Question re; Your definition/understanding of "Works" and "Grace"

[steaver]

It may be a little difficult for Steaver to accept, but it well may be that the idea that salvation is conditional is not novel with me.

Never suggested it was. I asked you for some evidence that Christian scholars have promoted your idea of "grounds verses conditions". Not just conditions alone.

I have had contact with many groups that believe salvation is indeed conditional. I am preaching nothing novel or new.

Conditional salvation has been around for centuries. Just look at the Roman Catholic Church.

I had asked you for a resource explaining "grounds verses conditions" as you do. Maybe the RCC is where you got this from.

As I said before, it has been my observation that only a Calvinist or one leaning hard towards Calvinism would deny salvation as being conditional

I don't think you really understand Calvinism verses Arminianism and what truth lies somewhere between the two. You seem to believe Calvin was the father of eternal security in Christ. John, Paul, Peter, James all preached ESIC way before Calvin was ever born. None of these ever said anything about "grounds verses conditions" either.

:jesus:

 

[DHK]

HP: There is not a Calvinist living or dead that could or could have painted a better picture of deterministic fatalism than the you paint here DHK. Augustine and Calvin would be hugging your neck at such remarks. Double predestination is an absolute unavoidable logical consequence of such stated beliefs.

Why the bullish stubborn arrogance? Is it needful?

Look again what I said:

1. Salvation is all of God. God is sovereign.
2. Salvation is by faith and faith alone.
3. Salvation is a gift of God and therefore unconditional.
4. I don't believe in determinism so don't make slanderous statements.

Now you basically lie, after I post and say plainly that I don't believe in determinism.
Your lie--"There is not a Calvinist living...that could have painted a better picture of deterministic fatalism than you paint here DHK."

I just said I did not believe in determinism. And from that you arrogantly argue against common sense and tell me that I do. Why the lies?
When I tell you I believe one thing, why do you lie and tell me I believe another?

If antagonism is your game you could just go to some other board or site and leave this one a bit more pleasant for us all.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Debate is not merely saying ‘I am or am not Calvinistic’ or ‘my theology is or is not deterministic,’ but rather should be an attempt to build a case that it is or is not those things using rational reasoning and logic.

If the salvation DHK presents is not deterministic, pray tell us why he takes three distinctive Calvinistic positions to support his sentiments??? Let’s examine two of those positions again.

DHK: 1. Salvation is all of God. God is sovereign.

HP: If salvation is all of God, then man plays no role. If man plays no role, man is a mere pawn in the scheme of salvation, either being chose to salvation or damned as a direct choice of God to withhold it. If man plays any role, any role at all, salvation cannot be “all of God.” Such a stated notion as DHK presents is as deterministic as one could imagine, and supports the double predestination even Calvin clearly admitted was inescapable when this position is taken. DHK can scream and holler and throw around baseless personal attacks, but one thing he cannot do is to free his theology from the same fate Calvin astutely understood was its end. That end is nothing other than deterministic double predestination.

DHK: 3. Salvation is a gift of God and therefore unconditional.

HP: What is absolutely amazing, is the notion thrown around that God is Sovereign, just to set limits on that sovereignty by telling us what God can and cannot do. The position DHK, and all that claim to be Calvinists, that God cannot or has not attached conditions to salvations offer, is limiting a Sovereign God to a figment of their own imaginations. Some ‘Sovereign God’ their conclusions imbibe. It is like saying, ‘God is Sovereign and can only act in a manner I decide He can and how I define what a gift entails.’ Such limiting of God in the act of His salvation is hardly sovereignty.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let me put this in as simple terms as I am able. If ‘all is of God,’ ‘all is determined by God.’ If all is determined by God and God alone, determinism rules and that without question.

One can deny they are a Calvinist, but what does it matter if the ends of the system one supports and the ends of Calvinism are one in the same, i.e., determinism???

 

[DHK]

Let me put this in as simple terms as I am able. If ‘all is of God,’ ‘all is determined by God.’ If all is determined by God and God alone, determinism rules and that without question.

Your are adding words to what I said. There is the difference. I did not say "all is determined by God," though God foreknew all that would happen.
I said that salvation is "all of God."
If salvation is not all of God, how much blood did you shed in helping him atone for our sins? Or was your baptism a part of atoning for our sins? I guess Christ could not atone for the sins of the world without HP's help. HP's view on the atonement is blasphemy because it is not all of God. God needed HP's help. It is either "all of God," or "God plus HP." That is the way I see it.

