How can anybody possibly believe that "all have sinned"?

[rr1213]

So tell me how that Jesus who is fully God and fully man is not part of makind!

Jesus is fully man but he is also fully God. Two natures in a single person. No one else in the entire universe is like Jesus in this way. If you want to argue that “all have sinned” does not mean “all have sinned” because of the example of the sinless Christ this will get you nowhere because Christ is the obvious exception as is clear from the entirety of Scripture. You need to take your argument in another direction using other examples if you can.

 

[rr1213]

I want to point out to you, Mrs. Abbot, that this kind of response is the type of response which is upsetting to many of those who have responded to your posts. You have just stated that you totally agree with someone who denies the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. At the same time you profess to be a practicing Catholic.

In the language frequently used by Catholic apologists and theologians, this is called creating or causing scandal. It is improper for a Catholic to publicly deny the Dogmas and Doctrines of the Faith. If a Catholic has private doubts or intellectual dispute with a particular Dogma or Doctrine, they should speak to their priest or other Catholic spiritual adviser (i.e. a sponsor for a returning Catholic, a knowledgeable friend, a nun, etc.).

However, to openly dispute that which the Church is proclaiming as Truth is to do violence to the unity of the Church. It should always be refrained from.

I will pray that your understanding of these doctrines is furthered so that you may see the Truth of them.

Perhaps she was not focusing on what I said about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, but on what I said below about the special status of Mary. Surely that is something that Catholics and Protestants can agree on:

“I don’t think that you can just dismiss Mary. She was willing to accept the request made of her, submitting herself to the will of God. She is the Mother of God and is called blessed for all ages. She was told that she was full of grace or most highly favored. Even if you do not accept the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, as I do not, all of what Scripture tells us is that this was one very special…unique…woman.”

 

[apophasis]

In fact, you began your post with a list of things which God is incapable of doing. This is baloney.

God is not incapable of doing these actions. However, God will not do them. This is because of His Character - because of the Holy Perfection of His Attributes. This is a totally different view. God has freedom and free will. He can act however He wishes. He is not constrained to act in certain ways. He acts in those ways because He is Perfect.

Please note the difference in our approaches. It is significant and profound. The way you have described God, you have turned Him into a constrained animatron who can only do what is in His programming. This is false.

It is true that God is omnipotent, but this has to do with His power to DO anything, not His power to BECOME anything. There, my friend, is the significant difference.

It is not true that He simply will not sin, He cannot sin. He is not governed by His attributes, His attributes are a reflexion of His nature, WHO He is, and He cannot change. He cannot sin, He cannot “become” a sinner. He is the great, eternal “I AM,” He cannot change. This is most comforting if you will allow yourself to think about it for a while. Imagine if God could change - what certainty would the redeemed have in eternity?

To get back to refuting what you have said, let me say that you’re right, you didn’t explicitly say that God was constrained to send Christ. However, you did say that God had to act in certain ways. You claimed that He had no choice in judging sin and in acting in other ways.

I said based on Matt. 26:39 there was no other way possible other than through the blood sacrifice of the Incarnate Son, that He might remain just (righteous) when He justifies the sinner through faith in Christ alone. Because He cannot violate who He is:Rom 3:26 "…for the demonstration of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."God is infinitely righteous and if He was at all going to redeem Adam’s fallen race then He must do it in a way by which He would not violate His own justice (righteousness). Hence, the divine wisdom of the Incarnation and the cross of Christ. No mere created being (man, animal or angel) would qualify; it demanded the work of God Himself. For this reason when Jesus prayed, “if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me,” the historical, divine answer was made evident to all of us. It was not possible! Conclusion, there was no other way.

The price of redemption was great indeed, but the GRACE that followed was equally as great and is being demonstrated now before the holy angels, to their amazement. And will be demonstrated to all His creation throughout all eternity through glorified, redeemed sinners (the personal recipients of His divine grace) - to the glory of Christ (see Eph. 2:4-7).

As I wrote, you didn’t explicitly state what I wrote, but by logical extension, you said exactly that.

Your convoluted “logic.” But I’m getting quite bored with your false accusations.

If your view of God is correct, then God didn’t make a decision to send His Son, He had no choice but to do it. It is this which is incorrect.

