Bacon eaters! Do you see?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Is that what Naaman, the prophet, the king, the Lord, or anyone there present called it?

HP: If no one calls something from God ‘a gift’ in the direct passage referred to, DHK is suggesting that it cannot be a gift. Take the logic and apply that to salvation. If one is saved in Scripture and it is not stated directly that salvation is a gift, they must not have talking about salvation, right? Help us Lord.

 

[DHK]

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.

Salvation is a free gift.
Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt that Namaan's healing was a gift it certainly wasn't free. Look at the cost.
First he found out from a maid that there was a prophet in Israel who could heal him.
Then he had to make a trek over to Israel, with some difficulty.
Then he had to seek out the king and ask about the man who could heal him.
Then, upon finding the prophet, he had to follow the instructions in order to be healed.
The gift wasn't free. It cost him. He had to work for it. It was not a free gift!
Salvation is a free gift.

 

[Trotter]

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 gift is given without strings attached or requirements, otherwise it is a purchase or a payment. The same goes for salvation... we do not and cannot earn it. We accept it by turning to God's grace through Christ in faith (gee... I think we've been down this road several times before...).

The healing of Naaman was to show Naaman that God is Lord over all. If it were to have been a gift God could have just healed him in his own country or at any point between then and his final dip in the Jordan. Instead God used it to show Naaman His power and the value of following His command.

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

Our faith comes from God and not ourselves. Confessing Christ comes after salvation (one cannot confess what one does not have). Confessing our sins to God is a consequence of salvation and not a requirement as we cannot be exposed to the holiness of God and not see our own wretched condition. Such confession is agreeing with God that we are wrong.

If no one calls something from God ‘a gift’ in the direct passage referred to, DHK is suggesting that it cannot be a gift. Take the logic and apply that to salvation. If one is saved in Scripture and it is not stated directly that salvation is a gift, they must not have talking about salvation, right? Help us Lord.

Salvation is called a gift and we are told that it is freely given to those who believe (faith comes from God, after all). If it were earned through our own merits then Christ died in vain.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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

HP: Excellent question. Be prepared for a shift in tactics from DHK. He is now going to tell us that belief and confession have nothing to do with works or merit, as if though repentance, faith, or continued obedience are issues that if we are required to do them in order to be saved, they are in fact works/merit issues.

DHK is absolutely forbidden by his brain to accept any distinction between something thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ or something thought of as ‘not without which. He absolutely is blinded to any distinction between the grounds and conditions of salvation. He is absolutely blind to accepting the truth that nothing we do that we are required by God to do has any merit, but rather is always thought of in the sense of ‘not without which.’

The only thing that has merit concerning salvation and is thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ is the grace and mercy of God as demonstrated by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Does that sound like something a Hindu would say or believe QF?

 

[DHK]

HP: Excellent question. Be prepared for a shift in tactics from DHK. He is now going to tell us that belief and confession have nothing to do with works or merit, as if though repentance, faith, or continued obedience are issues that if we are required to do them in order to be saved, they are in fact works/merit issues.

Faith is not a "work" per se. To believe simply means "to have faith."
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
Inherent in a condition is a work, something that needs to be done in order that the transaction be completed.
If you buy a house it is usually bought with conditions attached. The conditions may be as simple as certain structures being fixed. But that is the work, the conditions that need to be met. It is not faith that is going to meet those conditions, it is work. Faith is not a work. Faith is not a condition.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works.
Grace and works do not mix.
Faith and works do not mix.

If works is involved in anyway in salvation then it is not salvation.
Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone, provided by His grace alone.
There are no conditions.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Faith and works do not mix.

Scripture: Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Oh, I forgot to add that works are thought of in two sense, only one having merit. :thumbsup:

 

[BobRyan]

A gift is given without strings attached or requirements, otherwise it is a purchase or a payment. .

That has never been true in all of time.

God gave Adam and Eve the free gift of the Tree of Life a home in Eden, fellowship with God and the Angels. They did not "EARN" it they were given that gift from the very moment of their creation.

But with priviledge comes responsibility. They had free will. They could CHOOSE to go against the Word of God and suffer the loss of everything.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: But with privilege comes responsibility. They had free will. They could CHOOSE to go against the Word of God and suffer the loss of everything.

