr 26, 2019.

  1. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    497
    Likes Received:
    184
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    How do Roman Catholics argue for the sinlessness of Mary in light of Romans 3:23? All I've heard so far is that when some RC apologists argue that other people besides Jesus were sinless (i.e.; Mary, John the Baptist, Jeremiah, etc.) they mention that the passages saying Jesus were sinless do not exclude other people, and really just mean that he's the only one among the few sinless people who could be worshiped and grant atonement. What do you make of this?
     
  2. Rexlion

    Rexlion Active Member

    Posts:
    143
    Likes Received:
    55
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    They would have to say that "all" does not literally mean "all"! (It reminds me of Bill Clinton saying "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.") O_o

    And they would probably point to "tradition" (which they freely use to override the plain words of the Bible whenever it suits them).
     
  3. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    497
    Likes Received:
    184
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    I once saw an argument between a Calvinist and a Roman Catholic. In some ways, it's like the pot calling the kettle black. Calvinists deny God died for all, and Romanists deny that all have sinned. :dunno:
     
  4. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    497
    Likes Received:
    184
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    Is it true that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" includes both venial and mortal sins but not necessarily both at the same time (or at least the latter) in terms of who has committed it? Some say this is how the issue with Mary is resolved as being free from mortal sin. That, and John the baptist being born with the Holy Spirit. Also, some of these people have suggested that Jesus committed venial sins because of "he grew in wisdom, etc.". They say falling short of the Glory of God means they can not be worshiped as God but could have only committed venial sins and were generally sinless in the proper sense of the word. That they were preserved by the Holy Spirit from mortal sin. What is your view of this?
     
  5. Theistgal

    Theistgal New Member

    Posts:
    18
    Likes Received:
    15
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Byzantine Catholic
    And with that, I'm done with this forum. Byee! :cool:
     
  6. Spiritus

    Spiritus New Member

    Posts:
    8
    Likes Received:
    4
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Latin Rite Catholic
    I heard it explained before (I can't remember which doctor of the Church wrote it, but will look it up when I have more time) that the sanctifying grace of Christ's sacrifice are not bound by human concepts of time and order. All have sinned as stated in scripture including Mary. Mary's "yes" opened her to grace which allowed her to be washed from original sin before conception through the Holy Spirit acting in God's time.
     
  7. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    497
    Likes Received:
    184
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    This sounds like the "predestination by foreknowledge" taught by some Arminians. To be called Blessed for all generations would require some acknowledgement of predestination. Could also be called conditional election.
     
  8. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    497
    Likes Received:
    184
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    I'm so embarrassed. I didn't mean to hurt her. I know I may have said some things that were taken the wrong way, but apologies. :o
     
  9. peter

    peter Active Member

    Posts:
    108
    Likes Received:
    147
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I think we can reasonably say that "all" means "all ordinary human beings" and does not include Jesus. But the argument for anyone else being sinless is just not thee in Scripture. We even hear in Exodus that Moses was too sinful to see God face to face and survive the encounter, and we are talking here about one of just two ordinary human beings that we can be absolutely certain are in Heaven (as a result of the Transfiguration).
     
  10. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    497
    Likes Received:
    184
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    Do you think the idea of Mary being compared to an ark of incorruptible wood and the idea that since both "Adam and Eve were sinless, the New Adam and Eve also had to be sinless" carry any weight? Or are they reading too many parallels into the text? They also suggest that Mary had to be both like Eve and perpetually virgin because allegedly both her and Jesus would have spiritual children rather than earthly ones.
     
  11. peter

    peter Active Member

    Posts:
    108
    Likes Received:
    147
    Country:
    England
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Since when were Adam and Eve sinless? God told them one thing they couldn't do, to eat of the fruit of the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil. And they ate of it. That's a sin right there. Also, why is Mary the new Eve? No reason I can think. And Eve was not perpetually a virgin, but had children.

    The Ark of the Covenant was a vessel to contain the Law. I appreciate that some people see a parallel with Mary being a vessel to carry Christ, but this seems rather to reduce Mary's role to to the equivalent of just an object, albeit one of sacred import. Mary can properly be seen as a saint, perhaps as one of a group of more important saints, equal maybe to one of the apostles. That is as far as I would take it, on the basis of scripture.
     
  12. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    883
    Likes Received:
    1,040
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Romans 3:23

    πάντεςγὰρἥμαρτονκαὶὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ,

    since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God;

    all have sinned and are falling short of the glory of God;​

    I don't think that Paul is making any statement about Mary, Mother of the Lord, indeed the only Mary he refers to is in Romans 16:6 which is highly unlikely to be the same Mary. The statement in Romans 3:23 is about the difference between the Jews and the Gentiles, and the conclusion expressed here is that we are all in the same boat. Ultimately neither works nor law can save us, only our faith in Jesus.

    The arguments for the sinless human beings put forward by some is on the basis that God would have nothing to do with sin, yet the reality of the Gospel (the Good News) is that God loves and uses sinners, not that he loves the sin, but he does love the sinner. The idea that Mary was kept free from sin is a pius thought, and ancillary to the central truth of the Gospel that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.
     
  13. BibleHoarder

    BibleHoarder Active Member

    Posts:
    497
    Likes Received:
    184
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian (Protestant)
    I also notice that Eve did not have a very detailed account of her life to make parallels with as far as an example of motherhood goes. The closest we get to a parallel with Eve is one of the epistles (very controversial) which says that women can be saved by childbearing, which really just means that even though a woman was the first to sin, she also brought salvation by bringing a child of salvation into the world, which was done by obedience, and for normal women is the same as producing spiritual fruit, like when they say, blessed is the fruit of her womb, and when Paul says I am in the birthpangs of seeing Christ produced in you.
     

Share This Page