Bacon eaters! Do you see?

[DHK]

HP: Read Steavers comment as written for yourself, and then tell us he was not calling into question my salvation/snactification by direct implication. That is a violation of the rules. Remember the phony charges against Brother Bob?

If calling one a liar is a rule violation, DHK violates the rules by his remark that all are liars. If one wants to be perfectly honest, DHK also called my salvation into question by his repeated and thinly veiled attack of aligning my positions with those outside the Christian faith. That is about as low as it can get on the issue of fair and kind treatment of the views of a fellow Christian believer. But what is new about that on this forum??

I made a comparison that some of your views are similar to those of the Hindus. I often do that. Hinduism is a works-based religion. Your accusation is about as wild and ridiculous as Jesus calling himself a "door."

"I am the door," he said. Do you believe Him. Or did he falsely accuse himself?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I made a comparison that some of your views are similar to those of the Hindus. I often do that

HP: I know you do, and it is despicable conduct among believers. It clearly associates another with those outside the faith, something a believer is not. Again, I see it as a thinly veiled violation of the rule not to judge another believers salvation on this list. But what are forum rules to you??

 

[DHK]

HP: I know you do, and it is despicable conduct among believers. It clearly associates another with those outsider the faith, something a believer is not. Again, I see it as a thinly veiled violation of the rule not to judge another believers salvation on this list. But what are forum rules to you??

I have not judged your salvation. In fact you have judged my motives. Therefore you are in the wrong, not I.

 

[DHK]

Exodus 28:6 And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cunning work.
Exodus 28:15 And thou shalt make the breastplate of judgment with cunning work; after the work of the ephod thou shalt make it; of gold, of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine twined linen, shalt thou make it.
Exodus 28:39 And thou shalt embroider the coat of fine linen, and thou shalt make the mitre of fine linen, and thou shalt make the girdle of needlework.


Every article of clothing that the priest wore was made of linen. Some of the more decorative articles that he wore were not linen. But of the clothing itself, it was linen. We may put to rest the argument of BobRyan that permission was granted to the Israelites that garments were permitted that were woven of part wool and part linen.



Neither is the verse have such a literal teaching that it is teaching only of wool and linen, so that Bob's application that, as long as he stays away from clothing made of linen and wool he is safe, a correct rendering of the verse. The verse teaches that the Israelite must wear one type of clothing: wool, linen, silk, cotton, or whatever. They could not mix different types of cloths.



As was commanded by the law, David obeyed it:
1 Chronicles 15:27 And David was clothed with a robe of fine linen, and all the Levites that bare the ark, and the singers, and Chenaniah the master of the song with the singers: David also had upon him an ephod of linen.


Jesus obeyed it:
John 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
--Woven without seam--It had to be of one cloth. Jesus kept the law.



In modern days:
East Indian women usually wear a Sari--often made all of silk.
Punjabis often wear a Shalwar Qameez--often made all of cotton.

In Christ's day the Romans wore togas--often made all of one material.



It is not unusual, either in this day or in Christ's day to wear clothing made just of one material. The command in Deu.22:16 was to follow this command, and to follow it very carefully. There was a principle involved.


2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
--It was a principle of separation, and of purity. Do not have the stain of sin within you. Make sure you are separated from unbelievers.



This was the meaning of the verse, and why they had to religiously follow it. It was not just a useless command made to follow without reason. It did have a reason. Now, how do the SDA's apply this to their lives today? Do they obey it? Other cultures do. What about the SDA's? What about BobRyan?

 

[steaver]

HP: Read Steavers comment as written for yourself, and then tell us he was not calling into question my salvation/snactification by direct implication. That is a violation of the rules. Remember the phony charges against Brother Bob?

Calm down brother. I call you brother because I believe from what I have read of all your post you are indeed saved. And since I believe you are truly saved then according to my doctrinal position on eternal security you are saved FOREVER never to be lost again. My comments do not equate to a question of your salvation in the least. What they do is they challenge your pov in a way that an examination of yourself would cause you to question your pov on ESIC. Nothing to do with your personal salvation. Just because you do not understand ESIC does not mean you are not saved.