One can deny they are a Calvinist, but what does it matter if the ends of the system one supports and the ends of Calvinism are one in the same, i.e., determinism???

As you can see determinism has nothing to do with it; only your egotism.

 

[steaver]

Let me put this in as simple terms as I am able. If ‘all is of God,’ ‘all is determined by God.’ If all is determined by God and God alone, determinism rules and that without question.

One can deny they are a Calvinist, but what does it matter if the ends of the system one supports and the ends of Calvinism are one in the same, i.e., determinism???

That could be said about your view on faith plus works. Are you a Catholic?

.......but rather should be an attempt to build a case that it is or is not those things using rational reasoning and logic.

How can one stop believing in that which they know is true?

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: How can one stop believing in that which they know is true?

HP: What one now considers ‘the truth’ may not in fact 'be' the truth as the Apostle Paul learned when God gave him new revelation.

 

[steaver]

HP: What one now considers ‘the truth’ may not in fact 'be' the truth as the Apostle Paul learned when God gave him new revelation.

Doesn't apply. Truth is truth and does not change. I did not ask about a percieved truth.

Do you absolutely know Jesus Christ?

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Have you seen your name written in the Lamb’s Book of Life? Have you heard Him tell you “well done thou good and faithful servant? “ I have not IF that is what you mean by “absolutely know.”

I have ‘by faith’ accepted Christ as my Savior and am assured by Scripture that if I walk in the light as He is in the light I have fellowship with God. I have no assurance of my final standing before Him apart from or without a present assurance of a clear conscience before God and man. Only as I walk obedient, “in the light” by the help proffered by the Holy Spirit to walk such a walk, is my assurance of my final standing on solid Scriptural grounds. My walk must remain walking in agreement to my faith to be found in Him in the last day.

I have not ‘absolutely’ arrived as you, DHK, and others clearly appear to profess. There is still need for me to examine my faith as Scripture admonishes me to on a regular basis, and to confess, repent of, and forsake any and all sin, without which I am but deceived as to my current and ultimate standing before Him.

My heartfelt desire is to walk blameless before God with a heart of love towards God and His law in this present world with the help promised to me via the Holy Spirit.

1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

 

[steaver]

Have you seen your name written in the Lamb’s Book of Life? Have you heard Him tell you “well done thou good and faithful servant? “ I have not IF that is what you mean by “absolutely know.”

That is not what I mean by "absolutely know". I am not speaking of the final judgment seat of Christ.

I am talking about the here and now, right now. Do you personally know Jesus Christ is Lord via the Spirit which God says he gives His children that they may know?

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:


Never mind tommorrow, next week or at final judgment day. Do you Absolutely know Jesus Christ is Lord, that He is in you, right now?

Is this a truth you know or simply a "hope so" feeling?

I have no assurance of my final standing before Him apart from or without a present assurance of a clear conscience before God and man.

Not speaking of any "final standing". I just want to know if you know for sure Jesus Christ is the Son of God? If yes, how do you know with absolute assurance that He is? Not talking about absolute assurance you will be saved in the end here. Just want to establish if you know for sure right now that His Spirit is in you.

I assume you will say yes, you do know for sure Jesus Christ is in you, that He is for real a truth, and that you can feel Him working within your spirit.

How can you stop believing that which you know is a truth?

I have no assurance of my final standing before Him apart from or without a present assurance of a clear conscience before God and man.

I do have an assurance of my final standing before Him and my conscience is clear that I sin before Him everyday. This is the gospel that draws men unto Christ. A persistent need for grace. When you believe you conscience has reached the perfection necessary for walking into heaven with your head held high, look out! For if your conscience is clear then you have no need for grace. Ye have fallen from grace.

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: For if your conscience is clear then you have no need for grace. Ye have fallen from grace.

HP: To have a clear conscience is to be fallen from grace???? That is the most absurd unscriptural position I have ever seen posted on this board. Go ahead Steaver, tell the Apostle Paul he had fallen from grace.

Ac 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

You take the absurd unscriptural position that we must sin to prove we need God’s grace. Where have you so learned this doctrine of the enemy of our souls? Paul settled that question once for all.

