The Calvinists are half right. Paul seems to be using these OT references to speak to individual salvation. Even though the original texts aren’t in that vein. So they have a leg up on traditional Arminian or Provisionist, or other non-Calvinist positions in this passage. But what the Calvinists get wrong is that even though Paul is using these quotes to talk about individual election, he’s doing it sarcastically. And the reason why is because he’s countering the unbelieving Jews used these quotes all the time to talk about individualistic concepts and they were wrong to do so. Paul is now using them but he’s reversing the roles in each one in order to show how a he Jews’ use of them were.
@@Dizerner It’s definitely a hypothetical, it’s just a negative one. Paul expects his audience to know the answer to these two questions is “no,” not “yes.” As in, ‘This isn’t true, but what if it was?…’
@@TheRomans9Guy I think anyone approaching honestly should admit it's a tough one. Anyone that says "oh, it's an easy answer" is just not convincing to me.
@@Dizerner Well, sometimes when you learn something new and you come into the sunlight of that new revelation, when you look back on the fog you were previously in you can now see with crystal clarity how your previous thinking had disjointed, severed thought processes but the truth of the matter ties up all those pieces in a way that is so beautiful and perfect it makes you wonder how you never saw it in the first place. Or, conversely, sometimes you can see an answer intuitively because of your life experience, that others are just stumped on. Regardless, in this thread I didn’t say the answer was easy. Are you grabbing that as a quote from me in a different thread?
The Calvinists are half right. Paul seems to be using these OT references to speak to individual salvation. Even though the original texts aren’t in that vein. So they have a leg up on traditional Arminian or Provisionist, or other non-Calvinist positions in this passage.
But what the Calvinists get wrong is that even though Paul is using these quotes to talk about individual election, he’s doing it sarcastically. And the reason why is because he’s countering the unbelieving Jews used these quotes all the time to talk about individualistic concepts and they were wrong to do so. Paul is now using them but he’s reversing the roles in each one in order to show how a he Jews’ use of them were.
I see the key phrase as "what if God." Clearly engaging in a hypothetical. The point is just acknowledge God's rights.
@@Dizerner It’s definitely a hypothetical, it’s just a negative one. Paul expects his audience to know the answer to these two questions is “no,” not “yes.” As in, ‘This isn’t true, but what if it was?…’
@@TheRomans9Guy I think anyone approaching honestly should admit it's a tough one. Anyone that says "oh, it's an easy answer" is just not convincing to me.
@@Dizerner Well, sometimes when you learn something new and you come into the sunlight of that new revelation, when you look back on the fog you were previously in you can now see with crystal clarity how your previous thinking had disjointed, severed thought processes but the truth of the matter ties up all those pieces in a way that is so beautiful and perfect it makes you wonder how you never saw it in the first place. Or, conversely, sometimes you can see an answer intuitively because of your life experience, that others are just stumped on.
Regardless, in this thread I didn’t say the answer was easy. Are you grabbing that as a quote from me in a different thread?