All have sinned?

[simonthezealot]

The angels in heaven are without sin,

Scripture please? was it not Lucifers PRIDE that got him tossed?

 

[narnia59]

Originally Posted by narnia59

The angels in heaven are without sin,
​

Scripture please? was it not Lucifers PRIDE that got him tossed?

Yes, and that's why he's no longer in heaven -- his sin.

The angels in heaven are without sin. Last time I checked, that doesn't include Lucifer.

So are you proposing that:

1) Lucifer is still in heaven
2) There are no angels left in heaven because they all sinned
3) There are angels in heaven who have sinned

Because as far as I can tell if you disagree with my statement that the angels in heaven are without sin, those are pretty much your only choices.

 

[narnia59]

I always, when I read Romans, I think that Paul really believed he made it clear that all have sinned. Looks like he wasn't so clear after all. [/ironic]

I supplied ample Scriptural evidence that the usage of "all" does not in general refer to every individual (because there are exceptions), but is rather making a generic statement about groups.

That would I think leave it in your (and others) courts to provide evidence why the "all" in Romans 3:23 should be seen as an exception to the rule, other than because you think so.

 

[addo]

That would I think leave it in your (and others) courts to provide evidence why the "all" in Romans 3:23 should be seen as an exception to the rule, other than because you think so.

Again, my argument was based on Kings, not Romans.

 

[narnia59]

Again, my argument was based on Kings, not Romans.

It's the same argument and the same premise. Kings says that for there is no one who does not sin, Romans says that all have sinned.

I provided Scriptures for both -- Scriptures that show that in general, "no one" doesn't refer to every individual any more than "all" does. Both are making general statements about mankind, not referring to specific individuals, and one can find exceptions to the "no one" in Scripture.

Your premise is that the usage of the verse in Kings is an exception -- that in this case "no one" refers to every individual, to include every individual who would ever live in the future. What makes it different than other usages of "no one" where that is not true, other than your personal belief that it is different?

 

[addo]

Both are making general statements about mankind, not referring to specific individuals, and one can find exceptions to the "no one" in Scripture.

Besides Jesus Christ, who is the only truly born of the Father, who is sinless Himself, who else is sinless? What candidate do you propose that could reach God's sinlessness?

 

[narnia59]

Besides Jesus Christ, who is the only truly born of the Father, who is sinless Himself, who else is sinless? What candidate do you propose that could reach God's sinlessness?

The angels in heaven are sinless. Sinlessness does not equate to Deity.

Adam and Eve were created without sin, and only by their own choice fell from that state.

From the time of the fall of man, only a miracle of God could enable a person to be sinless, due to original sin and our inherent fallen human nature we receive.

As a Catholic I believe that God worked such a miracle when creating Mary by preventing her from being passed the damage of original sin. He enabled her with special grace to remain sinless, and she from her own free will chose to cooperate with that grace. There are many reasons I believe that to be true, and I believe it is implicitly presented in Scripture. But it is not a case of a person 'reaching' God -- it is a case of God reaching a person.

And shall we not all again be in a state of sinlessness one day? For one day we will be in heaven, and sin will be no more. We too will be freed from the bondage of sin. Mary simply was prevented from ever being placed in bondage.

Back to the OP -- there are those who will dispute the Catholic view with the 'all' and the 'no one' phraseology. My perspective is they have to explain why in the cases they cite there would be an exception to the norm and that 'all', or 'no one' are in this case referring to specific individuals.

 

[simonthezealot]

Originally Posted by narnia59

The angels in heaven are without sin,
​

Yes, and that's why he's no longer in heaven -- his sin.

The angels in heaven are without sin. Last time I checked, that doesn't include Lucifer.

So are you proposing that:

1) Lucifer is still in heaven
2) There are no angels left in heaven because they all sinned
3) There are angels in heaven who have sinned

Because as far as I can tell if you disagree with my statement that the angels in heaven are without sin, those are pretty much your only choices.

Again i asked for scripture NOT your opinion...
Take a read at Aquinas if you'd like.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1063.htm

 

[narnia59]

Again i asked for scripture NOT your opinion...
Take a read at Aquinas if you'd like.
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The malice of the angels with regard to sin (Prima Pars, Q. 63)

Nope, no desire to read through Aquinas tonight

Revelation 12 details Satan's fall, and his taking a third of the angels with him. It speaks to his battle with the archangel Michael. Jesus himself says that he witnessed Satan's fall from the sky (Luke 10:18). Jude 6 refers to them as "the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling", as opposed to the angels who did not follow Satan but remained in heaven. He also details another battle between Michael and Satan over the body of Moses (nice little oral tradition thrown in there as fact).