As for BrotherBob, I never once asked for a moderator and I never once made a report on him. No moderator ever contacted me about him. What ever problem he had with the Administration I was not contacted or involved in any way. No charges were ever laid by me to anyone in authority concerning him. From what I remember our debate was over his view that I could be deceived that the Holy Spirit was truly in me. This showed his lack of understanding for this is the ONLY proof anyone has that they are truly saved. Satan does not deceive people into knowing the Spirit witness within them.

Looks like this thread is finished on the bacon issue. I believe it has been informative for the readers. I pray they understand the legalistic errors of the SDA and can help others who may ignorantly get caught up in there brand of Christianity.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Do not have the stain of sin within you. Make sure you are separated from unbelievers.

HP: If all believers still sin, how could one not have a stain of sin within them, and if they could not have a stain of sin due to all past present and future sins being already forgiven, what were they to make certain of??? Their salvation???

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Calm down brother. I call you brother because I believe from what I have read of all your post you are indeed saved.

HP: That was neither stated or implied in the post I flagged. You would do well to premise your remarks with such sentiments in the post where the remarks are first made, if that is honestly what you believe to be true and you do not desire to be misunderstood. Better yet, try rewording what you write before you post to better reflect your sentiments.

Steaver: Just because you do not understand ESIC does not mean you are not saved.

HP: I can appreciate that, although I believe I have a good understanding of the OSAS doctrine and believe it to be absolutely unfounded in the Word of God, reason, or experience.

 

[DHK]

HP: If all believers still sin, how could one not have a stain of sin within them, and if they could not have a stain of sin due to all past present and future sins being already forgiven, what were they to make certain of??? Their salvation???

Jesus, Paul, and all the apostles taught this truth over and over again.
Jesus said to his disciples: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." Leaven is false doctrine. Some would get caught up in false doctrine, otherwise there was no need of the warning.
John said: "My little children I write unto you that you sin not."
--He knew they would. But they would not lose their salvation.
"But if any man sin we have an advocate with Jesus Christ the righteous."
--Our sins: past, present, and future are already covered with the blood of Christ. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." But our fellowship with the Lord can be marred by sin. John knew this. Our advocate is Christ himself. We pray "through his name."
"He is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world."
--He has satisfied the legal demands of God that the penalty of all our sins: past, present, and future, are paid for. There is nothing more for anyone to do. Christ paid the penalty in full. He made the propitiation, satisfying the demands of God, making full atonement for our sins. No one can add or take away what Christ did on the cross of Calvary. Salvation is all of Him.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: No one can add or take away what Christ did on the cross of Calvary.

HP: No one has ever said they can take away what Christ did in Calvary. If I did not know what is behind that statement I might agree with DHK. Because DHK has revealed his true sentiments, and I clearly understand that what he is referring to is ‘HIS UNDERSTANING OR INTERPRETATION’ of what occurred on the cross, i.e., a literal payment for specific sins (just as Augustine and Calvin did by the way) , I cannot agree.

The listener to these discussions must keep on their toes. So many things, just as DHK’s remark above illustrates, has the ring of truth, but in reality, understanding his view of what was 'actually accomplished by the Atonement,' he may not be saying simply what you first hear him say. In this case he implies a 'particular view' of the Atonement simply not supported in Scripture, known in theological circles as the literal payment theory.

DHK: Salvation is all of Him.

HP: Again, in reality this comment does not for a minute expose the reality of what DHK really means by that statement. I can say the very same thing truthfully from my heart, but it does not mean to me what it does to DHK. I maintain that it is true when the grounds of salvation are being addressed, but not if the conditions of salvation are being addressed. As I have stated many times, when DHK eliminates all conditions, he has knowingly or unknowingly established the very basis of double predestination, the only logical end of the necessitated system of theology he embraces.

 

[DHK]

As I have stated many times, when DHK eliminates all conditions, he has knowingly or unknowingly established the very basis of double predestination, the only logical end of the necessitated system of theology he embraces.

And therein lies your fallacy.
There are no conditions to salvation. It is a free gift. As I have noted before, you have never been able to give an example of a free gift that has conditions; not once. Your position is defeated before it has even started.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: There are no conditions to salvation.

