Who has not failed?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Does this mean HP is right? Do we have an example among us that proves it is possible to keep God's commandments with the perfection God requires for salvation?

HP: Steaver, show me one place I have ever stated or implied that one could keep the commandments of God and in doing so gain salvation. You simply are devoid of the truth when it comes to representing my views, but what’s new?

 

[steaver]

HP: Steaver, show me one place I have ever stated or implied that one could keep the commandments of God and in doing so gain salvation. You simply are devoid of the truth when it comes to representing my views, but what’s new?

My appologies.

I misunderstood from your postings, I thought you was one who posted that one must keep God's commandments else they could not be saved. It must have been someone else.

I am glad to know that you do not believe it necessary to keep the commandments of God in order to be saved.

:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

HP: Steaver, show me one place I have ever stated or implied that one could keep the commandments of God and in doing so gain salvation. You simply are devoid of the truth when it comes to representing my views, but what’s new?

Perhaps it is here:

HP: For starters, salvation is a free gift, but it indeed has conditions. The conditions are repentance, faith, and obedience until the end.

Now show me that salvation is not a free gift.

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1524921&postcount=105

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Apology accepted.

 

[steaver]

Apology accepted.

Wait a minute, maybe it was you.

DHK brought up a post of yours that seems to be saying that "obedience" is on your list of requirements for salvation. Can you explain?

HP: For starters, salvation is a free gift, but it indeed has conditions. The conditions are repentance, faith, and obedience until the end.

Now show me that salvation is not a free gift.

Is this "obedience" you speak of different than commandment keeping?

:godisgood:

 

[Michaelt]

Bet I am the most biggest failure here.

David I would question your statement here. I would go toe to toe with you as the biggest failure here. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: Wait a minute, maybe it was you.

DHK brought up a post of yours that seems to be saying that "obedience" is on your list of requirements for salvation. Can you explain?
Quote:
HP: For starters, salvation is a free gift, but it indeed has conditions. The conditions are repentance, faith, and obedience until the end.

Now show me that salvation is not a free gift.

Is this "obedience" you speak of different than commandment keeping?

HP: I take back my acceptance to your apology. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[steaver]

HP: I take back my acceptance to your apology. :smilewinkgrin:

I recall you complaining about DHK not answering questions.

Care to avoid the sin of hypocrisy?

:jesus:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Have I ever stated specifically that you have avoided an issue or have failed to address or comment on an issue?

DHK was making an unfounded accusation. The last time I checked you are not my judge of sin either Steaver.

One can choose not to comment on any particular issue they so choose for whatever reasons they so choose. Your judging my motives serves as no meaningful inspiration for me to respond period.

 

[steaver]

Have I ever stated specifically that you have avoided an issue or have failed to address or comment on an issue?

DHK was making an unfounded accusation. The last time I checked you are not my judge of sin either Steaver.

One can choose not to comment on any particular issue they so choose for whatever reasons they so choose. Your judging my motives serves as no meaningful inspiration for me to respond period.

We are commanded by God to watch over each other and if we see a sin we are to point that sin out less we hate our brothers and sisters.

Lev 19:17Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

I am to judge and so are you to judge me. I pray you will point out any sin you see me commit.

1Jo 5:16If any man see his brother sin a sin [which is] not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

I would submit that in order to see a sin one must make a judgment as to what sin is.

As for you not answering questions, then why are you here? Just to preach to us? This is a debate board. Your refusal to answer questions only reflects upon yourself. As I pointed out, do not complain about others not answering when you yourself refuse to answer questions. This is the sin of hypocrisy. I have obeyed God and have told you now twice.

God Bless! :love2:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver, your judging my motives serves as no meaningful inspiration for me to respond period. That is the second and last time I will tell you that on this thread.

 

[steaver]

Steaver, your judging my motives serves as no meaningful inspiration for me to respond period. That is the second and last time I will tell you that on this thread.

Motives I cannot see. I do see your sin though.

Pro 13:1A wise son [heareth] his father's instruction: but a scorner heareth not rebuke.
Pro 27:5Open rebuke [is] better than secret love.



:love2:

 

[DHK]

My appologies.

I misunderstood from your postings, I thought you was one who posted that one must keep God's commandments else they could not be saved. It must have been someone else.

I am glad to know that you do not believe it necessary to keep the commandments of God in order to be saved.

