Posted on 04/01/2008 4:23:02 PM PDT by NYer
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Why would Paul need to make an exception when writing the “alls” of Romans 3 to say or imply “all, but Jesus?” Paul clearly understands and explains to the reader that there are two categories: those who sin, and one who is righteous.
sin is not something that automatically does not apply to Jesus because He has two natures.
Confusing statement, but I would like to comment on this. Jesus was born sinless because of the Holy Spirit; He remained sinless because He was obedient.
Equal as fellow believers with God, through Christ.
Mary has no more a special relationship with Christ's his earthly mother than any other believer who does His will on earth.
She was a sinner saved by grace like all of us and was chosen for a special task that she completed while on earth.
Nothing more and nothing less.
And that was the point that Christ was making when He emphasized His words and not Mary as His mother.
OK, that makes sense. So Jesus is actually excluded by the immediate context.
Now explain how “all” applies to the Holy Innocents and to everyone else who the scripture describes as righteous.
(If you read the whole thread (a)I will pin a medal on you and (b) you will understand the blessedness crack. No big deal. )
(What scares me about that quote is I think I understand it.)
You said (with emphasis added, of course) in post 921
Then you said (I cehcked it was you or someone using your 'handle') in the post to which this is a reply:
I never brought up the issue of the Lord correcting anyone.
You conjectured that I was putting up a straw man when I denied that we claim that Mary is the firstborn of Creation. You said then
I do not know what Protestant made such a claim, but it sounds like you are putting up a straw man argument.
So I showed you where it had been alleged by a Protestant that we make that claim.
That's enough. I have nothing further to say to you. Have a blessed evening, but please excuse me from any further discussion.
I believe that there are only two kinds of righteousness, actual and imputed. The only way anyone other than Jesus can be wholly righteous is to have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. If anyone could actually keep the law and become wholly righteous on their own, there would be no need for them to have a Savior.
From your question, it seems that you believe that the Holy Innocents were righteous. Yes? How so? I only know the will of God as it has been revealed in His word and I do not know His will (judgement) for babes who die before they can commit actual sins. I know they bear the curse of original sin but I do not know if God graciously saves them by imputing the righteousness of Christ to them. I take the view of King David, that God saves them by grace but I do not know.
We are all capable of the most heinous of sins, and only God's grace keeps any of us from being as those described in Romans 3.
We have an uncomplicated text analysis here. Do you think when St. Paul writes “”their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet swift to shed blood” he means to apply it to killed babies? It is not a theological question.
But even in that passage, the Lord corrects the woman (the only time the Lord corrects any woman in the Gospels) and states that blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it (Lk.11:28). Then you said (I cehcked it was you or someone using your 'handle') in the post to which this is a reply: I never brought up the issue of the Lord correcting anyone.
You really do have a problem with reading don't you!.
Note the words, I never brought up the issue of the woman being corrected, I didn't say that I didn't mention it.
But that wasn't the issue, the issue was that the Lord pointed to His words.
So, you were making an issue out of something that I wasn't making an issue of.
You conjectured that I was putting up a straw man when I denied that we claim that Mary is the firstborn of Creation. You said then I do not know what Protestant made such a claim, but it sounds like you are putting up a straw man argument. So I showed you where it had been alleged by a Protestant that we make that claim.
And once again, when one actually reads what was said, it is clear that Mary being the first born was not the point that Silverlings was making.
Silverlings was dealing with Christ as intercessor, and that the Roman Catholics have replaced him with Mary as such and thereby replacing Him in effect as 'the firstborn of creation'.
The emphasis was on the role of Christ as intercession as could be clearly seen by the context of the sentence.
That's enough. I have nothing further to say to you. Have a blessed evening, but please excuse me from any further discussion.
Well, it will give you time to read some Aquinas and find out how the male transmits the sin nature.
That may even help your reading comphrension ability as well.
[ But even in that passage, the Lord corrects the woman (the only time the Lord corrects any woman in the Gospels) and states that blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it (Lk.11:28).]
So, I was only responding to what the verse said after you brought it up and my emphasis was on the blessing to those who hear the word, not on the correction of the woman per se.
So in the case of the woman who calls out "Blessed the womb that bore you and the breasts that have you suck," (from memory), I don't know what YOU see, But I see someone who is implicitly distancing herself from the love and holiness (and blessedness -- a word the pronunciation of which some Protestants seem unwilling to reveal) which Jesus offers to all of us in Him.
[ I didn't use that passage, I used Mk.3:34-35, where Christ said all those 'who do the will of the Father, the same is my brother, my sister and my mother'. ]
So, it was you who brought up that verse, not I and I only responded to what you were saying.
Just want anyone who is lurking to know exactly what the truth is.
The point that Silverlings is making is that the Roman Catholic Church is giving Mary the role of Christ, who is the firstborn of every creation.
Silverlings was not saying that the Roman Catholics were claiming that Mary was the First Born of all creation, but that was the implict effect of making her the 'queen of heaven' and assuming the role of Christ as intercessor.
So, my original statement stands, and you are simply swinging at straw man
As I said, this conversation is over.
As I said, this conversation is over.
And don't forget to do that reading on the transmission of the sin nature by the man!
The full context of the passage in Romans 3 is Paul’s teaching of a universal principle – all men are under the Law (vs 19) and unable to keep it. All are capable of actual sins including the ones you have excerpted. Universal principle, but not a universal application.
Were/are killed babies born in sin? David writes in Psalm 51, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity."
Very well, therefore you correctly propose to read “all have sinned” in Romans 3 as “all are capable of sinning”. Indeed, Mary, as well as Jesus, the Holy Innocents, Noah, and others were capable of sinning.
No, I don’t.
Then you contraduict yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.