My view of God does not at all imply that He had no choice in the matter of redemption. He just had no choice in how He could do it. He could not choose any way which would violate Who He is, violate His own righteousness, violate his own justice. He of course did choose to redeem mankind. Therefore the Incarnation and the cross of Christ by which He remains just when he freely justifies the sinner through personal faith in Christ alone (see Rom. 3:26 above).

The damage which the Reformers did to Christianity is still being tallied. Because of their actions, today Europe can hardly be said to be Christian at all and, in the United States, which is an overwhelmingly Christian culture, abortion is legal. But a discussion down this road would be completely off topic.

This has nothing to do with the doctrines of the Reformation. Abortion is legal and practiced even in Catholic nations like Spain.

Also, your last paragraph is heretical and anti-historical. All but one of the Apostles was martyred and Christians were persecuted and put to death for much of the first 4 centuries of the Church.

They were martyred because they were Christians and considered enemies of the state, not because they held to the specific doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Christ ALONE. Again, go back and read my posts for what they say, not what you want them to say. Why is it I have the feeling you have the same problem when interpreting the Scriptures?

 

[apophasis]

Perhaps she was not focusing on what I said about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, but on what I said below about the special status of Mary. Surely that is something that Catholics and Protestants can agree on:

“I don’t think that you can just dismiss Mary. She was willing to accept the request made of her, submitting herself to the will of God. She is the Mother of God and is called blessed for all ages. She was told that she was full of grace or most highly favored. Even if you do not accept the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, as I do not, all of what Scripture tells us is that this was one very special…unique…woman.”

But she was not “special” and “unique” in respect to women. She was, however, given a very special and unique privilege - to become the mother of Messiah. And for this reason considered “blessed” amongst all women. But assuredly, she was common in respect to all women of Adam’s race.

 

[eliasaph99]

But she was not “special” and “unique” in respect to women. She was, however, given a very special and unique privilege - to become the mother of Messiah. And for this reason considered “blessed” amongst all women. But assuredly, she was common in respect to all women of Adam’s race.

So any woman at all would have been as good as any other for Christ to enter the world?

I am astounded at your blatant and open disrespect of God and His Son. The things you say are blasphemy.

Repeatedly you have stated that God is constrained to act in your benefit. Here, you disrespect the very Mother of Jesus Christ.

Remember what the angel said to her in Luke 1:30:

“Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God…”

Surely this says that, at the very least, she is special.

I think that anti-Catholicism has infected your thinking to the point of complete irrationality. The things that you have written seem to me like someone who is attempting to intellectualize the material in Jack Chick tracts.

I think that you need to look at your relationship to God and Jesus very carefully. If you feel that you are in danger of some kind of idolatry or misplaced praise by recognizing the special, unique, blessed status of Mary both before and after the conception of Christ, you may have much less of a relationship than you think.

Simply imagine how you would feel if a friend of yours said, “Your Mom’s just an ordinary broad. There’s a dozen of her hanging out down at the local pub right now.”

That is what you have said to Christ.

 

[eliasaph99]

Perhaps she was not focusing on what I said about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, but on what I said below about the special status of Mary. Surely that is something that Catholics and Protestants can agree on:

“I don’t think that you can just dismiss Mary. She was willing to accept the request made of her, submitting herself to the will of God. She is the Mother of God and is called blessed for all ages. She was told that she was full of grace or most highly favored. Even if you do not accept the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, as I do not, all of what Scripture tells us is that this was one very special…unique…woman.”

You may be right. The language which she used was very open-ended though, and I certainly understood it to mean that she agreed with all that you had written in your post.

By the way, I like very much what you have written in the quotes. I did read it and appreciate it. It is a wonder to me that many denominations have become so careful not to afford Mary any special status that they end up almost writing her out of the story all together. When I was an Evangelical, I was uncomfortable many times with things which were said about her. They were not usually negative, just dismissive, and therefore, disrespectful.

 

[rr1213]

It is a wonder to me that many denominations have become so careful not to afford Mary any special status that they end up almost writing her out of the story all together.

As we know, most Protestants have a different view of the Marian doctrines than do Catholics. Unfortunately, though, I think that in “bending away” from the Catholic position on these issues, Protestants have bent so far that we have left Mary behind. In other words, we have over reacted and, in the process of rejecting what we consider to be erroneous Marian doctrines, we have also rejected, or at least come to ignore, Mary herself. (Other than at Christmas of course). Bearing in mind that Catholics think Protestants are wrong in rejecting the Marian doctrines, there nonetheless must be an appropriate balance here that would give Mary the honor and respect that she truly deserves as the Mother of God.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Well, the Church does not teach that stillborn babies go to hell. But again, this thread is not about original sin, but about actual acts of sin, as implied by “all have sinned”. So I want to know if there is anybody who actually believes that each and every human being has committed acts of sin.

Yes. In addition to original sin, which I believe was best described so far in this thread as the stain of sin, I believe that ALL human beings who have ever lived, or ever will live have sinned and will sin again if they are still living. Only our divine Lord and saviour Jesus the Christ, and his mother were without sin in this earthly realm of life. Let’s turn this around a bit. Can you think of anyone, ever, who you believe did not sin in his or her life?

 

[StevenFrancis]

Oh. By the way, if you’re truly interested in this topic, please read “Confessions” by St. Augustine. It was the most illuminating thing I’ve read to date regarding what constitutes sin. Very illuminating, and is a great help when preparing for the sacrament of reconcilliation.

Peace be with you,

Steven

 

[Jerry-Jet]

It’s as easy for Jesus to redeem Mary before He was born as to give His Body and Blood to the disciples at the last Supper before his sacrifice at Calvary.

Jesus who is God is big enough to be beyond time.

He isn’t as limited as the narrow minds of protestants who believe that the totally Divine Jesus united to a post fall depraved sin infested Mary.

By disrespecting God and his power to redeem Mary and restore her to Eve’s pre-fall state they disrespect the New Adam Jesus.

God can unite with the pristine pre-fall humanity of sinless man that he originally created in the Garden of Eden. That’s why there is the Immaculate Conception.

God cannot unite with post-fall depraved humanity of the Protestant’s Mary. God can unite with the Immaculately Conceived and forever sinless Mary who He redeemed.

Jesus said “A bad tree does not bear good fruit”.

Jesus’ humanity which he took from Mary came from a good tree full of grace–sanctifying grace.

God took sanctifying grace away from Adam and Eve when they sinned and took it away form their seed. He was not REQUIRED to that though–it was God’s choice of punishment.

Simiiliarily if God wants to redeem Mary at her conception so that she has that sanctifying grace it is His perogative and in no way violates his justice!

People who believe it does disrepsect the soverign power of God.

Satan wants people to believe that ALL who come after Adam and Eve are bound to sin.

While it is true that ALL except for Jesus and Mary are bound to sin–they are not.

The sinlessness of Mary just proves that God and not Satan is in charge!

 

[sandusky]

Huiou Theou:

In κε-χαριτω-μενη the repeat beginning sound (ke), is temporal
augment which leads one to suspect that the word is aorist –
but the ending of the word makes it a perfect participle.
Perfected action is permanently completed action – the fancy title ‘participle’ simply means a word which may be adverbial and adjectival at the same time. A ‘verbal adjective’ is not a normal English part of speech (Hence translation may easily mistranslate.). But, this word describes a state which stresses the permanence or finality of the action whenever it occur(ed).

Mary was not graced at the moment the angel came, but already perfectly Graced.

Again, though somewhat concerned with the past, the main emphasis of the Greek perfect is the present, as can be seen with your other example in Jn 19:30: It is [NOW] finished.

The perfect participle also carries with it the idea of a continuing result.

Anyone who would say that Mary was not singularly and continuously graced would be at odds with the testimony.

However, it is the idea that the Greek word charitoō, which is used to describe Mary’s singular and continuous gracing, contains within it the connotation of an immaculate conception, and a sinless life that I oppose.

Yes, Mary is singularly, and uniquely graced by God before the foundation of the world; she is singularly and uniquely graced in being chosen to bear the Messiah.

And as such, she said all generations would call her blessed, or happy, she did not say they would call her immaculately conceived, or sinless.
Huiou Theou:

There is something special about the crucifixion, and Mary’s gracing.

That is a Catholic bias resulting in the continual linking of Jesus, Mary, Salvation; and, it is wrong.

One needs only read the Gospels to see Jesus disestablish Himself as Son of Mary, and reestablish Himself as Savior of Mary.

But that’s not the topic of the thread.

