22 major reasons to abandon the Premil doctrine

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
3,373
847
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Where does Paul say the partial hardening on Israel is removed after the fullness of the Gentiles be come in? Those hardened were the branches in unbelief, who can be grafted in again IF they do not remain in unbelief. Paul does not say hardening on Israel is removed.

Romans 11:25-27 (KJV) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Paul seems to be saying hardness in part has happened to Israel, because in this way, or by this means, Gentiles too shall be grafted in with Israel of faith. So that all Israel (Jew & Gentile of faith) shall be saved. IOW Israel shall be a people of faith from all nations, tribes, kindred and tongues.
RWB, I have no problem with the way you are seeing that... and am not saying you're incorrect. Verbatim, Paul says, "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." From that, it seems to me that the fullness of the Gentiles will come in, and yes, at the same time that's happening, there are ethnic Jews coming to Christ. I just think ~ don't know this to be true, but think (and I think all any of us can do is speculate on this relatively minor point) ~ that when we start to see large numbers of Jews coming to Christ, that will be an indicator that the full number of Gentiles has been brought in, and the current age is nearing its conclusion. I think at least for the most part we are in agreement.

Grace and peace to you!
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,655
3,591
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Good grief. Are you kidding me with this nonsense? You talk about stretching the text to make it say whatever you want it to say. Terrible. She was a sinner who needed to be saved just like the rest of us. NOTHING you said here changes that. This is case of completely going out of your way to make the scripture say whatever you want it to say. Horrible.

Obviously not. Have you no discernment whatsoever?

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

This is talking about how everyone inherited a tendency to sin going back to the sin of Adam which "resulted in condemnation for all people". The solution for this was "through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous". So, what scripture teaches is that all people who have descended from Adam physically (Jesus is not included in that because He was conceived of the Holy Spirit rather than of human beings like the rest of us) are sinners. That includes Mary.
WRONG.

Rom. 5:18 is about how ALL incurred the tendency toward sin.
Rom. 3:23 (all have sinned) is about having committed actual sin.

Was Mary an infant? This question is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Quit trying to change the subject. All infants are born with a tendency to sin which will come to fruition for all who live long enough for it to come to fruition, which includes Mary.
Rom. 3:23 uses inclusive language and is NOT meant to be understood definitive.
Matthew also uses inclusive language:

Matt. 2:3

When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him.

Are we to believe that every single person in Jerusalem knew about the Magi and were “disturbed” by it? Does this include babies severely retarded or the very old and sick?

OR
– is this like saying, “The whole town came our for the parade.”

Use your head . . .

None of this says anything about Mary being sinless. Did you forget what you were supposed to be talking about? Your attempts to change the subject are quite noticeable and embarrassing (for you).
I didn’t think you could respond.
This is about an OT Type vs and NT Fulfillment.

The fulfillment not only takes on the attributes of the OT Type – they are PERFECTED in the fulfillment.

ALL NT Fulfillments are more glorious and perfect than their OT Typeswithout exception.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
10,794
4,469
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Where does Paul say the partial hardening on Israel is removed after the fullness of the Gentiles be come in? Those hardened were the branches in unbelief, who can be grafted in again IF they do not remain in unbelief.
I agree. What many (most?) people miss when reading Romans 11 is that Paul hoped that some of those who had been hardened would be saved and grafted in again. Many people want to apply all of it to the future, but Paul was talking about ongoing things in Romans 11. People think it's only talking about Israelites being grafted in at some point in the future, but that is not what Paul was saying.

Romans 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

So, Paul was talking about his fellow Israelites of his day here. The ones who were cut off from the cultivated olive tree. And he asked "did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery?". And he said "not at all!". He was talking about those who were still alive at that time but had been cut off of the cultivated olive tree. He was saying that they had the opportunity to be grafted in again if they believed. That's why he said "I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them". He was hoping that some of those of his day who were cut off could be saved.

Most people seem to think that in Romans 11 he was saying that the ones who were cut off were forever cut off and no Israelites would be grafted in again until some future time near the return of Christ. No, that is not at all what he said. In actuality, some of the Israelites who were cut off back then because of unbelief were grafted in again after repenting and putting their faith in Christ. And for many of them, they did so after being provoked to jealousy by the salvation of the Gentiles. Which was God's plan. That plan has continued ever since as Israelites have continued to be saved, many after being provoked to jealousy by saved Gentiles.

Paul does not say hardening on Israel is removed.

Romans 11:25-27 (KJV) For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Paul seems to be saying hardness in part has happened to Israel, because in this way, or by this means, Gentiles too shall be grafted in with Israel of faith. So that all Israel (Jew & Gentile of faith) shall be saved. IOW Israel shall be a people of faith from all nations, tribes, kindred and tongues.
Exactly. Well said. Also, the hardening in part occurred so that the saved Gentiles, in turn, would provoke unsaved Israelites to want to be saved as well. This is God's plan right up until the day Christ returns. As you already indicated, Paul does not say that the hardening on Israel is ever removed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rwb

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
10,794
4,469
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
WRONG.

Rom. 5:18 is about how ALL incurred the tendency toward sin.
Rom. 3:23 (all have sinned) is about having committed actual sin.
LOL. You need to pray for wisdom (James 1:5-7) because you currently have none. I did not say otherwise from what you're saying here. But, the point is that anyone who lives long enough to sin, as Mary did, WILL commit actual sin. So, that includes Mary. That is what the scriptures mean. Now that I've taught you this, it's up to you to decide whether to accept this truth or not. So far you are going OUT OF YOUR WAY to avoid it.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
10,794
4,469
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In other words - you have NO Scriptural refutation.
That's what I
thought . . .
I already provided it and you know it. Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant. You can't say that I didn't provide the scriptures because I did. So, stop the clown show. We can all see through your act.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,655
3,591
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Right, and they will do so by God's power (1 Peter 1:5, directly above).
But NOT by His coercion.

Our cooperation is necessary for His power to work in us.

Luke 13:34

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, AND YOU WERE NOT WILLING!
Hm. Wow. Even after I said that Jesus, in His Olivet discourse, was very clear in saying that everyone is eligible to be saved, that the Gospel is for all? All I am saying ~ because Scripture is very clear on it, namely Moses and Paul ~ is that God will have mercy on whom He has mercy, and compassion on whom He will have compassion... that He ~ God ~ has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
YOU made the claim that only the "saved" (whatever that means) were members of His Church.

That's NOT what the Bible says. There are weeds AMONG the wheat (M1tt. 13:24-30).

And actually, BreadOfLife, I'm not sure I would use the term 'elitist,' but it sounds to me like you're saying the very thing you seem to be refuting here, basically, that only Catholics are saved, which sounds like exclusivism to me. I mean, Jesus certainly claimed exclusivity for Himself, that no one can come to the Father except through Him, but far, far more than just Catholics are eligible... :)

To be continued...
I've never made that claim - NOR is it taught by the Cathollic Church.
 

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
3,373
847
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
When Jesus, in Matthew 16:18, says, "on this rock," He is referring not to Peter, but Peter's confession that Jesus is "...the Christ, the Son of the living God," in Matthew 16:16. That confession, which is a matter of the heart, is what His Church ~ which is His people, those who believe in Him and are in Him ~ is built on. As Paul says in Ephesians 2:19-22, "(we) are no longer strangers and aliens, but (we) are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit." We are His church. So we are all "little rocks," built on the Rock of our salvation, which has always been and will always be the Lord. As Paul says to the Corinthians of the Israelites during the Exodus, "...our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ." David knew these things well, too; he had much to say about Who the Rock of his salvation is in 1st and 2nd Samuel and the Psalms. That has not somehow changed in the somehow between then and now. As the writer of Hebrews says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

Thanks be to God!

Grace and peace to you all.
 
Last edited:

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,655
3,591
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
LOL. You need to pray for wisdom (James 1:5-7) because you currently have none. I did not say otherwise from what you're saying here. But, the point is that anyone who lives long enough to sin, as Mary did, WILL commit actual sin. So, that includes Mary. That is what the scriptures mean. Now that I've taught you this, it's up to you to decide whether to accept this truth or not. So far you are going OUT OF YOUR WAY to avoid it.
The Bible doesn't say this. Severely retard people don't even have the full faculties to commit sin, which requires intent and full complicity.

