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

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
No. Adam and Eve were sinners because they fell into temptation.
So were they sinners from the moment of their creation?

If not, then you have the problem of sinless humans equal to God based on what you wrote earlier.

I don't think mere sinlessness makes one equivalent to God. Rocks are sinless. Turtles are sinless. Neither are equal to God. Adam and Eve were sinless for a while. At least according to Genesis. But neither were equal to God. So I just don't get where this idea comes from that if someone were to be sinless that would make them equal to God.

Catholics don't claim Mary was equal to God. But we are accused of that. So how does that work, especially considering Adam and Eve? Do we just call them sinners from their creation and that solves that?
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,499.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And then we have these pesky translations to deal with:

NKJ Genesis 6:9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.

Whatever word is used, that fact is illogical.
If Noah could have kept the law perfectly, then others could have - and gradually there would have been groups of perfect law keeping people in the world.

The fact is that no one was sinless or could perfectly obey God. They were offering spotless lambs for their sin, but those sacrifices were inadequate. The sacrifices did not change the nature of the sinner; they kept having to offer them again and again. So God himself came to earth in Jesus and offered his own perfect life as a sacrifice, John 10:11, John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:19.
This was foreshadowed in Abraham's day when he said to Isaac, "God himself will provide the lamb for the sacrifice, my son." God DID provide a Lamb for the sacrifice - HIS Son.
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,576
7,775
63
Martinez
✟893,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So were they sinners from the moment of their creation?

If not, then you have the problem of sinless humans equal to God based on what you wrote earlier.

I don't think mere sinlessness makes one equivalent to God. Rocks are sinless. Turtles are sinless. Neither are equal to God. Adam and Eve were sinless for a while. At least according to Genesis. But neither were equal to God. So I just don't get where this idea comes from that if someone were to be sinless that would make them equal to God.

Catholics don't claim Mary was equal to God. But we are accused of that. So how does that work, especially considering Adam and Eve? Do we just call them sinners from their creation and that solves that?
They always had potential to sin, it is called free will. They deliberately chose to disobeyed.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,499.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No. Adam and Eve were sinners because they fell into temptation.

Adam and Eve were tempted and became sinners.

Unless you are saying that God created them sinful.
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,576
7,775
63
Martinez
✟893,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Adam and Eve were tempted and became sinners.

Unless you are saying that God created them sinful.
He created them with the freedom of choice. Temptation came and they both fell for it , disobeyed the only law given to them. God created them with the potential to sin and they did.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
I don't think you work in the languages much. Revealing different parsing of the same word is hardly disingenuous and shows you taking us into ad hominem. The fact is that the word you are focused on is simply a participle used as a vocative address: Hail lady who has been/is favored/graced. Nothing is said as to precisely when this favoring took place. To try to build this into sinlessness is pointless.
Speaking of ad hominem ....
The other use of the same root simply with different parsing says we were favored/graced. It's the only time that form of the word is used also. Do we take this to mean we were sinless too?
Huh?

You have tried to make two different words from the same root mean the same thing. If they were the same words with the same constructions you would have a great point. But they do differ. You can look in your Greek text and see that they differ. Same root but different word. So a slight but real difference. You can tell me all you want that you don't think I work in languages much. That you are an expert. That I am biased. I don't particularly care. The word kecharitomene is unique in the Bible. You apparently disagree. I can't even tell anymore. And then the above from you? Why would I think using the same root once in a different book of the Bible indicated we are sinless too? You lost me.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
He created them with the freedom of choice. Temptation came and they both fell for it , disobeyed the only law given to them. God created them with the potential to sin and they did.
So was there a time that they were sinless? Or not? Were they ever equal to God?
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,576
7,775
63
Martinez
✟893,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So was there a time that they were sinless? Or not? Were they ever equal to God?
There was a time when they did not sin. They always had the potential to sin. Unlike Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was tempted yet never sinned.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
There was a time when they did not sin. They always had the potential to sin. Unlike Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was tempted yet never sinned.
Now we are getting somewhere.

I think you are agreeing that they were created sinless and lived for an undetermined amount of time as sinless people. Then they sinned. But for a while they were sinless.

