All Have Sinned? On an Argument Against the Sinlessness of Mary

A standard Protestant argument (and the one that seems to be the most popular on social media) against the Catholic doctrine of Mary's sinlessness is rooted in the alleged fact that Sacred Scripture teaches that all human beings have sinned:

[A]ll have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

Now, since Mary is a human being, it follows that Mary is a sinner. Apparently, then, the argument for Mary being a sinner is as follows:

1. For any x, if x is human, then x is a sinner.
2. Mary is human.
3. Therefore, Mary is a sinner.

The problem with this argument is with the first premise. If this premise is true, then—given the doctrine of the Incarnation (cf. John 1:14)—it will allow for the construction of an argument that concludes with Jesus being a sinner:

1. For any x, if x is human, then x is a sinner.
2. Jesus is human.
3. Therefore, Jesus is a sinner.

This conclusion, of course, is both false and blasphemous. Since the second premise is true, it therefore follows that the first premise must be false. But the falsity of this premise blocks the foregoing argument for Mary being a sinner. Evidently, then, the argument is a failure and must be regarded as such by all (at least broadly) orthodox Christians.

Where can the Protestant objector go from here? The apparent problem with the first premise of the Protestant's argument is that it interprets the domain of quantification of the universal quantifier (i.e., the "all") in Romans 3:23 as being completely unrestricted with respect to the class of human beings. The Protestant is interpreting "all" as referring to all human beings without exception. The problem with this is that Jesus is human and so is in this domain. The way to resolve this is to interpret the domain of quantification to be implicitly qualified or restricted in some way so that Jesus at least will be excluded from the domain in question. Note, too, that this move is not necessarily objectionably ad hoc. In everyday language, we commonly use universal quantifiers with implicitly restricted domains of quantification. For example, if I say to someone that I ate everything in the fridge, I do not mean to be saying that I ate the drawers, shelves, and lightbulbs in the fridge. Rather, I mean to be saying that I ate all the food in the fridge.

In fact, the first premise in the foregoing argument already interprets "all" in Romans 3:23 to have an implicitly restricted domain of quantification. "All" does not, according to this interpretation, refer to all things whatsoever; rather, it refers to all human beings. What the discussion so far has shown is that the domain of quantification needs to be restricted even further if we are to avoid the aforementioned unacceptable conclusion that Jesus is a sinner. How might the Protestant further restrict the domain so as to uphold the conclusion of the first argument and avoid the conclusion of the second argument? A natural answer to this lies in the observation that while Jesus is truly human, He is also truly divine. In other words, Jesus is not merely human. He is also divine; He is God. Now, since God cannot sin (cf. James 1:13), it thereby follows that Jesus cannot sin. But Jesus alone is both human and divine. All other human beings are mere humans. So, if we restrict the domain of quantification to mere human beings, we can construct the following argument:

1. For any x, if x is merely human, then x is a sinner.
2. Mary is merely human.
3. Therefore, Mary is a sinner.

In this way, the Protestant gets his desired conclusion. Further, he avoids the conclusion that Jesus is a sinner because this revised first premise excludes Jesus (since Jesus is not merely human). With this being said, there is no reason whatsoever for a Catholic to accept this interpretation of Romans 3:23. After all, it isn't as if the text explicitly says that "all mere human beings have sinned." This is an assumption that is being read into the text in order to reconcile it with the doctrine of Jesus' sinlessness. With this being said, reading in this assumption is a perfectly reasonable thing for a Protestant to do. Why? Because the Protestant (like the Catholic) accepts all of Scripture as his authority, and he further (again, like the Catholic) holds that Scripture is the inspired, inerrant written word of God. As such, one teaching of Scripture cannot contradict another teaching of Scripture. Therefore, since Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus is without sin (cf. Hebrews 4:15), it follows that Romans 3:23 cannot be interpreted as teaching that Jesus is a sinner. An economical way of resolving this is to interpret Romans 3:23 to be teaching that all mere (i.e., non-divine) human beings have sinned.

Notice what has happened here, though. The Protestant has restricted the domain of quantification in Romans 3:23 so as to reconcile Romans 3:23 with (for instance) Hebrews 4:15. One authority (or, if you'd rather, one part of an authority) is being used to interpret another, and this is all well and good. But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If it's legitimate for the Protestant to do this, then it is also legitimate for the Catholic to do this. Just as Hebrews 4:15 gives the Protestant reason to restrict the domain of quantification so as to exclude Jesus, the teaching of the Catholic Church gives the Catholic reason to restrict the domain so as to exclude both Jesus and Mary. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is an authority for the Catholic just as Hebrews 4:15 (and Scripture in general) is an authority for the Protestant (as well as for the Catholic). So, if it is legitimate for the Protestant to exclude Jesus from the domain of quantification in Romans 3:23 in order to reconcile the verse with Hebrews 4:15, then it is likewise legitimate for the Catholic to also exclude Mary from the domain in order to reconcile the verse with the teaching of the Magisterium.

The only reason that it would not be legitimate for the Catholic to do this is if the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is not a legitimate authority. No doubt the Protestant will insist that this is in fact the case. However, the Protestant will owe us an argument for this claim, and such an argument will have to go far beyond Romans 3:23. As such, Romans 3:23, by itself, cannot amount to a successful prooftext against the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness. For the Protestant to say otherwise would be to adopt a double standard. The best that a Protestant can do, it seems to me, is to argue that there is no positive reason in Scripture to think that Mary is sinless and so there is no reason to exclude her from the domain of quantification in Romans 3:23, at least not on the basis of Scripture alone. In this way, the Protestant might argue, if we accept sola Scriptura, then it is reasonable to reject Mary's sinlessness.

There are three things that can be said in response to this. First, this is a probability argument and not a proof. There is nothing wrong with this, of course, but the Protestant should be honest about this fact and not overstate his case. Second, this argument essentially pits the Protestant system of authority against the Catholic system of authority. As such, it will only have dialectical value if the Protestant system can be adequately defended over-against the Catholic system. As it happens, I do not think that it can be adequately defended, as I argue HERE and HERE. Third, there in fact is in any case a positive foundation in Scripture for thinking that Mary is sinless. For instance, Mary is said to be full of grace (cf. Luke 1:28), and it seems reasonable to think that being full of grace is incompatible with sinning. If this is so, then it seems reasonable to think that Mary is sinless. Further, there is a case to be made that Mary is the New Eve just as Jesus is the New Adam (this is a theme that very early Church Fathers picked up on), and just as the New Adam does not sin, neither does the New Eve sin. With this being said, I will not go into the details of this in the present post. Suffice it to say for present purposes that there is a positive foundation in Scripture for the doctrine that Mary is sinless. As such, the Catholic can argue that we do have reason (even on the basis of Scripture alone) to exclude Mary from Romans 3:23 in addition to excluding Jesus.

Now, the Protestant will no doubt disagree with these arguments (at least initially); but notice that Romans 3:23 is not going to be able to do any work in showing that these biblical arguments for Mary's sinlessness are unsound. For to interpret Romans 3:23 as being inclusive of Mary is to simply assume that these arguments are unsound. The Protestant would thus be guilty of begging the question against the Catholic. It would seem, then, that Romans 3:23 has little (if any) dialectical value when it comes to settling the issue of whether Mary is without sin. At the very least, it is clear that it is hardly the coup de grâce that many Protestants confidently present it as.

Ave Maria, gratia plena,
Dominus tecum.
Benedicta tu in mulieribus,
et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei,
ora pro nobis peccatoribus,
nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.