Can you show me the Chapter
and Verse??
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,655
3,591
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I already provided it and you know it. Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant. You can't say that I didn't provide the scriptures because I did. So, stop the clown show. We can all see through your act.
Ummmm, can you point me to the POST?
Curious to see all of the "Holes" you 've been
poking, 'cause I haven't seen any yet . . .
 

PinSeeker

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2021
3,373
847
113
Nashville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But NOT by His coercion.
Agreed on this, as I have said many times...

Our cooperation is necessary for His power to work in us.
Well, I don't disagree, but again ~ and again and again... I've lost count now... :) ~ we "cooperate" because of His working in us by His Spirit. But I think the way in which you are saying this and suppose it to be is... very Arminian... :) He is the One Who ensures that cooperation, because of His initial and ongoing work in our heart, which is what drives us. If it were left to us, we would never "cooperate," because we would still be of the evil one, and we would remain dead in sin.

YOU made the claim that only the "saved" (whatever that means) were members of His Church.
You don't know what it means to be saved? Well, okay... But again, the main point between us is what His Church is... who His Church is comprised of. You quoted Luke and specifically, "you were not willing," I've spoken to this (although not that specific Luke passage, but it's no different) several times. Yet again, it is God Who gives us new birth in the Spirit, who takes out our heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh. And then, subsequently, it is He who works in our hearts so that we will and work according to His good pleasure. I hear the whole "coercion" meme coming again from miles and miles away, but that's just ridiculous. He has mercy/compassion on whom He will have mercy/compassion (has mercy/compassion upon whom He wills), and, and hardens whom He wills. Again, consider what Jesus says in John 10 to those who do not believe, not that "you are not among my sheep because you do not believe," but that "you do not believe because you are not among my sheep."

That's NOT what the Bible says.
God has His elect, according to His purpose, as Paul says in Romans 9:11, those who are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:5), and these are chosen before the foundation of the world, as Paul says in Ephesians 1:4.

I've never made that claim - NOR is it taught by the Cathollic Church.
Well, good, but ~ again, not to offend, but ~ by inference, you do the very thing you say you are not doing ~ because of your claim of who Christ's catholic church is.

Grace and peace to you.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
21,655
3,591
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I would say, BreadOfLife, that my understandings of Scripture line up very closely to John Calvin's, so yes. And you, my friend, are very Arminian in yours. But not all Catholics are...
You’re a Calvinist – that’s what I figured.
My sister is a Calvinist – and she also doesn’t like to identify as one.

I’m a Catholicnot an Arminian.
My Church’s teachings existed 1500 years before there ever WAS a Jacobus Arminius . . .

Well, again, yes, the aggregate number of professing believers is surely in decline; I never denied that and have concurred on that several times now. But, God promised to build His kingdom, which is made up of true believers, those born again in Christ, and that has been true and will continue to be true until ~ as Paul says ~ the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in and the partial hardening now on Israel is removed. People are still... coming to Christ, and will up to that time. Even though the number of professing believers is declining ~ at least in certain areas of the world;t the story is quite the opposite in places like Africa and China...

No, it's an affirmation of the Biblically correct definition. :) But far be it from me to deprive you of your opinion. :)
YOU defined “denominations” as:

“Denominations are recognized autonomous branches of the visible Christian Church.”

Since the Catholic Church is the Original Tree from which Protestantism splintered – then it CANNOT be a denomination – per YOUR definition.

Hmmm... no comment here... :) I guess all I will say is that there is no "branch of Christianity"... :) Your response here is to my comment that (and I quote myself), "Denominations are recognized autonomous branches of the visible Christian Church." I get that you don't see the same difference I do, but I would say that calling something a "branch of Christianity" and calling something a "recognized autonomous branch of the visible Christian Church" are two very different descriptions.
PRIOR to the Protestant Revolt – the Catholic church WAS the visible Church.

It still is.

