Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70282 | ||
"p.s. - What would you think if I told you that Rom. 3:23 didn't really mean that 'all' have sinned, but only some?" Well I could point you to the immediate context of Romans 3:9-18 to demonstrate the universal nature of that word in this case. And, by the way, taking the entire context of the Bible into account, I would say that even this "all" doesn't include every single human being who ever lived. Can you think of one man who hasn't sinned? A very prominent biblical figure comes to mind... --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Hank | 70299 | ||
Joe, please, this is a stretch unworthy even of a Calvinist who tries to argue that "all" means "some"! It is, in this example, frankly absurd to consider God the Son within the framework of what Paul is saying in Romans 3:23 to "prove" that when Paul said "all" he really didn't mean "all" after all. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | Reformer Joe | 70305 | ||
How is it a "stretch" to say that when Paul meant "all" in Romans 3:23, that he didn't implicitly mean "all but Jesus" in this case? All I was trying to demonstrate is that SOMETIMES (not always) the word "all" is qualified by the immediate context or by the context of the whole counsel of God. Is that bad exegesis? If so, please tell me exactly where my reasoning is so "absurd." Thanks, brother! --Joe! |
||||||