Search results

So does He redeem those who do not believe after being called?

So if God calls, can man reject His calling?

Can man seek God after He has called them?

Uh, yeah, it does mean the same thing, given the context and what is actually said... I literally gave you the greek AND it's DIRECT TRANSLATION in the image you CLEARLY ignored. THE ONLY WAY for the verse to be translated any other way than "the husband of one wife" is to intentionally...

Now respond to the rest of my post.

Who is He redeeming? "US." Who is "us," b57?

Chapter verse. Because Paul says: What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment...

I skipped it because your reason is illogical and irrational. Here's why: Which citizens? Because last I checked, unbelievers are (also) citizens of the world. And sins are only charged when there is no law. Believers, because they have died "in Christ," are dead to the law, and because...

Again, you're assuming (wrongly) that it cannot mean the whole world simply because the whole world doesn't receive life. And I'm pointing out that just because someone is given something doesn't mean the one being given it is effectually made to receive it. It's a non-sequitur. The example I...

Because you say so?

Total inability from birth/conception? Define "dead" as anything other than "separated from God" and you do damage to the rest of scripture.

Chapter verse.

Talk about reading your beliefs into scripture! Just because I give you an apple doesn't mean you automatically accept it. Me giving you the apple doesn't effectually make you accept it. In the same way, Just because Christ gave life to the world, doesn't mean that the whole world will accept...

So what? The meaning is the same:

So... Total inability?

Nanja, not Nang. It's worse than that. She blindly congratulates b57 for how brilliant his posts are, and then gives praise to God for it, crediting Him for their (willfully ignorant) errors.

Not until you address my point of contention, which is not that an unbeliever is imprisoned in his belief. Now move to the next logical step of that, wherein my contention lies: An unbeliever, imprisoned in his belief, CAN, if he is shown through the gospel, recognize that he is imprisoned...

Yes it does. Paul just doesn't use the term "us in Him" or "in Him." What he DOES use is "we." He's including himself in what's he's saying. He's one of those "in Him." Wrong. Paul is talking about believers, those who have faith. I'm glad you agree with what I said above. We were...

Not what I'm talking about, and you know it, B57.

Yes, we agree. There is only one God. You're still not hitting the point of contention. Stop being a hypocrite and wasting my time. I said: