Romans 3:23, is "All" an absolute?

[Fidelibus]

I have been contemplating starting a thread for a while now on this Scripture passage. Conversing with a couple other posters recently on a different thread about this very topic decided my reason for doing so. My reason being is, when it comes to the belief of Catholics like myself, and our belief and defense of the sinlessness of The Blessed Virgin Mary, most non- Catholics Protestants, post Romans 3:23 (Among a couple others) immediately saying "No, Mary was not sinless, for it says right here in Romans 3:23, (KJV version) "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." When pressed on it, the result is pretty much unanimous among Sola Scripturist/Bible only believers. That being, yes...... when this passage says 'all' in Scripture, it absolutely means 'all' have sinned, yes 'all' is an absolute, without question, all means all!

So,,,, I am putting the question out there to my fellow Catholics and our Protestant, Bible only believing brethren ...... Is the word 'All" in Romans 3:23 an absolute, does 'ALL' absolutely mean "ALL"? I say no....... 'all' in Romans is not an absolute.
Looking forward to all (no pun intended he-he) responses.

Have a Blessed Day

 

[HTacianas]

I have been contemplating starting a thread for a while now on this Scripture passage. Conversing with a couple other posters recently on a different thread about this very topic decided my reason for doing so. My reason being is, when it comes to the belief of Catholics like myself, and our belief and defense of the sinlessness of The Blessed Virgin Mary, most non- Catholics Protestants, post Romans 3:23 (Among a couple others) immediately saying "No, Mary was not sinless, for it says right here in Romans 3:23, (KJV version) "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." When pressed on it, the result is pretty much unanimous among Sola Scripturist/Bible only believers. That being, yes...... when this passage says 'all' in Scripture, it absolutely means 'all' have sinned, yes 'all' is an absolute, without question, all means all!

So,,,, I am putting the question out there to my fellow Catholics and our Protestant, Bible only believing brethren ...... Is the word 'All" in Romans 3:23 an absolute, does 'ALL' absolutely mean "ALL"? I say no....... 'all' in Romans is not an absolute.
Looking forward to all (no pun intended he-he) responses.

Have a Blessed Day

It is a general statement and cannot be taken as an absolute. If it was an absolute then Jesus would have sinned. Therefore, "all have sinned" yet not all have sinned.

It's much the same as the Calvinist idea of "total depravity" based on Paul. Paul quoted Isaiah, "none are good, no, not one", and "there are none who seek God", but Paul was building Churches filled with people who were seeking God.

The bible is a collection of lessons and stories and letters. It is not an operating manual for a toaster oven.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello @Fidelibus, here are a couple of additional Scriptures to consider (the first I'm sure you'll recognize as being from the Virgin Mary herself/from her Magnificat).

Luke 1
46 Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God ~my Savior~”

Romans 3
9 We have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are ~all~ under sin;
10 as it is written,
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, ~NOT EVEN ONE~;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
​

Mary believed that God was "her Savior". If she was sinless from conception, what need would she have for a, "Savior"?

Finally, St. Paul uses more exacting language for us a bit earlier in Romans, Chapter 3, concerning the human race and the scope of our collective Fall. Jews ~and~ Greeks (or Gentiles) is one of the primary ways that the "whole world" was spoken of by 1st Century Jews (this includes the Jewish writers of the NT).

As for who is included in v9's "all" and v10's "NONE", please take special note (in v10) of the qualifying phrase, "NOT EVEN ONE". If there is any question concerning the scope of St. Paul's meaning of "NONE" (that "NONE" are righteous), his qualifying phrase at the end of v10 clears that up nicely for us

God bless you!

--David
p.s. - here's a bit more from St. Paul concerning the condition of every member of the human race. This, as you can see, includes the adopted children of God as well (the saints/the elect) prior to our coming to saving faith in Christ.

Ephesians 2
1 You were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.
3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were ~by nature~ children of wrath, even as the rest.
4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)
​

 

[zippy2006]

What Paul is saying is that all are in need of God's grace in Christ because all have "sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" (i.e. Jews and Gentiles).

The Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is not that Mary has not fallen short of God's grace in Christ. Indeed, her sinlessness is because of God's grace in Christ. So Mary is not an exception to Paul's larger point, but only to his intermediate step. Does this contradict Paul's "all"? Yes and no, but it certainly doesn't run against the grain of the point Paul is trying to make. Mary is sinless because she was saved by Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

I have been contemplating starting a thread for a while now on this Scripture passage. Conversing with a couple other posters recently on a different thread about this very topic decided my reason for doing so. My reason being is, when it comes to the belief of Catholics like myself, and our belief and defense of the sinlessness of The Blessed Virgin Mary, most non- Catholics Protestants, post Romans 3:23 (Among a couple others) immediately saying "No, Mary was not sinless, for it says right here in Romans 3:23, (KJV version) "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." When pressed on it, the result is pretty much unanimous among Sola Scripturist/Bible only believers. That being, yes...... when this passage says 'all' in Scripture, it absolutely means 'all' have sinned, yes 'all' is an absolute, without question, all means all!

So,,,, I am putting the question out there to my fellow Catholics and our Protestant, Bible only believing brethren ...... Is the word 'All" in Romans 3:23 an absolute, does 'ALL' absolutely mean "ALL"? I say no....... 'all' in Romans is not an absolute.
Looking forward to all (no pun intended he-he) responses.

Have a Blessed Day

It appears to say "all" and not "some" or "most" or "many".

What is more Mary refers to "God my Savior" -- “My spirit rejoices in God MY SAVIOR?” (Luke 1:47)

Rom 3:19-20 "every mouth, all the world" accountable before God... not just "most" or 'many'

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hello @Fidelibus, here are a couple of additional Scriptures to consider (the first I'm sure you'll recognize as being from the Virgin Mary herself/from her Magnificat).

Luke 1
46 Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord,
47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God ~my Savior~”

Romans 3
9 We have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are ~all~ under sin;
10 as it is written,
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, ~NOT EVEN ONE~;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
​

Mary believed that God was "her Savior". If she was sinless from conception, what need would she have for a, "Savior"?

The 'all doesn't mean all' argument is long and involved. I'm going to let others run with it and see how they do. But the 'Mary needed a savior, so she has to be a sinner' argument you make is easy to put to rest. It's easy because there are two ways of being 'saved'. One can be saved after falling into a pit, being pulled up from the depths of the pit. But one can also be saved from falling into the pit in the first place. Equally saved. One saved before the catastrophic event happened and one saved after the catastrophic event. Mary can rightly proclaim God her savior for saving her from sin, from ever having sinned. Please remember this when the 'all doesn't mean all' argument starts to make sense to you.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello @chevyontheriver, how was the Lord Jesus able to save His mother from her sins at 'her' conception since His Incarnation, much less His death on the Cross, had (obviously) not happened yet?

Thanks!

--David

 

[zippy2006]

One can be saved after falling into a pit, being pulled up from the depths of the pit. But one can also be saved from falling into the pit in the first place. Equally saved. One saved before the catastrophic event happened and one saved after the catastrophic event.

This is an aside, but surely anyone who has read Thérèse of Lisieux cannot help but see Thérèse's relation to Jesus in Mary's relation to Jesus as understood in the Catholic theology of the Immaculate Conception. I think this has had an important effect on the development of Catholic soteriology, namely that one can still be grateful to God for prevenient grace even when one has not fallen into any discernible pits.

 

[Fidelibus]

Thanks to all our non-Catholic and Catholic brethren that have responded thus far, I appreciate it immensely. I am going to let a few more posts (hopefully) happen before I pine in on my defense of Mary sinlessness as a Catholic if you all don't mind.

Please don't hesitate letting me know if this is a problem.

Have a Blessed day!

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello again @Fidelibus, et al, I just found the following article online. It was written by Tim Staples on the Catholic Answers website.

Romans 3:23 says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” First John 1:8 adds, “If any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him.”

These texts could not be clearer for millions of Protestants: “How could anyone believe Mary was free from all sin in light of these Scripture passages? What’s more, Mary herself said, ‘My soul rejoices in God my savior’ in Luke 1:47. She clearly understood herself to be a sinner if she admits to needing a savior.”

