Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
To start off this thread, I will post an unanswered post to DHK on the thread now closed entitled “Can a Christian Sin?
HP: I was always under the impression from Scripture that the unsaved had to do something to be forgiven, and that without which that being done no sins would be remitted?
HP: Why is it that if I say a person has to do something in order to be saved you bring up salvation by works, but you can say the exact same thing and say it is by faith alone? If the reader will note, in my post I did not specify what it was a man must so, but only that a man must do something. Since DHK has now mentioned faith, let’s start with that action. Faith clearly involves an action of the will does it not? Is faith some nebulous gift that God grants to the elect or is faith something God calls upon man to exercise, man’s will being an intrinsic part of the faith process? If man’s will is not involved in faith, faith can be in support of nothing short of the false notion of limited atonement, faith only granted to a select few.
How can ones ideas of faith not be clearly associated with irresistible grace, if in fact man’s will is not involved? If the granting of saving faith has nothing to do with man, it can only be the results of God’s will alone if some receive it. If that is the case, who can resist that which is a matter of God’s will and that alone, esablishing the notion that such faith is indeed irresistible.
HP: I have certainly heard a lot of preachers telling the unsaved that they would have to do something to go to heaven. You don't suppose they all are in error do you?
HP: Yet further evidence that the idea of faith held by DHK is nothing short of the results of a limited atonement and irresistible grace seeing that he claims man cannot be told there is something they must do to be saved without DHK crying they, by doing so, are in error. If faith is not something man must exercise, man’s will is not involved. If man’s will is not involved, saving faith is nothing short of the plans of an Omnipotent God bestowing what is His and His alone upon a preselected group of individuals known as 'the elect.' That is exactly the sentiments behind the doctrine of limited atonement, and establishes the validity of irresistible grace, for if man has nothing to do in order to receive saving faith, man can do nothing to do to resist saving faith.
Tell us DHK that you do not hold to a limited atonement and irresisitble grace. If you do not hold to these well known doctrinal tenants, explain to us what it is that man must do to be saved. Remember, it was You DHK that clearly stated, without asking what it is that the things one must do, that all that state that there is something man must do, are in error. If you say faith, it is your duty to explain how faith does not involve man's will and by doing so swallow the two doctirnal positions well known by any student od theology as two tenants of Calvinism's TULIP.
HP: I was always under the impression from Scripture that the unsaved had to do something to be forgiven, and that without which that being done no sins would be remitted?
HP: Why is it that if I say a person has to do something in order to be saved you bring up salvation by works, but you can say the exact same thing and say it is by faith alone? If the reader will note, in my post I did not specify what it was a man must so, but only that a man must do something. Since DHK has now mentioned faith, let’s start with that action. Faith clearly involves an action of the will does it not? Is faith some nebulous gift that God grants to the elect or is faith something God calls upon man to exercise, man’s will being an intrinsic part of the faith process? If man’s will is not involved in faith, faith can be in support of nothing short of the false notion of limited atonement, faith only granted to a select few.
How can ones ideas of faith not be clearly associated with irresistible grace, if in fact man’s will is not involved? If the granting of saving faith has nothing to do with man, it can only be the results of God’s will alone if some receive it. If that is the case, who can resist that which is a matter of God’s will and that alone, esablishing the notion that such faith is indeed irresistible.
HP: I have certainly heard a lot of preachers telling the unsaved that they would have to do something to go to heaven. You don't suppose they all are in error do you?
HP: Yet further evidence that the idea of faith held by DHK is nothing short of the results of a limited atonement and irresistible grace seeing that he claims man cannot be told there is something they must do to be saved without DHK crying they, by doing so, are in error. If faith is not something man must exercise, man’s will is not involved. If man’s will is not involved, saving faith is nothing short of the plans of an Omnipotent God bestowing what is His and His alone upon a preselected group of individuals known as 'the elect.' That is exactly the sentiments behind the doctrine of limited atonement, and establishes the validity of irresistible grace, for if man has nothing to do in order to receive saving faith, man can do nothing to do to resist saving faith.
Tell us DHK that you do not hold to a limited atonement and irresisitble grace. If you do not hold to these well known doctrinal tenants, explain to us what it is that man must do to be saved. Remember, it was You DHK that clearly stated, without asking what it is that the things one must do, that all that state that there is something man must do, are in error. If you say faith, it is your duty to explain how faith does not involve man's will and by doing so swallow the two doctirnal positions well known by any student od theology as two tenants of Calvinism's TULIP.