So, in that period of time when they were sinless, were they equal to God? I hope you say they were not equal to God. Not at any point. Even before they sinned.

While we are at it, is Raphael the archangel sinless? Is Raphael equal to God? Or Michael the archangel for that matter, or the hosts of Seraphim or Cherubim? Equal to God? Sinless?

I just don't get how being sinless makes one equal to God. To me it doesn't. There can be sinless angels who are not God. There were sinless human beings who were not God. There was one very special sinless human being who was God. His being God was way more significant than merely being sinless.

What do you think?
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Whatever word is used, that fact is illogical.
If Noah could have kept the law perfectly, then others could have - and gradually there would have been groups of perfect law keeping people in the world.

Obviously "perfect" here does not mean sinless. But translations compared to what we say (actually you said) can be interesting to deal with.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You lost me.

Please don't hold it against me, but I can tell. So, is my first sentence re: you and languages correct, or ad hominem?

Do you know what I mean when I speak of parsing? Do you know that different spellings of the same Greek verb simply indicate different tense, voice and mood, whether we're dealing with a verb, a participle, etc.., which all tells us what the word is saying precisely?

Here's the issue you have, chevy: The same word is used twice in the new covenant. The different spellings just indicate precisely what is being said about time, action, etc. Actually we're not even dealing with a root word yet. We're actually dealing with the same word structured/spelled differently to tell us something just a bit different.

As I've said, Luke 1:28 is simply addressing Mary as one who has been graced/favored at some time in the past and is graced/favored at the time the angel addresses her. Nothing more, nothing less. She is certainly special as the one use of the word with that specific structure/parsing may be indicating, and I doubt we'll find any reasoning Christian saying she is not. But, sinless? No. Not from this verse, or word, or any others any of us know of.

Mary is a bit troubled by the angel and what he says to her, so he clarifies in 1:30: You found favor/grace with God. Aorist tense that in this context means the favor/grace of God was found in the past, which is again not specified precisely as to when. When we deal with root, favor/grace in 1:30 and favored/graced lady in 1:28 are both from the same root.

The other use of the word, as I've also said, is simply structured/spelled differently, because it is saying something just a bit different about the favoring/gracing being done, but it's the same word and concept. Mary is being addressed as someone who was at some point favored/graced, and is favored/graced at the time the angel speaks to her. In Eph1:6 Paul speaks of the praise of God's glorious favor/grace (same word as Luke 1:30) with which He favored/graced (same word as Luke 1:28) us in The Beloved [Jesus Christ].

Mary was favored/graced by God to bear the humanity of His Son. God favored/graced us in His beloved Son.

If the single use of the word as structured would be used to run amok doctrinally, maybe our omniscient God gave us the Ephesians verse to put that doctrine in check. My speculation is as good as yours. Problem for you is it does just that even though it's just an assist. The word as Luke uses it doesn't say what you're trying to make it say. Nor does it say what the Latin translation says.
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,576
7,775
63
Martinez
✟893,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Now we are getting somewhere.

I think you are agreeing that they were created sinless and lived for an undetermined amount of time as sinless people. Then they sinned. But for a while they were sinless.

So, in that period of time when they were sinless, were they equal to God? I hope you say they were not equal to God. Not at any point. Even before they sinned.

While we are at it, is Raphael the archangel sinless? Is Raphael equal to God? Or Michael the archangel for that matter, or the hosts of Seraphim or Cherubim? Equal to God? Sinless?

I just don't get how being sinless makes one equal to God. To me it doesn't. There can be sinless angels who are not God. There were sinless human beings who were not God. There was one very special sinless human being who was God. His being God was way more significant than merely being sinless.

What do you think?
think you are agreeing that they were created sinless and lived for an undetermined amount of time as sinless people. Then they sinned. But for a while they were sinless.
Just as a baby is born innocent until they sin is how I see Adam and Eve. No, they were never equal to God [ as I am sure you know] they were made in His image.
Sinlessness in the flesh was only accomplished by Jesus Christ of Nazareth and He is God in the flesh. Which brings us back to Mary. It would be impossible for her to be sinless until death, she was in the flesh and not God .

I might also add that her mother would also have to be sinless, logically speaking.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GDL
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
My speculation is as good as yours. Problem for you is it does just that even though it's just an assist. The word as Luke uses it doesn't say what you're trying to make it say. Nor does it say what the Latin translation says.
I'm glad you are aware that your speculation is no better than mine. You can say all you want about how much more you think you know about Greek. I don't care. You need to figure out why kecharitomene is a telling word. You are not prone to think of Mary as anything but a sinner. That's your tradition. I don't expect anything I could say would convince you as you have already dismissed me as an ignoramus. But what if you are wrong about all of the edifice you have constructed to maintain that Mary was a sinner? That's what this thread is about, examining some of the bricks of that edifice. To find out they are not well fired bricks after all. All of those bricks fit together so neatly. But what if kecharitomene means more than you and a bunch of similar minded translators want it to mean? What if 'all' doesn't literally mean 'all'? What if Luther was right about Mary? You have some linguistic skills maybe. Can you see this through, or are you just going to confirm your tradition?
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,168
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,223,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Just as a baby is born innocent until they sin is how I see Adam and Eve. No, they were never equal to God [ as I am sure you know] they were made in His image.
Maybe we agree. I think you are saying that Adam and Eve were made sinless and lived for some unknown period of time as sinless people. But that they were not God nor the equals of God.
Sinlessness in the flesh was only accomplished by Jesus Christ of Nazareth and He is God in the flesh.
Except that sinlessness in the flesh was accomplished for Adam and Eve by God who created them sinless. They managed to stay sinless for a while before choosing to sin. Jesus was born sinless and lived and died sinless. But he had something more going for him. He was the human being who actually was God.
Which brings us back to Mary. It would be impossible for her to be sinless until death, she was in the flesh and not God .
I know you believe it would be impossible. But why? Can God not make sinless people? He did that with Adam and Eve. He could do it for Mary if He wanted to. Adam and Eve, being sinless, did not have to fall. They freely chose to do so. They could have chosen otherwise.
I might also add that her mother would also have to be sinless, logically speaking.
Such a biological view of sin makes some sense. And it would be true except for the fact that God does know how to make sinless people. He could make a sinless son of Adam or daughter of Eve by simple fiat. And that is the claim. That Mary was saved from the first instant of her life That does not make her God, nor equal to God, just as Adam and eve were neither God nor equal to God. It just makes her a fitting human mother for the eternal Son of the Father.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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

Scripture states unequivocally that due to Adams sin, every single human after Adam is born with a sin nature, and needs a savior.


She called Him her savior, and she and Joseph sacrificed doves in the temple, as all sinners had to do under Mosaic law.

Jesus was tempted to sin on His mother’s side, yet remained sinless on His father’s side.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: GDL
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,773
7,919
NW England
✟1,041,499.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He created them with the freedom of choice. Temptation came and they both fell for it , disobeyed the only law given to them.

Eve was tempted - Adam chose to disobey.
Eve was not given a command directly by God; Adam was.
 
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm glad you are aware that your speculation is no better than mine. You can say all you want about how much more you think you know about Greek. I don't care. You need to figure out why kecharitomene is a telling word. You are not prone to think of Mary as anything but a sinner. That's your tradition. I don't expect anything I could say would convince you as you have already dismissed me as an ignoramus. But what if you are wrong about all of the edifice you have constructed to maintain that Mary was a sinner? That's what this thread is about, examining some of the bricks of that edifice. To find out they are not well fired bricks after all. All of those bricks fit together so neatly. But what if kecharitomene means more than you and a bunch of similar minded translators want it to mean? What if 'all' doesn't literally mean 'all'? What if Luther was right about Mary? You have some linguistic skills maybe. Can you see this through, or are you just going to confirm your tradition?

Once you entered into ad hominem, we both know you were lost in this discussion. You remain in it and continue to slide. Not once did I refer to myself as an "expert" in anything (your previous post), nor refer to you as an "ignoramus." You've lost your objectivity in this discussion. Repeating your favored word is accomplishing nothing.

