That's "Monday morning Quarterbacking"! The Romans didn't get the fax version of the letter of Paul to the Corinthians. It probably took many years before the various communities had even most of the NT that we now possess. Thus, you can't use Paul's comments to the Corinthians to explain Paul's comments to the Romans to exclude Jesus. Naturally, Jesus is excluded. Other Christians who proceded the Letter to the Romans MUST have taught them differently - that Christ was without sin, etc. This is why I contend that Paul did not imply that ALL men are evil and cannot come to God. First, he is quoting from OT Psalms that speak of the wicked, not a universal claim for all men. Secondly, the Scriptures themselves call other people righteous - in the OT and the NT... Thus, I really don't think anyone reading Romans would think that Paul meant ALL in a universal sense! Do you think Paul thought that HE wasn't turning towards God?
He was, though, referring to all of the rest of us. Where does Paul give Mary a pass like this?
We don't know what Paul thought about Mary. However, we DO know that two generations later, men were writing about Mary as the New Eve and refering to Romans 5.
Of course in the world there are those who follow God and those who don't. How does this explain away Romans 3?
Paul, like David, is trying to teach the Jews that the People of God were not given a pass on being righteous. Read the first three chapters of Romans. NO ONE is righteous based on their heritage or upbringing. One is a Jew only SPIRITUALLY (see the end of Romans 2 - which immediately follows Romans 3 and the many quotes that Paul uses to prove his point). Thus, he is writing to Jews in Rome who thought they were righteous on account of their Jewish traditions - of the flesh...He is denying that, just as David did in the various Psalms that Paul quotes.
In saying that "All" does not mean "All", Paul's point is to say that all sinners sin? How profound! You're putting Paul into an impossible corner.
Paul is not making a point that men sin. He is saying that the wicked will not turn to God. If Paul's point in Romans 1-3 was that all men sin, it wouldn't make sense to say that some men are spiritually circumcised, or that men will can follow the Law written on their hearts. Note the end of Romans 3 - Paul again attacks the Jews by saying the works of the Law do not save. It is by faith, as Abraham DEMONSTRATED (a point that we agree on, I think, but some Protestants do not). Thus, again, the point of this portion of Romans is to show that the Jews were not "People of God" because of their circumcision and their dietary laws, or even following the Decalogue begrudgingly without love. People were "Jews" by faith - either by following the Law on their hearts, or through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (we believe that the Logos was active in people BEFORE the incarnation - within Jews or Gentiles - to whom He chose).
Regards
I wasn't using 2 Cor. to prove the fact of how the Romans understood Paul, I was using it to show Paul's state of mind. I assumed you would not argue that Paul changed his mind from the time of his letter to the Corinthians, therefore, he must have meant the same thing to the Romans. If you believed that Jesus is naturally excluded, then why did you use that as an argument? Why do you equate a "righteous" man to a man who has never sinned? You are changing the argument.
Other Christians who preceded the Letter to the Romans MUST have taught them differently - that Christ was without sin, etc. This is why I contend that Paul did not imply that ALL men are evil and cannot come to God. First, he is quoting from OT Psalms that speak of the wicked, not a universal claim for all men. Secondly, the Scriptures themselves call other people righteous - in the OT and the NT...
I'm sorry, I don't follow what you are saying here. I don't think that Paul is saying that all are perpetually wicked, but that all have been wicked "All have sinned..." All men are born in evil and cannot come to God of their own account. Do you say that a "righteous" man as referenced in the Bible never sinned? I'm just not sure where you are coming from.
Do you think Paul thought that HE wasn't turning towards God?
No, but I do know that Paul said there was no good in him. You are veering off the argument.
We don't know what Paul thought about Mary. However, we DO know that two generations later, men were writing about Mary as the New Eve and referring to Romans 5.
We do know what Paul thought about Mary. In all of his Biblical writings he never made a single exception for her being sinless. Wouldn't Paul have thought that was important if true?
Paul is not making a point that men sin. He is saying that the wicked will not turn to God. If Paul's point in Romans 1-3 was that all men sin, it wouldn't make sense to say that some men are spiritually circumcised, or that men will can follow the Law written on their hearts.
So, when Paul says "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", Paul doesn't mean at all that all have sinned. He means something COMPLETELY different. Paul was pretty miserable at saying what he meant, wasn't he? I mean, if he agreed with your explanation, why didn't he just say that? Instead, he chose words that to the casual reader sound just the exact opposite of what he meant. It must have been a God-established secret code only decipherable by the Church hierarchs.
I appreciate that you are forced to argue this, but on this kind of stuff, I will forever be invincibly ignorant. :) I also note that you have chosen to reframe the argument for some reason. The majority of your argument is against things I never alleged. I never argued that Paul was saying that all men are in a perpetual state of sin. You chose to build that in. 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.
BTW, I do agree with you about Abraham and I also agree that Christ was active in people before the incarnation. So, at least we have something on this round! :)
God bless.