Search results

Thank you Clare73 for your responses. I haven't been able to find a good answer either online or asking Clavinists on staff at my church so I really do appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I'm just unwilling to break basic grammar rules to make my theology fit. I understand you...

I don't see how it is grammatically possible for the phrase you mentioned, "For there is no distinction: followed by v. 23" to be parenthetical. A parenthetical phrase by definition can be removed from the sentence without changing sentence structure. If you remove that phrase you are left...

The way non-Calvinists harmonize these passages is this: The "justification by grace as a gift" (v. 24) is given to the "all" (without exception) in v. 23. But it is only received by those who have faith (v. 25). This is not a contradiction of any of those passages you provided. Since the...

I have seen non-Calvinists harmonize Romans 3:22-25 with all the verses you have mentioned, without affirming limited atonement. Is there anything within the grammar of this text, the Greek, or the context of the passage that makes you think this is parenthetical?

Why would this be parenthetical and if so why would this allow for the "all" in Romans 3:23 to not also apply to that which follows the "and" starting verse 24?

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance...