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

[zoidar]

Actually, the Protestant argument most assuredly excepts Jesus Christ and sees "all" as all in Adam. Also, this Protestant exegete does some nice work to say that all in Romans 3:23 has to be limited to "those who believe" in 3:22, or we end up with universal sin and universal justification.

There are other places in Romans to consider "all" meaning all. And every place that it may, the Protestant position is surely that Jesus is sinless and not to be considered as being in Adam.

This how I understand it

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction (between Jew and Greek) ; for all (Jew and Greek) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (in other words not by the means of keeping the Law, but as a gift... ) ; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith (... received through faith). This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
— Romans 3:21-27

 

[renniks]

Jesus was not a newborn nor was He Mary. A newborn is not Mary nor Jesus, why is a newborn an exception? Was is a severely mentally handicapped adult an exception?

Because they are not capable of understanding sin. Again what makes Mary different than any of us?

 

[Valletta]

Because they are not capable of understanding sin. Again what makes Mary different than any of us?

Because they are not capable of understanding sin. Again what makes Mary different than any of us?

She did God's will, completely, without sin. While both Eve and Mary were created without sin, Eve sinned while Mary did not. Remember the Wedding at Cana, Mary said "Do as He tells you." Remember also your Bible, where it is said that Mary was blessed because she did God's will.

 

[renniks]

She did God's will, completely, without sin. While both Eve and Mary were created without sin, Eve sinned while Mary did not. Remember the Wedding at Cana, Mary said "Do as He tells you." Remember also your Bible, where it is said that Mary was blessed because she did God's will.

The Bible never indicates that she was without sin. At one point she thought Jesus was crazy. How can that come from a perfect person?

 

[Valletta]

The Bible never indicates that she was without sin. At one point she thought Jesus was crazy. How can that come from a perfect person?

The Bible does not say Mary thought Jesus was crazy. Mary's role in salvation history is an important one as can be seen from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[GDL]

This how I understand it

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction (between Jew and Greek) ; for all (Jew and Greek) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (in other words not by the means of keeping the Law, but as a gift... ) ; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith (... received through faith). This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
— Romans 3:21-27

The exegetical article I linked that was supplied in post #84 says "all" in 3:23 is grammatically connected to "all who believe" in 3:22. The author makes the case that if this connection is not maintained, grammatically "all" also connects to "being justified" thereby stating universal justification. So, if we're gong to use 3:23 for universal sin, then we also have to include universal justification.

The author's point was not that universal sin cannot be determined from elsewhere in the Text, but it's best to be clear with 3:23. Paul's main case here is there being no distinction between Jew and Greek - 3:22 - which is a big topic in Romans.

It would also seem that since all those who believed had sinned and were justified in Christ, that this Scripture certainly cannot be saying those who had not believed had not sinned.

Pretty technical, but it's best to be precise.

 

[GDL]

She did God's will, completely, without sin. While both Eve and Mary were created without sin,

Again, nice Catholic tradition. If she was created without sin and lived perfectly under the Law all her days, then why Jesus? Nowhere does the Text say nor clearly imply that she was part of the new creation before our Father and our Lord Jesus initiated it. She's a daughter of the first Adam.

 

[renniks]

The Bible does not say Mary thought Jesus was crazy. Mary's role in salvation history is an important one as can be seen from Genesis to Revelation.

"When His family heard about this, they went out to take custody of Him, saying, “He is out of His mind.”

 

[zoidar]

The exegetical article I linked that was supplied in post #84 says "all" in 3:23 is grammatically connected to "all who believe" in 3:22. The author makes the case that if this connection is not maintained, grammatically "all" also connects to "being justified" thereby stating universal justification. So, if we're gong to use 3:23 for universal sin, then we also have to include universal justification.

The author's point was not that universal sin cannot be determined from elsewhere in the Text, but it's best to be clear with 3:23. Paul's main case here is there being no distinction between Jew and Greek - 3:22 - which is a big topic in Romans.

It would also seem that since all those who believed had sinned and were justified in Christ, that this Scripture certainly cannot be saying those who had not believed had not sinned.

Pretty technical, but it's best to be precise.

Thanks for the info! I don't know if my understanding is impossible gramatically, but if you are right I will of course drop the idea. It's just too bad I got practically no Greek skills on my own. I use some lexicons by best effort. I do have an aquaintance that is a Greek professor, so I will check with him.

I'll be back!

Btw Lutherans speak of objective justification. That every individual is justified objectively, but it needs to be received subjectively through faith. I don't hold this view, but just wanted to share.

 

[zoidar]

The exegetical article I linked that was supplied in post #84 says "all" in 3:23 is grammatically connected to "all who believe" in 3:22. The author makes the case that if this connection is not maintained, grammatically "all" also connects to "being justified" thereby stating universal justification. So, if we're gong to use 3:23 for universal sin, then we also have to include universal justification.