HP: Excellent point BR. The gift of the Tree of Life as a source of continued eternal life was conditioned upon their continued obedience. What a wonderful picture of salvation tucked neatly in this Genesis account. When they failed to meet the condition of obedience, they were removed apart from the gift of that Tree of Life once given.

That would make a 'snappy sermon starter.':thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Now BR, consider this. Obedience requires effort does it not? Obedience requires the formation of intents just as all works do, right? We see how if they failed to work obedience they would be removed far away from that gift. Let me ask you, did they 'work' for the gift of eternal life? Was there any ‘ merit’ in their obedience that forced God’s hand in granting to them His gift?

 

[DHK]

That has never been true in all of time.

God gave Adam and Eve the free gift of the Tree of Life a home in Eden, fellowship with God and the Angels. They did not "EARN" it they were given that gift from the very moment of their creation.

But with priviledge comes responsibility. They had free will. They could CHOOSE to go against the Word of God and suffer the loss of everything.

in Christ,

Bob

Chapter and verse please.
That is not what my Bible says.

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
--Note, it wasn't a gift that was given.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
--He was put there for a purpose--to work! To dress the garden and to keep it. This wasn't a gift. This was God's provision for them, and they were to take care of it.

In today's language: have dominion over the earth, populate it, and take care of it. That means don't throw your banana peels out the window, and be sure to eat all your pork rinds.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: This was God's provision for them,…

HP: I like your wording DHK. :thumbs:

A gift might be correctly defined as: A provision granted without consideration of compensation. The Tree of Life was such a provision, a gift from God without consideration of compensation, YET it came with clearly stated conditions if they were to remain able to partake of it.

 

[DHK]

HP: I like your wording DHK. :thumbs:

A gift might be correctly defined as: A provision granted without consideration of compensation. The Tree of Life was such a provision, a gift from God without consideration of compensation, YET it came with clearly stated conditions if they were to remain able to partake of it.

Every parent provides for their children. That doesn't mean that they "freely give them all things." Things are only given them on condition. Responsibility comes with condition. There are conditions with privileges.

However in salvation and its privileges, we look at Romans 8:32, and see that God freely gives us all things. That is more than just provision. It is God alone that gives freely. That is far more than provision.

 

[quantumfaith]

Chapter and verse please.
That is not what my Bible says.

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
--Note, it wasn't a gift that was given.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
--He was put there for a purpose--to work! To dress the garden and to keep it. This wasn't a gift. This was God's provision for them, and they were to take care of it.

In today's language: have dominion over the earth, populate it, and take care of it. That means don't throw your banana peels out the window, and be sure to eat all your pork rinds.

"Creative semantics is the key to contemporary government; it consists of talking in strange tongues lest the public learn the inevitable inconviently early" (Geoge Will)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

QF: "Creative semantics is the key to contemporary government; it consists of talking in strange tongues lest the public learn the inevitable inconveniently early" (George Will)

HP: Could creative semantics in theology be related to using catch phrases like freewill, choice, believe, accept, repent, exercise faith, etc. when the inconvenient truth is that none of these things in actuality involve our will in the formation of intents, at least according to some due to the denial of any and all required conditions for salvation?

Could an inconvenient truth be when we hear some preachers calling for men to repent and exercise faith, that in reality they do no believe that needs to be accomplished 'in order to be saved,' but rather IF they repent and believe they have in reality been saved all along (for they were predestined as saved) they just have not before came to the knowledge of their true predestined salvation?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Romans 8:32, and see that God freely gives us all things. That is more than just provision.

HP: Are provisions included in the 'all' or not DHK? If one believes he is going to recieve anything from God without fulfilling the stated conditions God has set forth to receive it, they are fooling themselves. Yes, God freely gives us all things when the conditions are met by us. That in no wise frustrates the gift being given 'freely' as you clearly suggest it does.

 

[BobRyan]

\.

Genesis 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
--Note, it wasn't a gift that was given.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to see if the idea that Adam "then earned the Garden of Eden that God had made" is anywhere in Gen 2.

This is one of those simple points that needs no debate - as it turns out.

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
--He was put there for a purpose--to work!

Eph 2:8-10 "For by GRACE you have been saved ...HIS workmanship CREATED IN Christ Jesus for GOOD WORKS which God created before that WE should WALK IN THEM"

It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine IF DHK's idea that having "purpose" is a way to earn the Garden of Eden or to earn salvation.