That's the Catholic narrative, sure. And, as I've said before, I agree, really, but obviously in a much larger sense that what you have in mind; this is what I said ~ in a slightly different way ~ to Illuminator above.


Ah, I see what you mean now. Okay, sure. It's parallel to what He says in Matthew 25, in opposing ways regarding believers and unbelievers (and will say upon His return to some as opposed to others):

"...'I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed Me, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me, I was in prison and you came to Me... Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these My brothers, you did it to Me.’"

“...'I was hungry and you gave Me no food, I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome Me, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me... Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’”
I think you're missing the point of what Jesus was saying.to Saul in Acts 9.
He was recruiting him at that moment - even thou Saul thought he was onlt persecuting Jesus's followers.
Jesus made it clear to Saul that His Church IS HIM.

LOL! Not at all. My goodness. The issue, BreadOfLife, is now ~ as it has been from the outset of our conversation ~ what, actually who that Church is. :)
The very HEART of the Protestant Revolt was separation .

The entire movement was born of divorce.

One cannot know Him unless he/she is born again of the Spirit, because up to that time, he/she are dead in his/her sin, and therefore a slave to unrighteousness.
And THAT person would know His Church.
Okay, well, there are a lot of very wrong "Protestant sources" out there... :) I'm not necessarily saying Kenneth Samples is one of those people; I would like to know his particular context in saying that, if in fact that's what he actually said/wrote/meant. Just on cursory glance though, I do see that he says this: "Today the Catholic church is incredibly divergent. Its diversity is actually on the level of that within Protestantism." Perhaps you disagree with that particular statement, but then that would mean you're... cherry-picking... :)

It seems to me because you're not giving it an earnest, honest assessment. I don't disagree that "new doctrines (have been) invented by different men (and women) ...who eventually started their own sects based on their personal interpretations." And, for sure, this is apostasy. However, I don't really know if you're trying to do this or not, but you can't paint every "departure," we'll call it, as apostasy. A very large amount of this "division" has been to avoid dissensions, controversies, and quarrels, which is exactly what Paul exhorts us all as Christians to do.

And, as I said, you're really sort of a pot calling the kettle black, so to speak, BOL. It is quite true that "today's Catholic church is incredibly divergent... and actually on the level of that within Protestantism," as Kenneth Samples said (quoted above).

Grace and peace to you, BreadOfLife.
NOT quite . . .

There are some Catholics who have issues with some doctrine – and they are dissenters.

There are others who flatly reject certain doctrines. As I stated before – those are called Protestants.
But it’s NOT true that we are as “divergent” as Protestantism.

There ARE groups like the Old Catholic Church, the Irish Catholic Church, American Catholic Church, American National Catholic Chur, etc. These are Protestant groups and are NOT affiliated with the Catholic Church.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
10,794
4,469
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Bible doesn't say this. Severely retard people don't even have the full faculties to commit sin, which requires intent and full complicity.

Can you show me the Chapter
and Verse??
Can you just tone it down a few notches and act like an adult for once? I'm trying to have an adult discussion here. Are you okay with actually doing that? I acknowledge that there can be exceptions to what we're talking about, but Mary was neither a baby/toddler nor a severely retarded person. So, stop trying to think of excuses for your false doctrine that have nothing to do with Mary herself. Apart from these extreme examples we're talking about, the Bible clearly teaches that all people sin. That would include Mary. You are desperately trying to get around this, but your attempts to do so are absolutely pathetic.
 

covenantee

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2022
6,393
2,726
113
73
Canada
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Soooo, are you saying you DON'T know how to day Peter in Greek?
That's
what I thought . . .
You are clearly plainly resolutely unwaveringly determined to continue making a fool of yourself.

Don't let me stop you.

Do tell us how to "day" Peter in Greek.

You alone know.

And don't forget 1 Corinthians 10:4.