Frankly I'm having a hard time trying to figure out where you're going with this Simon, so it would be easier if you'd just explain your position and why you believe what I've stated is incorrect and how Scripture supports your view. It seems you're saying that the angels that are in heaven have sinned. That would kind of blow the concept that sin separates one from God, would it not? And would beg one to question why Satan would get thrown out, and not them?

 

[simonthezealot]

I missed the in heaven part, i thought you were saying all angels were sinless...This clearly is not the case. My misunderstanding..

 

[narnia59]

I missed the in heaven part, i thought you were saying all angels were sinless...This clearly is not the case. My misunderstanding..

Thank you. I know we have a lot of differences, but I couldn't fathom how our understanding of the angles in heaven being sinless was one. I thought I was going crazy.

(No comments from the peanut gallery about that please).

 

[simonthezealot]

The rightful location for those who rebelled.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God didn't spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;

 

[narnia59]

The rightful location for those who rebelled.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God didn't spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus, and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;

So does your understanding of what I was saying about the angels in heaven mean that you can be in agreement with my assertion that 'sinlessness' is not an attribute reserved only for God?

 

[simonthezealot]

So does your understanding of what I was saying about the angels in heaven mean that you can be in agreement with my assertion that 'sinlessness' is not an attribute reserved only for God?

Angels are not people. And they have sinned.

 

[Hairy Tic]

It’s common to hear non-Catholics point to Romans 3:23 (“for all have sinned and fallen sort of the glory of God”) as evidence that Mary must have sinned.

But Romans 3:23 arises from Romans 3:10-18, where Paul quotes Psalms 5, 10, 14, 36, 53 and 140, and Isaiah 59. All of these passages specifically refer to those who are evil, boastful, foolish, greedy, violent, and wicked – the violent devise evil in their hearts, no fool turns to God, the greedy spurn God, no fool is righteous, etc., etc.

Psalms 5, 10, 14, 36, and 140 contrast these evildoers with the righteous – so there ARE those who are righteous, those who do not devise evil in their hearts, who do turn to God, etc. etc.

So in order to say that verses such as these must mean that Mary sinned, one must first say that Mary must have been evil, boastful, foolish, greedy or wicked - because those verses are speaking of evil, boastful, foolish, greedy and wicked people.

Furthermore, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" doesn't demand a universal meaning, in the same way as "everyone in town showed up for the parade" doesn't mean that every single individual in every house turned out.

## Apples & oranges.

Such phrases can (and often do) have a general meaning, and the Catholic position is that it does here.

## Actually, that is not so. It may be what some apologists think.

In fact there are many people who not only have not sinned but who cannot sin, among them infants and the mentally infirm. Such people do not have the mental capacity required to make an act of the will to reject God.

## See Romans 5 & the CCC.

If this is not true, if in fact these passages mean that every single person without exception has sinned,

## Which is true. That is the point the Apostle is making.

then it must also be true

## Not by the Rabbinic methods of exegesis used here.

that without exception no person brings suit justly, no person pleads truthfully, every person is quick to shed innocent blood, etc., as also described in the passages from the Psalms and Isaiah. In short, it must be true that absolutely no one does what is right, ever!

## Which is true - nobody does. Our holiest deeds & words & thoughts are unclean compared to the awful Purity & Holiness & Goodness of God. The Saints are very clear about this.

But that conclusion flatly contradicts scripture, which explicitly speaks of righteous men who walk with God: Job, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, those mentioned in Psalm 14, Zechariah and Elizabeth, and so on.
It also flatly contradicts actual experience, because the world is full of people who more often than not choose to do good when offered the opportunity to do evil...

## What is that compared to the Holiness of God ? Abstaining from evil =//= Holiness. One might as well compare the light of a fire-fly with the heat of the sun at its core - but the sun at its most glorious is as black as the pit of Hell, compared to the Brightness of God.

hopefully some of us are among them.

##
Last sentence - horrifically bad argument

Logically, that would mean "decent people" could not be saved. For the whole point of the argument is to affirmn the universality of sin, to establish universal need of Christ. The argument you're making, is an argument for the damnation of Mary - and every other "decent" person. If salvation is for murderers alone - those guilty of less spectacular sins, are damned. This turns the Good News, into Bad News: the worst possible.

The whole point of insisting all are sinners, Greek (chapter 1) & Jew (chapter 2) alike, is that Christ's salvation is available to all, by the gift of the Father, on the same terms. Because all are in the same need, because of the same lack - all have fallen short of God's Glory.