 

[sandusky]

Huiou Theou:

There are several big words in your arguments – constanative, complexitive, narrative – these are adjectives coined by someone that are extremely rare to the average reader.
I don’t see that they help your argument.

Rom 3:23 applies to nations, and culpability as a nation – not as an individual. The idea is that Jews are no better than Greeks, etc. Individuals are not in discussion.
Nationality does not cart blanche excuse one from the Guilt of Adam.

Rom 5:12 does apply to individuals – and this is a very important passage, along with Ps. 50/51 in discussing the meaning of original sin. Do you have the skill to actually parse the very difficult Greek here ?

There are other things to look at, eg:
Ps 58:3, Is 48:8, Jer 1:5.

It is “constative,” in Rom 3 and 5; IOW, it views the action as a WHOLE. ALL have sinned, without distinction (nationally), and without exception (individually).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sandusky,

Constantive refers to a pre-existing, non-changing condion.
That would be like the perfect participle.
What makes you label Rom 5:12 this way?

Aorist may – or not be concerned with the past. That is something which depends on the particular verb being used, and the intent of the author. The permanence (perfect) aspect is the one stressed by the perfect participle: Hence, τε-τελεσ-ται is used even before ‘it’ is finished in John 19:30, notice the English word ‘finished’ does not properly convey the full meaning. A continuous perfection exists – But Jesus is not continuously finished (dead). That is the primary translational bombshell of the perfect participle. Nor is the translational item ‘it’ truly part of the original Greek.

I will concede that Luke 1:28 does not by itself prove the sinlessness of Mary prior to the angel appearing. Nor would I allow that the Catholic church has ever proffered a scriptural proof of the immaculate conception. St. Thomas Aquinas did not believe in it after due consideration – and formally St. Thomas’s inadequacy (and error – for the ImmC is now dogma) has left many in the Catholic church with the expectation that no such scriptural proof is possible. Your charge of bias is both astute, and misleading.

However, any further digression on the possibilty of a scruptural proof would need serious time (which I can’t afford) on that tangent, and another thread.

The meaning of finding favor in another’s eyes is a Hebrew idiom for the truest love. There are OT examples of this idiom in Greek to prove the point. Eg. See King David and Jonathan. This is a ‘favor’ won through the personality of the beloved, and goes beyond superficial beauty.

One can not be perfect in grace without being totally freed of their sin. Otherwise grace could be added or gained. The reverse is not true, one can be sinless without having the fullness of grace, as Catholics are at baptism, and Jesus was before being perfected through suffering.

Infants grow in grace.

Since the word used in Luke 1:28 has a permanent aspect it definitely argues for the future sinlessness of Mary.
The word is, however, ambivalent about the past.

I do not see in Rom 5:12 anything which proves how a person becomes guilty of Adam’s sin, and by extention – exactly when or in what way. The word used is not transgression, or lawlessness/iniquity but the general word ( α-μαρτια ) to miss the mark.

Not all who wander are lost, sometimes they are force to go along without consent or guilt.

 

[sandusky]

Huiou Theou:

Sandusky,

Constantive refers to a pre-existing, non-changing condion.
That would be like the perfect participle.
What makes you label Rom 5:12 this way?

Constative, not constantive—a past completed action; the aorist is often translated as a perfect which is why some translations say “have sinned.”

A given aorist may have any one of three points of emphasis: it may accent the beginning action in which case it is called an ingressive aorist as in the Word became flesh (Jn 1:14); or it may accent the end of an action in which case it is called an effective aorist as in I have learned (Phil 4:11); or it may look at the whole action without emphasis on the beginning, or the end in which case it is called a constative as in all sinned.
Huiou Theou:

Aorist may – or not be concerned with the past. That is something which depends on the particular verb being used, and the intent of the author.

That is not quite true.

The concern of the aorist with respect to the past has nothing to do with the verb being used, but everything to do with the intent of the author, which he indicates by the mood in which he places the verb.

Therefore, with respect to your statement concerning the aorist, and its concern or non-concern with the past, the mood determines the time. If the mood is in the indicative (which it is in Rom 3:23, and 5:12), then the events are spoken of as having occurred in the past (constative, historical).
Huiou Theou:

The permanence (perfect) aspect is the one stressed by the perfect participle: Hence, τε-τελεσ-ται is used even before ‘it’ is finished in John 19:30, notice the English word ‘finished’ does not properly convey the full meaning. A continuous perfection exists – But Jesus is not continuously finished (dead). That is the primary translational bombshell of the perfect participle. Nor is the translational item ‘it’ truly part of the original Greek.

