A Protestant version of 'all are sinners'

[DavidGYoung]

For the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the mainstream Christian notion that all humans are sinners in need of salvation is a straightforward doctrine to explain. It is simply the teaching of the church, which they take to be divinely established.

In Protestantism, a tenet of Christianity has to be grounded in the Bible somewhere. With this in mind, is there in fact any part of the Bible which teaches that all humans are sinners? If so, where is it?

[RabbiKnife]

Every 3rd grader in Sunday School knows the first place

Roman’s 3:23. For all yave sinned and come short of the glory of God


And no, that’s not the same as the doctrine of original sin or federal headship sin, which I know several on the site do not adhere to.

[DavidGYoung]

Chopping the ends of the sentence can change the meaning. The whole sentence looks like this:

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Paul is talking about all Christians here.

Where is he talking about all people?

[Athanasius]

Chopping the ends of the sentence can change the meaning. The whole sentence looks like this:

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Paul is talking about all Christians here.

Where is he talking about all people?

Right there where you quoted.

[RabbiKnife]

Chopping the ends of the sentence can change the meaning. The whole sentence looks like this:

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Paul is talking about all Christians here.

Where is he talking about all people?

Um... no.

The point of this sentence, especially in the context of chapters 1-3, is that Jews and Gentiles are all in the same boat -- that is, all have sinned - Jew and Gentile alike (see Paul's continuing argument that Jews have no advantage over Gentiles because of bloodline) and that as a result, all who are justified freely by grace are those that find redemption in the finished work of Jesus.

The phrase "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" is not exclusive to Christians, but is inclusive of all Jews and all Gentiles, which is sort of like, um, you know, everybody.

[DavidGYoung]

For universalists, Paul is speaking about everyone.

However, what Paul says here is perfectly compatible with the idea that humans are divided into righteous and sinners. Jesus of Nazareth himself made such a distinction, when he said he was not sent to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.

The point is that if you start with the assumption that all are sinners, you can fit that backstory to Paul here. However, you can't demonstrate that backstory from this part of his epistle.

[RabbiKnife]

You can’t take any passage of scripture out of context if the whole

[Fenris]

You can’t take any passage of scripture out of context if the whole

Why doesn't anybody listen when I say this?

[Rebecca]

You can’t take any passage of scripture out of context if the whole

Why doesn't anybody listen when I say this?

This site does not have voice .

[Athanasius]

You can’t take any passage of scripture out of context if the whole

Why doesn't anybody listen when I say this?

Same reason I listen to my therapist but not my wife. Or, a similar reason. Maybe? Kinda? Possibly not a great comparison.

[Athanasius]

You can’t take any passage of scripture out of context if the whole

You're a clever lawyer. How is "for all have sinned" compatible with the idea that there are righteous people who, I guess we're assuming, have not sinned? Or was like, Jesus making the point that there aren't any righteous people for to claim such would mean to deny that one has sinned, and anyone with even a modicum of self-awareness...

[DavidGYoung]

Is 'if' supposed to be 'of' in 'if the whole' or is there something missing from the end of the sentence in post 7?

The post is too ambiguous to reply to in its current form.