Christ The Petra.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Spiritual Israelite

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
10,794
4,469
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ummmm, can you point me to the POST?
Curious to see all of the "Holes" you 've been
poking, 'cause I haven't seen any yet . . .
Are you pretending to be dense or...? You have already forgotten the post where I talked about the verses which indicate that all people have sinned and I referenced Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:17-18? You even responded to what I said about those already. While you may disagree with me about those you can't say that I haven't provided any scriptures to back up what I'm saying because I have. Are you starting to lose your memory? You might want to get that checked out.
 

rwb

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2022
4,233
1,904
113
73
Branson
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
RWB, I have no problem with the way you are seeing that... and am not saying you're incorrect. Verbatim, Paul says, "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." From that, it seems to me that the fullness of the Gentiles will come in, and yes, at the same time that's happening, there are ethnic Jews coming to Christ. I just think ~ don't know this to be true, but think (and I think all any of us can do is speculate on this relatively minor point) ~ that when we start to see large numbers of Jews coming to Christ, that will be an indicator that the full number of Gentiles has been brought in, and the current age is nearing its conclusion. I think at least for the most part we are in agreement.

Grace and peace to you!

I agree with most of what you're saying. I don't agree that large numbers of Jews will come to Christ which will be proof the current age is nearing its conclusion. I believe Jews and well as Gentiles have been entering the Kingdom of God throughout this age of Gospel grace. Because if I'm rightly understanding Scripture since Christ's cross and resurrection there is no distinction between the two. When we are in Christ the wall of separation is gone, and there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christians of all the nations of the world. I also think that for the most part we are in agreement. Grace & peace to you as well!
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,198
113
73
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Afraid of the truth? That is a lie. No matter what I say about Catholic doctrine (and I've said things about some of those doctrines already, which you ignore), you will disagree. So, what is the point? This is not a Catholic doctrines forum, it's an eschatology forum. So, that's primarily what I'm here to discuss. You should try staying on topic some time. It's not too hard.


So, you just say something like this with no explanation of what you're talking about. This is meaningless. I couldn't care less about some creed. I care about scripture. I disagree with a lot of Catholic doctrine and I also disagree with some things that Protestants believe. So, I couldn't care less if I'm considered both anti-Catholic and anti-Protestant.
Just as I suspected. You are just another angry anti-trinitarian trouble maker, a different classification of anti-Protestant/anti-Catholic who likes to argue with everybody about everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreadOfLife

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,198
113
73
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Are you pretending to be dense or...? You have already forgotten the post where I talked about the verses which indicate that all people have sinned and I referenced Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:17-18? You even responded to what I said about those already. While you may disagree with me about those you can't say that I haven't provided any scriptures to back up what I'm saying because I have. Are you starting to lose your memory? You might want to get that checked out.
None of the early reformers taught that Mary was a sinner, or she had other children. Conservative Protestants reacted against such diabolical Modernism with the formation of the fundamentalist movement in 1908, upholding 5 biblical truths. The pope reacted against Modernism calling it "the synthesis of all heresies" in 1907.

The time frame follows the Enlightenment Era, a period in history that "enlightened" mankind with communism, skepticism and formal atheism. A few relativist liberal Protestants were influenced by Modernism and started teaching things the reformers never taught, and the infection spread like a cancer to what we see today: a cover-up of reformist teaching about Mary. (by conjuring up phantoms)

Luther’s Mariology: Have Catholic Apologists Exaggerated It?

And Has Present-Day Protestantism Maintained the Classical “Reformation” Protestant Mariology?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BreadOfLife

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,198
113
73
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Romans 3:23 (RSV) “since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

The word for “all” here, in Greek (pas) can indeed have different meanings: as it does in English. It matters not if it means literally “every single one” in some places, if it can mean something less than “absolutely every” elsewhere in Scripture. As soon as this is admitted, then the Catholic exception for Mary cannot be said to be linguistically or exegetically impossible, any more than adelphos (“brother”) meaning “sibling” in one place rules out a meaning of “cousin” or other non-sibling somewhere else.

We find examples of a non-literal intent elsewhere in Romans. In verse 1:29 the KJV has the phrase, “being filled with all unrighteousness,” whereas RSV adopts the more particular, specific meaning, “all manner of wickedness.” As another example in the same book, Paul writes that “all Israel will be saved,” (11:26), but we know that many will not be saved. And in 15:14, Paul describes members of the Roman church as “filled with all knowledge” (cf. 1 Cor 1:5 in KJV), which clearly cannot be taken literally. Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, and are as accessible as the nearest Strong’s Concordance.

