All have sinned?

[narnia59]

So does Romans 5:19 contradict Romans 3:23? Why or why not?

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[Tangible]

"many" here is simply showing the contrast between the "one" man's disobedience. The logic is like this:

disobedience: one > many
obedience: one > many

This verse isn't about whether all have sinned or whether all are by nature sinful and unclean.

It's showing how a multiplicity of individuals inherited the sinfulness of one man, and how by the perfect obedience of one Man a multiplicity of individuals inherit his alien righteousness.

 

[chilehed]

Maybe you did not see my post.

Was mary unclean according to Jewish law, after she gave birth?

Leviticus 12:1 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, ‘If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days. As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean.

The distinction between ritual uncleanliness and sinfulness (and there is a HUGE distinction) is entirely off-topic.

 

[chilehed]

"For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin." (Romans 3:9) -- Thus Paul isn't speaking only "to those who are evil, boastful, foolish, greedy, violent, and wicked" but really to all, as he says in Romans 3:9.

"Previously charged" as in Romans 1:18 through Romans 2:11, where he speaks at length about the wicked. He immediately continues into Romans 3:10 "as it is written..." and then refers to the Psalms and Isaiah as I showed in the OP. You're yanking Romans 3:9 completely out of context.

"For in Your sight no one living is righteous." (Psalms 143:2)

That's a poor rendering of the Hebrew, which actually is more like "before you no living being can be just". The connotation is different.

And in any case, Mary didn't exist at the time the Psalm was written.

"(for there is no one who does not sin)" (1 Kings 8:46)

In the context of a prayer to God Solomon stated that there was no man who didn't sin, and at the time he was correct. But Mary didn't exist at the time. There's nothing there that remotely implies that for all time in the future there would never be a person who didn't sin.

Case closed.*...

Not even close.

 

[narnia59]

"many" here is simply showing the contrast between the "one" man's disobedience. The logic is like this:

disobedience: one > many
obedience: one > many

This verse isn't about whether all have sinned or whether all are by nature sinful and unclean.

It's showing how a multiplicity of individuals inherited the sinfulness of one man, and how by the perfect obedience of one Man a multiplicity of individuals inherit his alien righteousness.

And "all" in Romans 3 is not about whether individuals have sinned but rather showing that one is not exempt because they are a Jew or a Gentile:

"What shall we conclude then? Are we any better ? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin."

One could make a better case if "all" in Scripture in general referred to individuals. But it clearly does not. So why is this an "exception" to that, other than people think it's true? Rather, "all" is used to make generic statements about humanity, not statements about individual people. If one insists it's about individual people, you can come up with some pretty interesting conclusions, like:

Every high priest, every Roman soldier, every Greek pagan, and even Herod himself came out to be baptized by John the Baptist. They also all believed he was a prophet.

There are not and never have been any orphans.

Every man who ever lived hates Christians.

St. John didn't make it to the foot of the cross after all.

Everyone glorified God when Peter and John healed a man, including the high priests.

Every person in the world worshipped the goddess Diana.

Every individual who ever lived has died.

All men will come to Christ and no one will perish.

Just an example of some of the interesting conclusions that Scripture now "proves" if "all" means no exceptions.

 

[narnia59]

"(for there is no one who does not sin)" (1 Kings 8:46)

Quite clear to me.

And does "no one" mean individuals?

St. Paul says in that same chapter of Romans that ""There is no one righteous, not even one". Scripture says:

Genesis 6:9
This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God

Matthew 1:19
19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Luke 1:6
6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.


St. Paul says in Romans 3 that there is "no one who seeks God". Scripture says that:

2 Chronicles 15:15-15
12 They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul. 13 All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. 14 They took an oath to the LORD with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. 15 All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the LORD gave them rest on every side.

2 Chronicles 34:1-3
1 Josiah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem thirty-one years. 2 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and walked in the ways of his father David, not turning aside to the right or to the left. 3 In the eighth year of his reign, while he was still young, he began to seek the God of his father David. In his twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem of high places, Asherah poles, carved idols and cast images.