First, there is no English equivalent for the Greek perfect; that is the difficulty; it is usually translated in the English perfect as a concession to English.

Secondly, a translational bombshell is in the perspective of the one holding that position.

When Jesus says it is finished, his earthly life in his earthly body is certainly concluded at that time; that is evidenced by the changes in his body, and by his bodily ascension at Pentecost; it does not, however, mean that He is continuously dead, as scripture testifies that He rose from the dead, and “lives,” even now sitting at the right hand of the Father.

What was finished was the redemptive work in his earthly body, and his earthly body. IOW, there is no bombshell.
Huiou Theou:

The meaning of finding favor in another’s eyes is a Hebrew idiom for the truest love. There are OT examples of this idiom in Greek to prove the point. Eg. See King David and Jonathan. This is a ‘favor’ won through the personality of the beloved, and goes beyond superficial beauty.

I think your point is the part I’ve bolded, and underlined, and I agree with that ONLY from the under the sun perspective; from the heavenly perspective, there is no intrinsic loveliness in fallen man that attracts God to one or another of the creatures. Again, to me this is a bias: There’s something about Mary.

God’s elective purposes are not according to any foreseen thing in a person, but are according to the counsel of His will (cf Eph 1:11).

God could have chosen any woman to bear the Messiah, but that is moot; He chose Mary, and He did so according to the counsel of His own will through which He works all things.
Huiou Theou:

One can not be perfect in grace without being totally freed of their sin.

Again, this is a bias toward Mary, and an imposition on the text with respect to God’s gracing of her being “perfect.” I see an exaltation of Mary within the translation that is not supported by the very little that the rest of Scripture has to say about her.

I also understand that you won’t agree with what I’ve said.
Huiou Theou:

I do not see in Rom 5:12 anything which proves how a person becomes guilty of Adam’s sin, and by extention – exactly when or in what way. The word used is not transgression, or lawlessness/iniquity but the general word ( α-μαρτια ) to miss the mark.

That general word is generally understood to be, and is generally translated as, sin.

I don’t expect you to see any man being guilty of Adam’s sin articulated anywhere in scripture; it conflicts with other beliefs that you hold.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is God so impotent that when he FILLS Mary to the point that she is FULL of grace that that is not enough to keep her from sin?

So FULL thart even God can’r FILL her with anymore grace!

Who believes such?

And how can Jesus who is God UNITE his humanity with Mary’s if it is post-fall and DEPRAVED?

How does INFINITE God unite with sin?

The Immaculate Conception isn’t about Mary–it is about Jesus!

The only way he could be fully man AND from Mary was with the Immaculate Conception!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I agree with you that Paul’s statement, “for all sinned and are falling short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23) must be understood in its whole context (the first eight chapters of Romans), but I think we get great theological insight into what that context is in that one verse. Especially in the tenses used. “All sinned” is in the past tense (some translations don’t properly reflect this), while “are falling short” is stated in the present tense. IOW, when Adam had ONCE sinned, in Eden, he continually fell short, outside of Eden, as did ALL HIS RACE (Jew and Gentile) by him and after him.

Sin is a one time occurrence in that respect. From that time onward, all men were made “sinners” in Adam:“For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One, the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19).The OP finds his answer regarding the “stillborn” in Rom. 3:23 and 5:12 in that “in Adam” all (humanity) sinned (past tense) and so death spread to all men. Hence, infants die before actually sinning being “in Adam.”

In Rom. 3:10-18 Paul vividly demonstrates how all “are falling short of the glory of God,” but he doesn’t stop there, but ends with:"…being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24).Christ didn’t just restore

Agreed, but I was a bit short of space by then, so one had to summarise like anything - & St. Paul is not easy to summarise ​

what Adam lost (a state of innocence) for those who put their faith in Him, but all who personally trust/believe in Him are “made righteous” in Him. Which is what Paul means by “being justified as a gift.” All who have truly believed in Christ are “made righteous” (not infused righteousness) in Him (Rom. 5:19). Christ Himself being another “Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45). Not just a “living soul,” but a “life giving spirit.”