If being "good guys" were good enough for salvation, there is no place for grace - which is undeserved. It is God's unconditional Love, nothing less. If we are saved by being decent guys, we do not need Christ, or the Cross, or the Father's Love: we can present ourselves, rich in our own God-free merits, in God's presence And those who know they are bad guys, would have every reason for despair, & none for hope.

This set of ideas is American religion - not Christianity. The self-made man never lacks a god. Salvation is gracious, or it is not salvation, but self-help.

So the idea that Mary must have sinned based on passages such as Romans 3:23 falls flat on its own face.

## Rom.3.23 applies to Mary too - it must. The CCC makes no exception for her, but speaks of the "universality" of sin. It does not follow that she committed personal sins. But she needed a Saviour as much as any serial killer does. We all do.

• http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#401

• http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/402.htm

• http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/431.htm

 

[chilehed]

...Rom.3.23 applies to Mary too - it must. The CCC makes no exception for her, but speaks of the "universality" of sin. It does not follow that she committed personal sins....

Your response is very confused. You object strenuously to my assertion that Romans 3:23 does not imply that Mary must have sinned, and even claim that the Apostle was making the point that every single individual eithout exception has sinned.. but then you say that it does not follow from Romans 3:23 that Mary sinned.

Nothing in the OP can reasonably be construed to mean that Mary had no need of Christ, I did not speak to that in any way. What I'm dealing with is the erroneous notion that Romans 3:23 indicates that Mary must have been a sinner.

If you want to deal substantively with something I said, then please do so. But disjointed sound-bite answers are no response at all.

 

[Alive_Again]

<So in order to say that verses such as these must mean that Mary sinned, one must first say that Mary must have been evil, boastful, foolish, greedy or wicked - because those verses are speaking of evil, boastful, foolish, greedy and wicked people.

Even in the new covenant, the born again Christian has 2 natures. The inner divine nature and the flesh nature. The flesh nature is sinful and carnal and cannot please God. The two are opposed to each other (Romans). The Christians must choose to walk in the Spirit in order to express the divine nature and escape the corruption that is in the world through lust. It's not a free pass.

Even John states that if we don't acknowledge that we sin we lie against the truth.

If Mary was born as a born again Christian (which we know that she wasn't), she would still have to walk only in the Spirit. John stated to not sin was impossible, so as a new covenant Christian, a sinless person outside of Christ is impossible.

John the Baptist was the greatest born of woman, but the least in the new covenant is greater than he. Not of your own works that is so, but because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If we're greater than all before Jesus, and we still have to walk in the Spirit to express that, and that by the grace of God. You would saying that by Mary's own goodness she was sinless, and that she was greater than John the Baptist.

Mary herself rejoiced in God her savior. She acknowledged needing a savior.

I don't understand the need to exalt Mary? People want to maintain her virginity, as though virginity is a desired status. That is only for single people. Paul stated that if you "hold out" or deny your spouse you're defrauding them, because that is their only legal sexual outlet. The sexual union is good in the sight of God, and He instituted it, to go with marriage. It's required to consummate the marriage. She knew Joseph after Jesus was born in the same way that she didn't "know" a man before Jesus was conceived.

Mary cannot hear our prayers, because she is not God. How can she answer them if she cannot hear them? Jesus is our great high priest. Why seek another name for grace, when there is no other name given whereby we must be saved?

If by virtue of God's covenant we can come boldly to the throne of grace and actually obtain mercy why would you look anywhere else for help?

Would it not be better to honor her by seeing her for what she was, the mother of Jesus, who's suffered so that the sins of many would be laid bare. She was greatly rewarded for her suffering. Adding godlike abilities does not honor her, in spite of the intent of so many well meaning.

Jesus performed many miracles and gave the anointing to His disciples. On Pentecost the church received the anointing. If Jesus were here, would you trudge on off to Fatima to seek a healing, or would you go to Jesus? Jesus said it was better that He go so that the Holy Spirit would come. If we can't have healing, why is that better? We can! Jesus paid the penalty with His stripes for our healing. We only need the same faith He required when He walked the earth.

 

[silence_dogood]

It&#8217;s common to hear non-Catholics point to Romans 3:23 (&#8220;for all have sinned and fallen sort of the glory of God&#8221 as evidence that Mary must have sinned.

But Romans 3:23 arises from Romans 3:10-18, where Paul quotes Psalms 5, 10, 14, 36, 53 and 140, and Isaiah 59. All of these passages specifically refer to those who are evil, boastful, foolish, greedy, violent, and wicked &#8211; the violent devise evil in their hearts, no fool turns to God, the greedy spurn God, no fool is righteous, etc., etc.