Ezra 6:21
21 So the Israelites who had returned from the exile ate it, together with all who had separated themselves from the unclean practices of their Gentile neighbors in order to seek the Lord, the God of Israel.

Ezra 4:2
2 they came to Zerubbabel and to the heads of the families and said, "Let us help you build because, like you, we seek your God and have been sacrificing to him since the time of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, who brought us here."

Psalms 27:8
8 My heart says of you, "Seek his face!" Your face, Lord, I will seek.

Psalms 63:1
1 O God, you are my God, earnestly I seek you; my soul thirsts for you, my body longs for you, in a dry and weary land where there is no water.

Psalms 119:10
10 I seek you with all my heart; do not let me stray from your commands.

Jeremiah 29:13
13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.

Hebrews 11:6
6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.


St. Paul says in Romans 3 that "there is no one who does good, not even one". Scripture says:

1 Kings 14:13
13 All Israel will mourn for him and bury him. He is the only one belonging to Jeroboam who will be buried, because he is the only one in the house of Jeroboam in whom the Lord, the God of Israel, has found anything good.

2 Kings 20:3
3 "Remember, O Lord, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.

2 Chronicles 14:2
2 Asa did what was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God.

2 Chronicles 24:16
16 He was buried with the kings in the City of David, because of the good he had done in Israel for God and his temple.


Nehemiah 6:19
19 Moreover, they kept reporting to me his good deeds and then telling him what I said. And Tobiah sent letters to intimidate me.

Esther 10:3
3 Mordecai the Jew was second in rank to King Xerxes, preeminent among the Jews, and held in high esteem by his many fellow Jews, because he worked for the good of his people and spoke up for the welfare of all the Jews.

Isaiah 38:3
3 "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.

Acts 9:36
36 In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which, when translated, is Dorcas ), who was always doing good and helping the poor.


"No one" isn't making a statement about specific individuals anymore than "all" is, unless one is content with Scripture contradicting itself.

 

[chilehed]

Some people seem to think that I'm saying that the word all does not mean "all", which is nonsense. Of course all means all, but all doesn't necessarily mean every instance without exception, and in common usage it often doesn't.

The parable says that the mustard is the smallest of all seeds, but in fact the mustard is most certainly not the smallest of all seeds without exception. In fact, there are many seeds that are much smaller than mustard. Poppy seeds are a good example (take a close look the next time you're in the spice aisle at the grocery store). Many orchid seeds are so small that most people can't see them with the naked eye. It turns out that mustard seeds are only the smallest of all the seeds that were planted in the ancient middle east... they weren't even the smallest of all the seeds that existed in the middle east.

All doesn't necessarily mean every instance without exception, and it's only in discussions on this particular topic that anyone pretends that it does.

 

[Tangible]

That's a poor rendering of the Hebrew, which actually is more like "before you no living being can be just". The connotation is different.

And in any case, Mary didn't exist at the time the Psalm was written.

 

[Frogster]

Hmm. Yeah, what about that?

Luke 2:22 And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord

I know, u know where I was Headed.
Since she was unclean under the law, then she was a sinner under the law too. Only Jesus was not.

 

[Frogster]

Originally Posted by Frogster

Maybe you did not see my post.

Was mary unclean according to Jewish law, after she gave birth?

Leviticus 12:1 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, ‘If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days. As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean.
​

What about it? Unless one is trying to make the case that giving birth to Christ was a sin?

If Mary was unclean, then she was also declared a sinner by the law.

Why just some law for Mary?

Please don't put her on the lelvel of the spotless lamb, who scripture indicates was sinless.

 

[Frogster]

The distinction between ritual uncleanliness and sinfulness (and there is a HUGE distinction) is entirely off-topic.

The law was one..

3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[narnia59]

If Mary was unclean, then she was also declared a sinner by the law.

Why just some law for Mary?

Please don't put her on the lelvel of the spotless lamb, who scripture indicates was sinless.