What would be contrary to a sinless / immaculate Mary would be a verse that read something like: “absolutely every human being who ever lived -- no exceptions – has sinned.” This would include Jesus since He is a man, but He is also God (a Divine Person), and Mary. But Romans 3:23 doesn’t entail that logical conundrum.

One could also say that Mary was included in the “all” in the sense that she certainly would have been subject to original sin like all the rest of us but for God’s special preventive act of grace – a “preemptive strike,” so to speak. This is why she can rightly say that God was her Savior too (Lk 1:47). I don’t think that is stretching it, considering that Hebrew idiom was not at all “scientific,” “philosophical” nor excessively particularistic as to literal meanings, as English in our culture seems to be today.

This “exception / original sin / Hebrew idiom” explanation is, I submit, the most plausible. It allows one to take “all” here in its most straightforward, common sense meaning, but with the proviso that Mary was spared from inevitable sin by means of a direct, extraordinary intervention of God, and it is also in line with the thought of Luke 1:47, as interpreted by Catholic theology, in light of its acceptance of the Immaculate Conception.

That said, I go now to linguistic reference works. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged Ed.) states:
Pas can have different meanings according to its different uses . . . in many verses, pas is used in the NT simply to denote a great number, e.g., “all Jerusalem” in Mt 2:3 and “all the sick” in 4:24. (pp. 796-797)​
See also Matthew 3:5; 21:10; 27:25; Mark 2:13; 9:15; etc., especially in KJV.​

Likewise, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives “of every kind” as a possible meaning in some contexts (p. 491, Strong’s word #3956). And Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words tells us it can mean “every kind or variety.” (vol. 1, p. 46, under “All”).

Nevertheless, I am inclined to go with the “exception” interpretation I described above. My point here is simply to illustrate that pas doesn’t necessarily have to mean “no exceptions,” so that Mary’s sinlessness is not a logical impossibility based on the meaning of pas alone.

We see Jewish idiom and hyperbole in passages of similar meaning. Jesus says: “No one is good but God alone” (Lk 18:19; cf. Mt 19:17). Yet He also said: “The good person brings good things out of a good treasure.” (Mt 12:35; cf. 5:45; 7:17-20; 22:10). Furthermore, in each instance in Matthew and Luke above of the English “good” the Greek word is the same: agatho.

Is this a contradiction? Of course not. Jesus is merely drawing a contrast between our righteousness and God’s, but He doesn’t deny that we can be “good” in a lesser sense. We observe the same dynamic in the Psalms:

Psalm 14:2-3 The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely,
that seek after God. [3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good,
[Hebrew, tob] no not one. (cf. 53:1-3; Paul cites this in Rom 3:10-12)

Yet in the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims, “I have trusted in thy steadfast love” (13:5), which certainly is “seeking” after God! And in the very next he refers to “He who walk blamelessly, and does what is right” (15:2). Even two verses later (14:5) he writes that “God is with the generation of the righteous.” So obviously his lament in 14:2-3 is an indignant hyperbole and not intended as a literal utterance.

Such remarks are common to Hebrew poetic idiom. The anonymous psalmist in 112:5-6 refers to the “righteous” (Heb. tob), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly: using the words “righteous” or “good” (11:23; 12:2; 13:22; 14:14, 19), using the same word, tob, which appears in Psalm 14:2-3. References to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9; 22:19; Ps 5:12; 32:11; 34:15; 37:16, 32; Mt 9:13; 13:17; 25:37, 46; Rom 5:19; Heb 11:4; Jas 5:16; 1 Pet 3:12; 4:18, etc.).

One might also note 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” As far as physical death is concerned (the context of 1 Cor 15), not “all” people have died (e.g., Enoch: Gen 5:24; cf. Heb 11:5; Elijah: 2 Kings 2:11). Likewise, “all” will not be made spiritually alive by Christ, as some will choose to suffer eternal spiritual death in hell.

The key in all this is to understand biblical language properly in context. It’s not always literal.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.