When a righteous person sins, is he then wicked? Does he then become as Paul describes in Romans 3:10-13 "...There is no one righteous, no, not one; there is no one that understands; there is no one that seeks after God. They are all gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there is no one that does good, no, not one. Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit"
Does Paul literally mean that no men are righteous, or is he merely quoting from the Psalms to PROVE the beginning of Romans 3:1 "What advantage then has the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision?" If you will recall, David was writing against the JEWS who opposed him. Paul is ALSO PRIMARILY opposed by JEWS. They were wicked. Being circumcised did not make one righteous, as Paul mentions at the end of Romans 2 "...but he [is] a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit [and] not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Again, Paul is making an argument, as David did, against those self-righteous Jews who thought that they were saved on account of their rituals, esp. circumcision. Paul then continues that we are not saved by works of the law, and uses Abraham as an example of righteousness BEFORE circumcision. To say that Paul is tallking about something else, that ALL men are wicked, is to miss the point of Paul's context. If Paul literally means what he is saying, as you claim, then no one is righteous, vs. what other Scriptures say that men ARE righteous. And certainly, Jesus is ALSO righteous. By this argument, then, we don't understand Paul as saying that all men are wicked and no man seeks out the Lord. Time and time again, the Scripture exhorts and rewards those who do. Now, suddenly, no one seeks out the Lord?
I do know that Paul said there was no good in him.
Humility. Paul claims the opposite in other cases when he defends his apostleship - realizing it is the Lord who lives in Him.
We do know what Paul thought about Mary. In all of his Biblical writings he never made a single exception for her being sinless.
An argument from silence is a lousy argument. Especially when we rely on a 2000 year old person and we don't have very much information on what Paul said or felt about such issues that he didn't discuss in his epistles. If Christians believe that Mary was sinless - and no one disagreed, then perhaps Paul did teach that she was - or perhaps Mary was still alive and Paul wouldn't teach it out of humility for Mary's sake.
Paul was saying that upon our first sin, we were unfit for heaven, but for what Jesus did. AND, that ALL have sinned and are in need of Jesus.
I have made this clear in the past. I don't disagree with that. However, some Protestants have decided to read much more into this passage - that Mary couldn't have been sinless. My point was that if Paul accounts for no exceptions, than Paul must not have excluded Jesus. Because Paul DOES make provision for Christ, we don't know if there is another exception in God's plans. Paul himself never makes the claim that he knows all of God's plans - in the very same letter. But because the Spirit is guiding Paul, Paul does NOT say that Jesus is the only sinless person in Romans 3. Thus, Paul (and the Spirit) leave room for exceptions to the universal "all".
Regards
While the Orthodox Church certainly considers Theotokos to be immaculate in every others way, by her own choice to obey God, she is as human and capable of sinning as any one of us.
To the Ortodox mindset, God's intervention in the moment of her conception by her parents would separate her from us and make her sainthood not the highest feat of faithful cooperation with God's will, but simply an act of God's will, and not a result of her theosis.
As a "mere" human, she gives hope to all, and serves as a model for all to follow and venerate. In the Orhtodox Church she is the "highest" saint in terms of honor. But the very fact that she was deemed worthy of her awesome task, and that the Word used her flesh to become Man, speaks volumes of her purity, for we all believe, I hope, that the flesh God used for Incarnation was not defiled or anything short of immaculate. And the mere fact that she gave Birth to the Savior of or souls makes even any discussion of her "impurity" meaningless. She has indebted all of us with her love.
The fact that both sides of the Church, Greek and Latin never questioned her immaculate life is a testament that this was understood to be that way from the beginning. Both sides of the Apostolic Church believe that she was assumed bodily into heaven on the third day after her death, although there are some Catholics who deny that she ever died. Some Orthodox even point to the fact that she may have sinned (the incident at the wedding party when Christ turned water into wine), but these are private opinions and not doctrinal statements.
Assuming by "righteous" you mean what I would call "saved", then 'no', he is not a wicked person, he has just done a wicked thing. He does not become as Paul describes in your passage. There Paul describes all people before salvation.
Does Paul literally mean that no men are righteous, or is he merely quoting from the Psalms to PROVE the beginning of Romans 3:1 ...
Yes, Paul literally means that no men are righteous before God on their own.
If Paul literally means what he is saying, as you claim, then no one is righteous, vs. what other Scriptures say that men ARE righteous. And certainly, Jesus is ALSO righteous. By this argument, then, we don't understand Paul as saying that all men are wicked and no man seeks out the Lord. Time and time again, the Scripture exhorts and rewards those who do. Now, suddenly, no one seeks out the Lord?
No one is righteous in his nature when born. All of the elect are righteous in God's sight after salvation. No wicked person would ever seek out the Lord. God gives grace to those whom He will, and then they seek the Lord.
FK: "We do know what Paul thought about Mary. In all of his Biblical writings he never made a single exception for her being sinless."
An argument from silence is a lousy argument. ... If Christians believe that Mary was sinless - and no one disagreed, then perhaps Paul did teach that she was - or perhaps Mary was still alive and Paul wouldn't teach it out of humility for Mary's sake.
But your whole argument is based on silence, isn't it? The standard for you is much stricter because you are making the positive argument. You are saying "look at all this non-evidence, therefore it must be so." :) Just in your above, you use "if" for two ideas, and "perhaps" for two conclusions.
Paul does NOT say that Jesus is the only sinless person in Romans 3. Thus, Paul (and the Spirit) leave room for exceptions to the universal "all".
An argument from silence is a lousy argument. ... :)