The Catholic Answer
Not a few Protestants are surprised to discover the Catholic Church actually agrees that Mary was “saved.” Indeed, Mary needed a savior! However, Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression. Protestants tend to emphasize God’s “salvation” almost exclusively to the forgiveness of sins actually committed. However, Sacred Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact:

Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. (Jude 24-25)
​

If what I put in bold above is true, that God protected Mary from sinning from the get-go/from conception, and that He can, in point of fact, protect others in the same way, then why didn't He do so

Did He ~want~ us to sin?

Thanks!

--David

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hello @chevyontheriver, how was the Lord Jesus able to save His mother from her sins at 'her' conception since His Incarnation, much less His death on the Cross, had (obviously) not happened yet?

Thanks!

--David

Good question. I don't know. But are you maintaining that Mary's Magnificat as found in Like 1 was actually spoken years later than it appears?

Then there is the word kecharitomene. Grammatically, the word is the feminine present perfect passive voice participle of the Greek verb charitoo. That does not tell how it was done, but indicates that Mary's favor was a completed deal done for her in the past before Gabriel started speaking to her.

 

[St_Worm2]

...are you maintaining that Mary's Magnificat as found in Luke 1 was actually spoken years later than it appears?

I'm afraid that I'm not following you. In which of my earlier posts did I say that the Magnificat was spoken years later than it appears to have been? I've never been taught or believed that, nor have I even wondered if it might be true (this is, in fact, the first time that I've heard it mentioned before).

Please point me to the post that you are talking about so that I can see what you mean.

Thanks

--David

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'm afraid that I'm not following you. In which of my earlier posts did I say that the Magnificat was spoken years later than it appears to have been? I've never been taught or believed that, nor have I even wondered if it might be true (this is, in fact, the first time that I've heard it mentioned before).

Please point me to the post that you are talking about so that I can see what you mean.

Thanks

--David

Your post seven made me think that, because it implies to me that she was saved before the death and resurrection of her son, and even before the birth of her son. So if you don't think Luke 1:46 and following were anachronistic. when do you think Mary was saved?

 

[GDL]

Then there is the word kecharitomene. Grammatically, the word is the feminine present perfect passive voice participle of the Greek verb charitoo. That does not tell how it was done, but indicates that Mary's favor was a completed deal done for her in the past before Gabriel started speaking to her.

But the timing of when she first became favored and blessed is not stated and can in context just as easily be when the Lord first sent the angel to her. There is no conclusiveness to this issue from this parsing. The argument has to come from somewhere else.

 

[GDL]

So if you don't think Luke 1:46

God my Savior is a common theme from OT Scripture. Again, nothing here to suggest she wasn't saved like other Hebrews who are saved.

 

[chevyontheriver]

But the timing of when she first became favored and blessed is not stated and can in context just as easily be when the Lord first sent the angel to her. There is no conclusiveness to this issue from this parsing. The argument has to come from somewhere else.

Perhaps, but it is a past perfect construction, presuming it was actually before Gabriel spoke to her. Kecharitomene is more like her name. Grammatically no t like a present action. So while it is not defined from the verse directly it was before Gabriel spoke.

Since Gabriel spoke of her as filled with grace, in a past perfect sense, not sure where there is or ever was room in her for sin.

 

[GDL]

Perhaps, but it is a past perfect construction

Perfect tense simply means a current condition based upon a past event. Unless the event in the past is made clear, all we have is "presuming" and presumption is not good for doctrine.

It's really not like her name, it's just a greeting like many translate it, "Greetings/Rejoice, favored one/lady (one who has been favored/received grace)". It's descriptive of her having received grace.

"Filled with grace" is very interpretive. The same word is used in: ESV Ephesians 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed (favored) us in the Beloved.

Mary was a recipient of God's grace. So are we.

 

[GDL]

It is a general statement and cannot be taken as an absolute. If it was an absolute then Jesus would have sinned. Therefore, "all have sinned" yet not all have sinned.

It's an absolute statement about all born in Adam. Jesus was not born in Adam, which is part of the concept of the virgin birth.

 

[Rachel20]

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1 John 1:8-10

 

[chevyontheriver]

"Filled with grace" is very interpretive. The same word is used in: ESV Ephesians 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed (favored) us in the Beloved.

Kecharitomene is used ONCE in the Bible. So a comparison of words in the ESV is not actually relevant.