You're really trying to make the case that having a menstrual period or giving birth to a child equates to personal sin?

Catholics do not put Mary on the level of Christ. His sinlessness was soley His own doing; hers is dependent upon Him. Not the same level at all, and to knowingly make such a statement is perpetuating a falsehood.

 

[Frogster]

You're really trying to make the case that having a menstrual period or giving birth to a child equates to personal sin?

Catholics do not put Mary on the level of Christ. His sinlessness was soley His own doing; hers is dependent upon Him. Not the same level at all, and to knowingly make such a statement is perpetuating a falsehood.

No, but if she was unclean by Levitical law, then she was a sinner by the same law. No?

 

[narnia59]

No, but if she was unclean by Levitical law, then she was a sinner by the same law. No?

Are you sure you want to go there? Because I believe Christ also became 'unclean' by Levitical law when he touched the leper, did he not?

 

[Frogster]

Are you sure you want to go there? Because I believe Christ also became 'unclean' by Levitical law when he touched the leper, did he not?

Sure I will go there. He was sinless as the scripture states. How could mary be unclean under the law, but not found a sinner?

Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath, was Mary?

 

[narnia59]

Sure I will go there. He was sinless as the scripture states. How could mary be unclean under the law, but not found a sinner?

Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath, was Mary?

I believe, as you said above, you can't have it both ways.

If by giving birth to a child makes Mary unclean under the Levitical law, and by default being unclean under the Levitical law makes a person a sinner, then you've just proven Christ to be a sinner regardless of what the Scripture says. Or the second choice is true -- your logic is faulty.

(Hint, the answer is the second choice).

Of course Mary was not Lord of the Sabbath. What does that have to do with being sinless? Are we back to the erroneous idea that being sinless equates to divinity?

 

[Frogster]

I believe, as you said above, you can't have it both ways.

If by giving birth to a child makes Mary unclean under the Levitical law, and by default being unclean under the Levitical law makes a person a sinner, then you've just proven Christ to be a sinner regardless of what the Scripture says. Or the second choice is true -- your logic is faulty.

(Hint, the answer is the second choice).

Of course Mary was not Lord of the Sabbath. What does that have to do with being sinless? Are we back to the erroneous idea that being sinless equates to divinity?

Please.

There are plenty of verse that show Jesus was sinless. Lets face it, I proved a point.

 

[Frogster]

I believe, as you said above, you can't have it both ways.

If by giving birth to a child makes Mary unclean under the Levitical law, and by default being unclean under the Levitical law makes a person a sinner, then you've just proven Christ to be a sinner regardless of what the Scripture says. Or the second choice is true -- your logic is faulty.

(Hint, the answer is the second choice).

Of course Mary was not Lord of the Sabbath. What does that have to do with being sinless? Are we back to the erroneous idea that being sinless equates to divinity?

Last I checked Mary was a human being. If she was unclean under law, she sinned under law. So the burden of proof is on you to show how the legal system she lived under was wrong. If you want to set her up as a spotless lamb, without scriptural back up...go ahead. Gal 4 says Jesus was born of a woman, not a god.

20 For by works of the law no human beingwill be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

 

[chilehed]

Ooooh..of it proves the point, it is off topic!...

It's off topic because it has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Romans which is the topic of the thread. If you want to deal with the topic, get on with it, but until then there's no reason for you to be here other than to hijack the thread.

 

[chilehed]

I believe, as you said above, you can't have it both ways.

If by giving birth to a child makes Mary unclean under the Levitical law, and by default being unclean under the Levitical law makes a person a sinner, then you've just proven Christ to be a sinner regardless of what the Scripture says. Or the second choice is true -- your logic is faulty.

(Hint, the answer is the second choice).

Of course Mary was not Lord of the Sabbath. What does that have to do with being sinless? Are we back to the erroneous idea that being sinless equates to divinity?

Narnia, please, your points in rebuttal are excellent but responding to this line merely plays into the further hijacking of the thread. This is utterly off-topic.