I agree that "all" connects with "being justified", but not that all are universally justified, but that all are being justified the same way, through faith.

I know I can be off here, but that is how I have read it. Mailed the professor now, hopefully get an answer tomorrow.

Also we should remember these verses:

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
— Romans 3:9

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
— Romans 3:23

Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
— Romans 3:29-30

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift ... through faith.
— Romans 3:23-25

 

[zoidar]

As to babies, "All HAVE sinned" past tense. The Bible could have said "All have sinned or will sin."

Yes could. Paul was describing that both Jews and Greek have sinned. Paul or the Bible isn't that specific about infants and those with mental disability, so hard to know.

 

[concretecamper]

Actually we all know this about Scripture because Scripture tells us.

where does scripture tell us that the bible is God breathed.

 

[Strong in Him]

where does scripture tell us that the bible is God breathed.

2 Timothy 3:16.

It says "Scripture" which, at the time, was the OT, but which now includes the NT.

 

[GDL]

where does scripture tell us that the bible is God breathed.

2 Timothy 3:16.

It says "Scripture" which, at the time, was the OT, but which now includes the NT.

NIV 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

NKJ 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

ESV 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Translations...

 

[Strong in Him]

NIV 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

NKJ 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

ESV 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Translations...

?? That's what I said.
The question was "where does Scripture say the Bible is inspired?" My point was that the Bible hadn't been compiled then; 2 Tim 3:16 speaks of Scripture, which for them, at that time, would have been OT Scripture.

 

[concretecamper]

NIV 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Perfect!

Now, go to the previous verse. The previous verse tells us that the Holy Scriptures are those Timothy knew from his youth. It is believed that Timothy was born around 20ish A.D. So, the scriptures that Timothy knew from his youth is the Tanakh. Paul is referring to the Hebrew scripture. or Tanakh.

So, now that we have that explained and cleared up, tell me where scripture tells us that the Bible is God-breathed.

 

[concretecamper]

2 Timothy 3:16.

It says "Scripture" which, at the time, was the OT, but which now includes the NT.

adding to the Word of God, not a good thing to do.

 

[Strong in Him]

adding to the Word of God, not a good thing to do.

Sorry, but that's daft.

For Jesus and the disciples, Scripture was what we call the OT - obviously, the NT hadn't been written then.
But we now have the NT, and this is just as much Scripture as the OT is.
i) Most of the Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples - those whom he had taught for 3 years, and for a further 40 days after his resurrection.
ii) Most of the epistles were written by Paul, who was an Apostle and who writings were being regarded as Scripture, 2 Peter 3:16.
iii) Are you saying that those who compiled the NT added to the word of God, and that this was a bad thing to do??
iv) if anyone's added to the word it was you - by using the word Bible.

 

[concretecamper]

Sorry, but that's daft.

I think you adding to God's wording is beyond silly, it is downright dangerous.

But we now have the NT, and this is just as much Scripture as the OT is.

that is not the point. The point is YOU added to the meaning of what Paul said.

i) Most of the Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples - those whom he had taught for 3 years, and for a further 40 days after his resurrection.

irrelevant to the discussion.

ii) Most of the epistles were written by Paul, who was an Apostle and who writings were being regarded as Scripture, 2 Peter 3:16.

irrelevant to the discussion. YOU said Paul now means the entire NT

iii) Are you saying that those who compiled the NT added to the word of God, and that this was a bad thing to do??

I am saying that you ADDING to what Paul wrote (which is adding to scripture) is wrong and dangerous to the soul.

iv) if anyone's added to the word it was you - by using the word Bible.

What?

 

[GDL]

The question was "where does Scripture say the Bible is inspired?"

Paul is referring to the Hebrew scripture. or Tanakh.

So, now that we have that explained and cleared up, tell me where scripture tells us that the Bible is God-breathed.

adding to the Word of God, not a good thing to do.

Oh my goodness, you got me!! "Bible" vs. "Scripture". Good argument... Make up your mind, Rome. Is the "Bible" "Scripture" or is it not? If it's Scripture, then the implication of it being inspired is stronger than many of the arguments from silence Rome makes up for their tradition.

If it's not Scripture, then if anyone added to the "Scripture," it was Rome, was it not? So, I guess we chuck all the NT writings and go back to the Jews, in which case Rome is really out of line, which is pretty much the Messianic position anyway, not to mention most of the Protestants.

So, Rome "canonizes" the "Bible" and criticizes everyone else when they want to see the "Bible" as the "standard" above Roman tradition. And now Rome's adherents want to suggest the NT Writings are not God inspired, and in effect make Roman tradition the standard. IOW according to Rome, Rome is both the canonizer and the canon. We outside have known this. Nothing new.