Modifications accepted with thanks :tiphat:​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Is God so impotent that when he FILLS Mary to the point that she is FULL of grace that that is not enough to keep her from sin?

So FULL thart even God can’r FILL her with anymore grace!

Who believes such?

Neither of those is beyond belief. Or even particularly venturesome.​

1. “Full” with respect to what, or for what, is a worthwhile question
2. Without God’s help, anyone can fall into sin - & everyone would. Whether everyone has, is where the disagreements seem to come.

Mary was a human being - not God. Nor Jesus Christ, either. She is a creature, not a Divine Person - therefore, her degree of grace, however great, could always be greater, because no creature is infinitely good. God is infinitely gracious - Mary, surely, is as nothing in comparison with the One Who her Creator, Lord, Redeemer, & Saviour.

Could God keep her from sinning ? Of course - God could keep any of us from sinning: our first parents included. Whether God did keep her from sinning, is another debated matter. AFAICS, there is no need for her to be sinless in order to be the Mother of God. At least, it is not clear that being the MoG necessarily requires sinlessness - neither inspiration nor infallibility nor preaching nor evangelising do, so it is not clear why being the MoG should do so. ##

And how can Jesus who is God UNITE his humanity with Mary’s if it is post-fall and DEPRAVED?

He doesn’t - what He does do, is take His humanity from her, so that the man He becomes is also God. She does not receive from Him the nature he takes from her.​

How does INFINITE God unite with sin?

How could the Infinite & All-Holy God dwell in in us sinners by His Spirit ? Yet He does. If God the Holy Spirit can dwell in us sinners without (so to say) “suffering harm” from our sinfulness, why can’t God the Word take a sinful nature to Himself ? Is God harmed by sin ? No. But we, are. But God, cannot be.​

]The Immaculate Conception isn’t about Mary–it is about Jesus!

​

The only way he could be fully man AND from Mary was with the Immaculate Conception!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sandusky,

When Jesus says it is finished, his earthly life in his earthly body is certainly concluded at that time; that is evidenced by the changes in his body, and by his bodily ascension at Pentecost; it does not, however, mean that He is continuously dead, as scripture testifies that He rose from the dead, and “lives,” even now sitting at the right hand of the Father.

Your words are very unclear here.
There is a permanent quality to whatever the word refers.
Hence, you are agreeing with me that it does not refer to his death.

What was finished was the redemptive work in his earthly body, and his earthly body. IOW, there is no bombshell.

If his “earthly life” were the target, then it is improper to use τετελεσται in John 19:28. For he had one more task to do at that time – for the fulfillment of scripture, otherwise God would be a liar. A different word/mood would have been accurate at that time. So, your comment is inconsistent.

I will repeat – ‘finished’ does not completely describe the meaning – If it did, the word ought to be τελεται in Greek – NOT τετελεσται.
There is a translational bombshell for some translations.

I do, to the contrary of your assertion, accept that some men are guilty of Adam’s sin – by repeating it.
I also accept, as a Catholic bias, that Adam’s sin makes all men fit for punishment if they are not baptized.
But, you don’t have the benefit of the Catholic Church for your argument.

IWhat I do not yet accept, is that without invoking the church’s authority that you can prove it.
I loose nothing if I am proved wrong, but you gain something.

What does Rom5:12 mean, word by word, from the Greek – exact meanings, every object explained.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Sandusky,

True, the mood does affect the meaning – BUT there are exceptions in Greek.
Many verbs are deponent.
The particular verb is important in that case.
I am not saying any verb we are discussing is deponent, I haven’t done a comparison to find out yet – but if you intend to correct me, be thourough.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

God’s elective purposes are not according to any foreseen thing in a person, but are according to the counsel of His will (cf Eph 1:11).

God could have chosen any woman to bear the Messiah, but that is moot; He chose Mary, and He did so according to the counsel of His own will through which He works all things.

Perhaps I will not agree, but then why complain about it.
Why not show forth an adequate reason for your belief, if you have it.

Eph 1:11 does not negate the free will response of a person.
Are you a monogistic Calvanist?

God wills (desires) that all be saved.
Jesus lost the son of perdition.
etc.

I do not see that just any woman could be chosen, that would take knowing what limits God placed upon himself in the interest of allowing our freedom of will. God is unfathomable. It is perhaps possible that another woman could have been chosen.