From someone who has been trained in Greek exegesis, it's simply obvious that you're a novice. Actually, I've enjoyed some of your posts on other threads. This thread, not so much. You're lost in a tradition that you cannot substantiate with a word you think you've learned and you're doing nothing meaningful to back up what you're saying with other Scripture. In actuality, based upon how Paul used in Ephesians the word under discussion, we would not be out of line addressing one another as those who have been and are graced by God. All Christians have been graced by God and are graced by God. This is a common theme in the Text. Being graced by God to accomplish a task for Him is also not unusual.

No, I'm not going to follow this up any further. Plenty have debated it over the centuries and it remains a very highly contested tradition of a denomination that purports itself to be the only true Church, another highly contested tradition. If you have something you think makes your case that you think I could benefit from reading, I'll look at it. I look forward to being convinced of any Truth and letting go of any error.

At this time I don't pray to Mary, I don't repeat Hail Marys full of grace (which is a result of a Latin insertion into the Text that you refuse to address), there is nowhere in the Text I've ever seen (and I keep a kind of mental inventory of things I watch for when studying) that suggests prayers to her are anything other than a Roman tradition that seems to fit very nicely in comforting many pagans with their goddesses and cultural traditions. Mary seems a very wonderful human being from what I read and her task was truly unique and astounding. I look forward to meeting her and many others. But, sinless - not from anything I see in the Text. And, I doubt any truly devout Hebrew would consent to be prayed to. Jesus Christ made it very clear who we do pray to and His Word explains what was done to provide us direct access to God in prayer and direct access to Jesus Christ for help in times of need.

Honestly, this is all quite simple for me. I know Jesus Christ, and no one else, is the Head of His Ekklesia. I greatly value His written word, so I learned to study it in it's original languages. I boiled it down to learning the Truth to protect me from being swayed into some nonsense tradition of any human being or organization of them. My understanding of Greek exceeds that of Hebrew. I don't really care about any denomination anymore, nor any traditions held by any denomination. I'll take in from many sources of input and evaluate what I see or hear. If it's not identifiable in God's Word, then it's not for me. Human beings simply have too many agendas, too many ways to put them into practice, and too much capability to manipulate others into viewing them as an authority. Honestly, "expert" is a word I have shunned for decades, for everyone, let alone myself. Some people are truly impressive, then along comes someone more impressive. Mankind is still very messed up IMO. Our having any understanding of Truth is a miracle and only by grace IMO.

Please enjoy any tradition that comforts, sustains, strengthens, etc... you. But if you're going to try to substantiate them as you have here, expect to be challenged. For me, I simply have no appreciation for any human office that puts itself in the place of The Christ and I guard against such by The Word, the Spirit, and prayer. Simplicity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GDL

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2020
4,247
1,255
SE
✟97,887.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God does know how to make sinless people. He could make a sinless son of Adam or daughter of Eve by simple fiat. And that is the claim. That Mary was saved from the first instant of her life

Please substantiate the claim with more than one Greek word.

Being "saved" does not make us automatically, experientially sinless.

Using Scripture outside of your favored Luke 1:28, please point us to one human being born in Adam, that is clearly said to be sinless. Using Scripture, please point us to one human being born again in the Second Adam who is clearly said to be experientially sinless.

God by fiat could also have taken a daughter of Adam, bound by the offense of Adam, and bring forth His Son from her by His Spirit. This is more in-line with His Text than the claim you are attempting to defend.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,576
7,775
63
Martinez
✟893,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
know you believe it would be impossible. But why? Can God not make sinless people? He did that with Adam and Eve. He could do it for Mary if He wanted to. Adam and Eve, being sinless, did not have to fall. They freely chose to do so. They could have chosen otherwise.
We may be going in circles here but I will try to state the difference between sinlessness and innocence ,which is where the crux of the problem is.
"As adjectives the difference between innocent and sinless
is that innocent is free from guilt, sin, or immorality while sinless is without sin; never having sinned." God did not make Adam and Eve sinless. If that were the case He would have no need to give them a law.
The flesh is sinful. Only Jesus Christ of Nazareth was able to overcome the lust of the flesh, being tested by Satan himself , Christ overcame his temptations.
 
Upvote 0