@ TOM, TOM, Nay but, O man, who art thou that
repliest against God?
The question of election and reprobation, from the time of St. Paul onward, has been inextricably linked with theodicy: «O man, who art thou that
repliest against God?»
Nay but, O man, who art thou that
repliest against God?
He says in verse 20, «But indeed, O man, who are you to
reply against God?»
Not exact matches
He did not know whether any allowance was made for the age of the accused nor «whether pardon is given to those who repent» nor «whether punishment attaches to the mere name apart from secret crimes, or to the secret crimes connected with the name».3 In
reply, Trajan wrote that Christians «are not to be sought out, but if they are accused and convicted, they must be punished — yet on this condition, that whoso denies himself to be a Christian, and makes the fact plain by his action, that is by worshipping our
gods, shall obtain pardon on his repentance, however suspicious his past conduct may be».4 The Emperor Hadrian (76 - 138; ruled 117 - 138) made clear that slanderous accusations
against Christians were unacceptable and that it had to be proved that they had acted contrary to the laws.
But the British and their sympathizers
replied that the charters gave no such independence from parliamentary control, and to flout legal parliamentary actions was to go
against the powers that were ordained by
God to rule England under law and custom.
And if you
reply with anything that says that Jesus is a facet or aspect or anything else of
God, then you can't turn around and argue
against mixing
God (s)-- and the theory that Allah, or Yahweh, are other names for the same
God, because you've already by < definition argued that
God can have multiple aspects — why just the three names for them from Trinity theology?
Jeremiah
replied, «Thus says the LORD, the
God of Israel: I am going to turn back the weapons of war that are in your hands and with which you are fighting
against the king of Babylon and
against the Chaldeans who are besieging you outside the walls; and I will bring them together into the center of this city.
I have not yet read Erasmus [the
reply to Luther] or the Sacramentarians... These people are right in despising me, miserable one that I am, to follow the example set by Judas... I am suffering
God's anger because I have sinned
against him.
It means someday you're gonna meet
God and when he inquires as to why you didn't take the field
against Robinson in Philadelphia and you answer that it's because he was a Negro, it may not be a sufficient
reply!