Because not all humans, born of human parents, are sinners. Babies, mentally incapacitated people, etc, are not sinners. Your premise is flawed, therefore what follows is not logically true. It may BE true (I don’t think so), but you cannot prove it by logic.
The scripture ‘all have sinned’ does not define or limit the word ‘all’. You can only do that by inserting words into scripture that are not there. Since we know Jesus did not sin and babies and incapacitated people do not sin, we know there are exceptions to “all”. This statement would then have to be a generalization which cannot be taken literally else it is false, and nothing in the Bible can be false.
Love,
O2
O...
K...
Slick Willy...
...aren't you supposed to helping out your poor, put upon wife in the election??
Hail Mary; Mother of GOD...
Actually according to the Word....yes they are sinners.
The scripture ‘all have sinned’ does not define or limit the word ‘all’. You can only do that by inserting words into scripture that are not there. Since we know Jesus did not sin and babies and incapacitated people do not sin, we know there are exceptions to “allâ€. This statement would then have to be a generalization which cannot be taken literally else it is false, and nothing in the Bible can be false.
The Greek word for all in Romans 3:23 is pantes. As used in this context it does mean ALL, that is everybody, has sinned.
The adjective is anarthrous, without the definite article and is plural. In these cases it is translated as meaning ALL.
Jesus would not be included in this category as He is the Creator and not created, He is eternal and has been noted in the Word to be without sin. Else He would not be the perfect sacrifice.
Are children included as sinners? The meaning of the text is clear. Yes.
Children are sinners and have inherited sin from their parents. We know this because sadly children die at early ages. Death is part of the consequence of our sin nature.
David recognized he was a sinner at birth as noted in Psalm 51:5.
This moves us to the age of accountability discussion.
I reproduce this information from gotquestions.org on this topic.
The one passage that seems to identify with this topic more than any other is 2 Samuel 12:21–23. The context of these verses is that King David committed adultery with Bathsheba, with a resulting pregnancy. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to inform David that, because of his sin, the Lord would take the child in death. David responded to this by grieving and praying for the child. But once the child was taken, David’s mourning ended. David’s servants were surprised to hear this. They said to King David, “What is this thing that you have done? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but when the child died, you arose and ate food.†David’s response was, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’ But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.†David’s response indicates that those who cannot believe are safe in the Lord. David said that he could go to the child but could not bring the child back to him. Also, and just as important, David seemed to be comforted by this knowledge. In other words, David seemed to be saying that he would see his baby son (in heaven), though he could not bring him back. http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html
You need to make a distinction btwn being a sinner by nature, which even infants are as manifestly having a fallen Adamic nature with its inherent proclivity to sin, versus being personally culpable of sinning, which they cannot be.
Scripture speaks of children before they "know to refuse the evil, and choose the good," (Isaiah 7:15,16) at which point they may do sinful things but while "sin is not imputed when there is no law" (though Rm. 1 indicts pagans as sinners by disobeying the innate light of the law they knew by nature) and infants are morally incapable of knowing and choosing good from evil on a moral basis (and souls are eternally damned based on what they choose, not their father's), "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." (Romans 5:13,14)
"Sin is not imputed where there is no law," yet "death reigned from Adam to Moses" because Adam as the federal head of the human race sinned then all are negatively affected by the curse which it incurred, and thus even animals die, and "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. (Romans 8:22)
And all mankind therefore also has a sinful nature, meaning they are sinners by nature, and do sinful things even before they are culpable, and later become guilty of sin when able to know how to make moral choices. That all sin and that death passed upon all men are both a result of Adam's sin. (Rm. 5:12; note also the use of "die" in Rm. 7:9)
Likewise Christ procured forgiveness and salvation for man (which even lost souls benefit from to some temporal degree) but one must choose Him to receive salvation:
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:19)
(I say this not to get off on a debate with those who hold that infants and the like are personally guilty of sin), but to show that even under the position of "all" in "all have sinned" not being inclusive, yet all are sinners by nature, and do sinful things even before they are culpable, and later become guilty of sin.
And therefore in the only exception to this then the Holy Spirit makes this obvious, as clearly stating that Christ, "did no sin" (1Pt. 2:22) "knew no sin" (2Co. 5:17) "and in him is no sin' (1 John 3:5) and was "holy, harmless [innocent] separate from sinners, Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins..." (Heb. 7:26) and "Which of you convinceth me of sin?' John 8:46)
And which manner of revealing exceptions to the norm is consistent with what the Holy Spirit does in the rest of Scripture (even as regards minor figures) from excessive age, to excess fingers/toes/height/strength/sins, to a talking donkey, to a special diet, to dedicatory prolonged chaste celibacy after marriage, to virgin birth, to prolonged fasts (and other miracles), to excessive zeal, to absence of genealogy.
All of which (besides making a good bible trivia quiz) testifies to the characteristic carefulness of the Spirit in making know exceptions to the norm, even less notable ones among lesser figures, and to imagine that He would not likewise at least make mention of the sinless state of Mary borders on the absurd.
There is a time when arguments from silence are valid, and this is one. Of course, Catholic traditions such as praying to created beings in Heaven also face inexplicable silence (approx. 200 prayers to god in Heaven versus zero to anyone else by believers), and the alleged sinless state of Mary is also contrary in principal to the manifest faithfulness of the Holy Spirit to at least note extra-ordinary aspects of those He speaks of, however minor they be.
In addition, the premise that a sinless vessel was necessary to bring forth Christ is invalid, as this limits God, and who brought forth His pure words thru holy yet sinful men, and RC theology itself has Mary being preserved from sin (somehow).