Psalms 5, 10, 14, 36, and 140 contrast these evildoers with the righteous &#8211; so there ARE those who are righteous, those who do not devise evil in their hearts, who do turn to God, etc. etc.

So in order to say that verses such as these must mean that Mary sinned, one must first say that Mary must have been evil, boastful, foolish, greedy or wicked - because those verses are speaking of evil, boastful, foolish, greedy and wicked people.

Furthermore, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" doesn't demand a universal meaning, in the same way as "everyone in town showed up for the parade" doesn't mean that every single individual in every house turned out. Such phrases can (and often do) have a general meaning, and the Catholic position is that it does here. In fact there are many people who not only have not sinned but who cannot sin, among them infants and the mentally infirm. Such people do not have the mental capacity required to make an act of the will to reject God.

If this is not true, if in fact these passages mean that every single person without exception has sinned, then it must also be true that without exception no person brings suit justly, no person pleads truthfully, every person is quick to shed innocent blood, etc., as also described in the passages from the Psalms and Isaiah. In short, it must be true that absolutely no one does what is right, ever! But that conclusion flatly contradicts scripture, which explicitly speaks of righteous men who walk with God: Job, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, those mentioned in Psalm 14, Zechariah and Elizabeth, and so on. It also flatly contradicts actual experience, because the world is full of people who more often than not choose to do good when offered the opportunity to do evil... hopefully some of us are among them.

So the idea that Mary must have sinned based on passages such as Romans 3:23 falls flat on its own face.

So we have the Bible's depiction of Mary as a sinner and Catholicism's Unbiblical opinions of Mary as sinless and the Bible as inaccurate.

Hmm...which one to believe?

Out of curiousity, was Mary's father a sinner, or was he "sinless", too?

 

[chilehed]

So we have the Bible's depiction of Mary as a sinner and Catholicism's Unbiblical opinions of Mary as sinless and the Bible as inaccurate...

You choose to completely ignore the OP, which is essentially an admission that you have no rational rebuttal.

 

[chilehed]

<So in order to say that verses such as these must mean that Mary sinned, one must first say that Mary must have been evil, boastful, foolish, greedy or wicked - because those verses are speaking of evil, boastful, foolish, greedy and wicked people.

Even in the new covenant, the born again Christian has 2 natures. The inner divine nature and the flesh nature. The flesh nature is sinful and carnal and cannot please God. The two are opposed to each other (Romans). The Christians must choose to walk in the Spirit in order to express the divine nature and escape the corruption that is in the world through lust. It's not a free pass.

Even John states that if we don't acknowledge that we sin we lie against the truth.

If Mary was born as a born again Christian (which we know that she wasn't), she would still have to walk only in the Spirit. John stated to not sin was impossible, so as a new covenant Christian, a sinless person outside of Christ is impossible.

John the Baptist was the greatest born of woman, but the least in the new covenant is greater than he. Not of your own works that is so, but because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If we're greater than all before Jesus, and we still have to walk in the Spirit to express that, and that by the grace of God. You would saying that by Mary's own goodness she was sinless, and that she was greater than John the Baptist.

Mary herself rejoiced in God her savior. She acknowledged needing a savior.

I don't understand the need to exalt Mary? People want to maintain her virginity, as though virginity is a desired status. That is only for single people. Paul stated that if you "hold out" or deny your spouse you're defrauding them, because that is their only legal sexual outlet. The sexual union is good in the sight of God, and He instituted it, to go with marriage. It's required to consummate the marriage. She knew Joseph after Jesus was born in the same way that she didn't "know" a man before Jesus was conceived.

Mary cannot hear our prayers, because she is not God. How can she answer them if she cannot hear them? Jesus is our great high priest. Why seek another name for grace, when there is no other name given whereby we must be saved?

If by virtue of God's covenant we can come boldly to the throne of grace and actually obtain mercy why would you look anywhere else for help?

Would it not be better to honor her by seeing her for what she was, the mother of Jesus, who's suffered so that the sins of many would be laid bare. She was greatly rewarded for her suffering. Adding godlike abilities does not honor her, in spite of the intent of so many well meaning.

Jesus performed many miracles and gave the anointing to His disciples. On Pentecost the church received the anointing. If Jesus were here, would you trudge on off to Fatima to seek a healing, or would you go to Jesus? Jesus said it was better that He go so that the Holy Spirit would come. If we can't have healing, why is that better? We can! Jesus paid the penalty with His stripes for our healing. We only need the same faith He required when He walked the earth.

You completely ignore the topic of the thread, which I take as an admission that you have no coherent rebuttal.