HP: Therein lies your fault. No conditions? Double predestination and determinism rules, just as Calvin clearly admitted was the undenyable end of the system of theology he held to,which DHK mirrors on this issue.

 

[DHK]

HP: Therein lies your fault. No conditions? Double predestination and determinism rules, just as Calvin clearly admitted was the undenyable end of the system of theology he held to,which DHK mirrors on this issue.

double predestination--false assumption.
determinism--false assumption
Calvinism--slanderous statement--you have been told many times before I am not a Calvinist.

I simply said that salvation is a free gift and look at the conclusions you jump to.

The one thing you did not do; cannot do; have not done, is demonstrate a free gift that has conditions. Why not prove your point before jumping to all kind of false assumptions and slanderous accusations.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: The one thing you did not do; cannot do; have not done, is demonstrate a free gift that has conditions.

HP: False and untrue to the core. That point has been proven both by Biblical illustration and by examples such as the granting of a pardon by not only myself but others as well. And where might I ask was you proof that a gift cannot have any stated conditions????

 

[DHK]

HP: False and untrue to the core. That point has been proven both by Biblical illustration and by examples such as the granting of a pardon by not only myself but others as well. And where might I ask was you proof that a gift cannot have any stated conditions????

A free gift by definition has no conditions. That is all the proof you need.
It is a gift. Gifts don't have conditions.
It is free. Things that are free don't have conditions.
Certainly the two put together couldn't possibly have conditions.
It is not up to me to prove my position correct. It is up to you to demonstrate it to be wrong.

A pardon doesn't fall into that category. How is it a free gift?
Or if it is a free gift how does it have conditions attached?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, was the healing Naaman received a gift from God?

 

[DHK]

DHK, was the healing Naaman received a gift from God?

No, it was not a gift; it was an act of grace.
God heals many of us. He is gracious in doing so.

Secondly, in order for him to be healed he had to obey.
The "gift" was not free.
When I go to a doctor, I must obey. I must purchase the medicine, follow directions, etc., to be healed. So did Naaman. Healing isn't a gift in that sense. His healing was not a gift in that sense. It was the result of obedience. He came a sinner; he went home a sinner. He received grace from God just as sinners everywhere receive grace from God when the sun shines and the rain comes.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: No, it was not a gift; it was an act of grace.

HP: Great evidence DHK. You simply saying it makes it so. Oh brother. Well speaking of gifts given by God to man, here is a passage of Scripture that says you are wrong.

“To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;”

And your Scriptural passage to show that healing is not a gift????

 

[DHK]

HP: Great evidence DHK. You simply saying it makes it so. Oh brother. Well speaking of gifts given by God to man, here is a passage of Scripture that says you are wrong.

“To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;”

And your Scriptural passage to show that healing is not a gift????

Go to the passage which you are referencing--the passage concerning Naaman. Show me from Scripture that the healing is a gift. Is that what Naaman, the prophet, the king, the Lord, or anyone there present called it?

Not every healing is a gift.
The "gift" of healing was a gift. It was a spiritual gift. Many of the resultant healings were supernatural in nature.
When a person is healed by following the directions of a doctor is the healing a "gift"?
When a person recovers from a cold or a flu, is it a gift, or does the body have the natural ability to heal itself?
Not every healing is a gift.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

What we are up against here is the philosophy accepted by DHK as opposed to the Scripture itself. That is what is at stake here. A philosophy that says, in direct contradiction to Scripture, that healing cannot be a gift.

If DHK could show by first truths of reason or some other universal principle known and recognizd by all men of reason that a gift cannot have conditions, that would be one thing, but DHK has provided us with nothing, absolutely nothing other than his philosophical presupposition that healing cannot be a gift.

 

[quantumfaith]

And therein lies your fallacy.
There are no conditions to salvation. It is a free gift. As I have noted before, you have never been able to give an example of a free gift that has conditions; not once. Your position is defeated before it has even started.

Is not the fact that one must "believe", and "confess" at least some form of condition for salvation?