HEY CALVINISTS! Are we "Totally Depraved" from birth???

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Nick, if "all" means "the elect" then why would Paul use the subjunctive case?

Is the elects getting mercy uncertain?

If the "all" refers to the elect, then the subjunctive could be translated as "God has bound all people over to disobedience so that it would be possible to have mercy on all the elect". You can't have mercy on someone unless they're disobedient.

The problem is that one cannot know whether this is the proper translation based only on the presence of the word "all", which was my point. You know, the point that keeps eluding you.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Bill:
Nick, if "all" means "the elect" then why would Paul use the subjunctive case?

Is the elects getting mercy uncertain?

If the "all" refers to the elect, then the subjunctive could be translated as "God has bound all people over to disobedience so that it would be possible to have mercy on all the elect". You can't have mercy on someone unless they're disobedient.</font>[/QUOTE]You completely remove the very obvious intent of this verse. He is trying to show that God has made it possible for all of those he bound over to disobedience to recieve mercy which is clearly why he says all in both phrases.

999,999,999 out of 1,000,000,000 readers who were unbias on this issue would read this text to mean exactly what it says: I'll use your interpretation with just one small change, I'll leave out "of the elect."

"God has bound all people over to disobedience so that it would be possible to have mercy on all". Yep, that looks more like the scripture, I think I stick with it.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
I'll use your interpretation with just one small change, I'll leave out "of the elect."

I responded to YOUR example. I gave no interpretation. Still living in your fantasy land, I see.