Ro 6:1 ¶ What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Sad to say but none the less true, reading Steaver’s last post is a shining example of foundational error of those holding to a sinning religion.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

An interesting point that is right on target with the seeming purpose of the OP, is the convoluted notion by DHK over and over that a gift cannot have conditions. The illustration of the gift of healing that Naaman received is a shining example of the absurdity of such a narrow and self serving explanation that DHK and others give concerning a gift, i.e., if it is a gift it cannot have any conditions attached. Such a narrow opinion is simply not supported by Scripture, reason or experience.

 

[steaver]

HP: To have a clear conscience is to be fallen from grace???? That is the most absurd unscriptural position I have ever seen posted on this board. Go ahead Steaver, tell the Apostle Paul he had fallen from grace.

Ac 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.

You take the absurd unscriptural position that we must sin to prove we need God’s grace. Where have you so learned this doctrine of the enemy of our souls? Paul settled that question once for all.

Ro 6:1 ¶ What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

I said "if your conscience is clear". Meaning if your conscience is clear that you have no sin, then you would need no grace to enter heaven.

This is not the same as having a good conscience towards God. Which means you are learning from God and doing your best to do what is right in His eyes. Paul is not promoting sinless perfection.

:godisgood:

 

[steaver]

Sad to say but none the less true, reading Steaver’s last post is a shining example of foundational error of those holding to a sinning religion.

Actually it is your post that gives a shining example of foundation error of those holding to a sinless perfection religion.

You believe Paul means sinless when He states he lives in all good conscience towards God. This is error.

I live in all good conscience towards God yet my conscience also convicts me of sins and this happens daily.

In fact, the very fact that I agree with God that I am a sinner saved by grace is me living in all good conscience towards God for I submit to His word and to His Spirit that tells me it is so.

:wavey:

 

[steaver]

Tell me HP, can you even remember the last time you committed a sin?

 

[steaver]

An interesting point that is right on target with the seeming purpose of the OP, is the convoluted notion by DHK over and over that a gift cannot have conditions. The illustration of the gift of healing that Naaman received is a shining example of the absurdity of such a narrow and self serving explanation that DHK and others give concerning a gift, i.e., if it is a gift it cannot have any conditions attached. Such a narrow opinion is simply not supported by Scripture, reason or experience.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Obviously a condition placed on the act of a man would negate the "not of yourselves" part of the scripture.

Haven't you taken notice how hard it is to prove a point that scripture just slaps down with a single blow?

It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks my brother. Just thank God for His precious gift and accept that He really meant eternal when He said eternal.

:wavey:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=2&v=1&t=KJV#comm/8

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

HP: Steaver you have not produced a single Scripture that slaps anything down but a figment of your own imagination. Salvations plan is not designed or implemented by anything we do just as Naaman’s healing was not designed or implemented by anything he did. None the less Naaman would not have been healed apart from his obedience to the conditions God placed on his healing and neither will any individual be saved in the end apart from obedience to the stated conditions of making heaven our home. Ephesians 2:8 addresses the grounds of salvation, and by no means is excluding or eliminating the clear stated conditions of salvation.

 

[steaver]

HP: Steaver you have not produced a single Scripture that slaps anything down but a figment of your own imagination. Salvations plan is not designed or implemented by anything we do just as Naaman’s healing was not designed or implemented by anything he did. None the less Naaman would not have been healed apart from his obedience to the conditions God placed on his healing and neither will any individual be saved in the end apart from obedience to the stated conditions of making heaven our home. Ephesians 2:8 addresses the grounds of salvation, and by no means is excluding or eliminating the clear stated conditions of salvation.

Do you find Naaman a poster child for salvation?

Read the text. Naaman may have obeyed but it was with great reluctance. God cured Naaman even though Naaman had no faith in this God of Israel.

Is this your great example of how God saves?

Sounds Calvinistic to me.

:jesus:

 

[DHK]

Your theology then is that the result of Christ dying for our sin is antinomianism. That is one of the oddest beliefs I have heard.
Tell me HP, if a believer should die of a heart attack (very, very suddenly) having lied, and not having had the chance to repent of that lie, would he go to heaven?

You never answered this question HP?
Perhaps you never saw it.
Want to give it a try?