DHK - the bottom line is - simply making stuff up as you go, trying to make something "sound" as if it were biblical - is not the same thing as working through the problem biblically and showing that it holds up to "sola scriptura" testing.

In today's language: have dominion over the earth, populate it, and take care of it. That means don't throw your banana peels out the window.

Well at least you got that banana part right - but again the fiction you engage in is of the form that says "If you are given a home in a well-off subdivision free of charge - all expenses paid for as long as you live there - it is NOT a gift if you must be a good neighbor, treat the property responsibly and care for it - rather you fully EARNED that home no matter what the costs and expenses paid for you by the donor".

Again - a fiction of that form does not work in real life and is far easier for the sincere Bible student to see through than some may have first imagined.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP: Are provisions included in the 'all' or not DHK? If one believes he is going to recieve anything from God without fulfilling the stated conditions God has set forth to receive it, they are fooling themselves. Yes, God freely gives us all things when the conditions are met by us. That in no wise frustrates the gift being given 'freely' as you clearly suggest it does.

Some are truly tied to the idea of "privilege without responsibility" as if God is the author of such a thing.

Jesus dealt directly with the irresponsible Christian fiction in Matt 7 saying "not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will ENTER the kingdom of heaven.. but he who DOES the will of My Father".

Paul dealt with the issue of irresponsible Christians in Romans 2 "for it is not the HEARERS of the Law that are JUSt before God but the DOERS of the Law will be JUSTIFIED"

He addressed this in 1Cor 7:19 contrasting the Commandments of God with the ceremonial law of circumcision "Neither is circumcision anything - but what matters is KEEPING the commandments of God"

In 1John 2 - the Apostle John dealt with the irresponsible Christian fiction by stating that the one who CLAIMS to know Christ should be known for KEEPING His commandments.

As it turns out - the fact that saved Christians have a PURPOSE and are to be responsible DOES NOT remove the FREE GIFT aspect to the Gospel the way that DHK's argument logically concludes.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Well at least you got that banana part right - but again the fiction you engage in is of the form that says "If you are given a home in a well-off subdivision free of charge - all expenses paid for as long as you live there - it is NOT a gift if you must be a good neighbor, treat the property responsibly and care for it - rather you fully EARNED that home no matter what the costs and expenses paid for you by the donor".
Bob

I went through this in real life recently Bob. I was an asset, an expensive gift. The condition was not "as long as I keep it and maintain it." The condition was not: "as long as I am a good neighbor, etc."
Your example is way off the mark.

You see, the gift was free, unattached without any conditions.
I could destroy it, give it away, maintain it, sell it, do what I want with it.
It was given to me as a free gift. Even if I decided to be a bad neighbor and bother him, that would be my choice--not a good one but still my choice. It is was my gift and I could do what I wanted to no conditions attached. It was a free gift. I did not earn it.

If I decided to keep it, then there may have been some responsibilities attached in keeping it. That is different.
That is what salvation is like. Salvation is a free gift. Once I am saved I am expected to pray, to read, to study, to witness. None of those things will take away my salvation.
With my free gift, there are responsibilities that come with ownership. If I neglect them I will still have my gift. It may deteriorate in value but I will still own it. It may bother my neighbor, but I will still own it. The gift is still mine. The question becomes: what will I do with my free gift.

What will you do with your free gift of salvation?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You see, the gift was free, unattached without any conditions.
I could destroy it, give it away, maintain it, sell it, do what I want with it.

HP: I desire honestly to understand you as best as is possible. What I cannot understand is why one free gift you say you could destroy/set aside, or anything with it you so desire, but when it come to the free gift of salvation you eliminate all aspects of a freewill doing the very same thing with the gift from God. If I may use an illustration, I might see the salvation you speak of as more of the coercion of a permanent tattoo by God placed on ones life that has nothing whatsoever to do with ones will at all, than a free gift that can be accepted or rejected. I see absolutely no freedom or free will being exercised in the least in the picture you paint of salvation. I see force and coercion by God upon a select elect of His own choosing and all others left to the inescapable damnation they were designed by God to receive.

If you do not desire to hold to double predestination or a system of utter determinism, give us something that would counter those logical ends. You cannot say we need to believe or accept salvation without placing a condition upon salvation when you say there are absolutely “no conditions."

Where is the disconnect in your theology between utter determinism and freedom?