If "all have sinned" is so clear, why did YOU feel the need to add a human gloss to it saying that it has no exceptions?
Seems to me that you yourself realize that the three words "all have sinned" by themselves could admit of an exception or ten or maybe fifteen or they might admit of no exceptions.
But the three words themselves by themselves are not clear with regard to exceptions. Period. They are not clear. They would be clear if they were five words instead of three. "All have sinned, no exceptions." Or maybe six words, "All have sinned, absolutely no exceptions."
But Jesus forgot to tell St. Paul to add those two words. Silly Jesus. He let Paul leave it at three words and now you feel a need to clarify by adding, by yourself, before anyone even raised it on this thread, "no exceptions."
Well, brother, if you can add a clarifying gloss, so can someone else. Like a lot of bishops and teachers of the Church for centuries. Of course they might all be wrong in their clarifying gloss and you might be right. On the other hand, they might have been authorized by Christ as successors to the Apostles he singlehandedly as note IN SCRIPTURE chose by name to add this gloss. Either way, it's your gloss against their gloss.
But who are you and who sez your gloss is right and the other guy's gloss is wrong?
One thing's darn CLEAR: the three words are not clear in and of themselves or you would not have felt the need to clarify them yourself.
Gloss away, my friend. Gloss away. Just don't tell me the passage is clear and then tell me that it has to have your clarifying gloss. Man up. Own up to the fact that you added to Scripture here. Little old you, you added to Scripture. "No exceptions" is not found in the original Greek nor in the KJV not, even in Pastor Billy Bob from the Church down the Road's Bible, though I suspect you may have learned it from Pastor Billy Bob's lips--but if so, then it's his gloss. It's not in Pastor Billy Bob's Bible, that much is for sartin.
In the phrase “all have sinned,” what does the word “all” mean?
“The scriptures the Bereans were searching were the OT scriptures. That’s all that existed for Christians then. I’m glad to know that you limit yourself to the OT for your doctrine.”
That is a sarcastic comment. I am having civil conservations here, and am not interested in playing gotcha games.
I have not implied that I limit myself to the OT. I know the OT was the only thing available to the Bereans at the time. But it is still Scripture, and the Bereans were commended for searching it, without the benefit of some special body of interpreters.
Consider Romans 3:10-12, buttressing the point. It is quite adamant:
“As it is written:
“ There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.””
Not a lot of wiggle room, there.
I don’t believe I am adding a gloss to note that there are no exceptions mentioned to the God’s statement that all have sinned. I simply see no exception there. “All” means “all,” in my opinion. I believe Scripture is clear.
I repeat: In the phrase “all have sinned,” what does the word “all” mean?