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.
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