:godisgood:

There was no apology that Steaver had to make.
HP continues to contradict himself.
In one post near the top of page 15 on this thread he says:

HP: Steaver, show me one place I have ever stated or implied that one could keep the commandments of God and in doing so gain salvation. You simply are devoid of the truth when it comes to representing my views, but what’s new?

Yet on another thread he says:

HP: For starters, salvation is a free gift, but it indeed has conditions. The conditions are repentance, faith, and obedience until the end.

The two posts contradict each other.

HP believes that obedience is necessary for salvation.


As Steaver correctly stated: "I thought you (HP) was one who posted that one must keep God's commandments else they could not be saved."
Despite your hypocritical protest in the quote above, you do believe that unless one keeps the commands of God (obedience) he cannot be saved. Why are you denying it now HP?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: As Steaver correctly stated: "I thought you (HP) was one who posted that one must keep God's commandments else they could not be saved."
Despite your hypocritical protest in the quote above, you do believe that unless one keeps the commands of God (obedience) he cannot be saved. Why are you denying it now HP?

HP: The confusion lies within yourself DHK and with Steaver. Neither of you make any distinction between the grounds and conditions of salvation. In relation the grounds of salvation, I can say man has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. Yet if I am speaking of the conditions of salvation, I can say there is absolute some things a man must do if one is to be saved. Blindness on your part does not necessitate a “hypocrisy protest” on my part.

Here are two great examples, the first being of the grounds of salvation, the latter being said concerning the conditions of salvation. Again, there is no contradiction between theses verses. One is speaking in relationship to the grounds of salvation and the other in relationship to the stated conditions of salvation.

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

Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Your second problem is that you conceive of salvation as a one time act forever settled in stone. I believe Scripture refutes OSAS clearly. When you see the word salvation, you are thinking of an unchangeable once for all act. I believe Scripture represents salvation in three tenses not one. Salvation is started by an initial act of faith, but the process of salvation is not entirely consummated until we stand before God in judgment when our faith is turned to sight.

 

[steaver]

HP: The confusion lies within yourself DHK and with Steaver. Neither of you make any distinction between the grounds and conditions of salvation. In relation the grounds of salvation, I can say man has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. Yet if I am speaking of the conditions of salvation, I can say there is absolute some things a man must do if one is to be saved. Blindness on your part does not necessitate a “hypocrisy protest” on my part.

You call us confused?

This "distinction" created out of your own necessity to somehow support your misguided views is nothing but double speak.

The object is the same for both of your "distinctions", that being salvation.

HP: Steaver, show me one place I have ever stated or implied that one could keep the commandments of God and in doing so gain salvation. You simply are devoid of the truth when it comes to representing my views, but what’s new?

HP; Yet if I am speaking of the conditions of salvation, I can say there is absolute some things a man must do if one is to be saved.

The object is the same no matter if you say grounds or if you say conditions, that object is salvation.

So, you believe that unless a person keeps God's commandments they cannot be saved, because this according to you is a CONDITION for SALVATION.

We are confused? Don't you see the sillyness of this argument? Conditions and grounds?

Declare a "distinction" all you like, either way the object is salvation. Thus, your view on salvation is faith plus works. No way around this even if you have convinced yourself in your own mind that making up some sort of distinctions has liberated your pov.

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
In the case where Saul was saved - then yes he would have to have had the Law of God written on the heart - because that IS the New Covenant and the New Covenant IS the one Gospel in all of time.

In the case where Saul was not saved - then of course he could not have had the law "written on the heart".

in Christ,

Bob

Do you believe one can have the Law written on the heart and mind and still be ignorant as to what the Law requires or actually means?

If yes, then what do you see is the advantage of having the Law written on the heart as opposed to just reading what has been written on paper?

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
In the case where Saul was saved - then yes he would have to have had the Law of God written on the heart - because that IS the New Covenant and the New Covenant IS the one Gospel in all of time.

In the case where Saul was not saved - then of course he could not have had the law "written on the heart".

in Christ,

Bob

Do you believe one can have the Law written on the heart and mind and still be ignorant as to what the Law requires or actually means?

If yes, then what do you see is the advantage of having the Law written on the heart as opposed to just reading what has been written on paper?

:jesus:

 

[steaver]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
In the case where Saul was saved - then yes he would have to have had the Law of God written on the heart - because that IS the New Covenant and the New Covenant IS the one Gospel in all of time.

In the case where Saul was not saved - then of course he could not have had the law "written on the heart".

in Christ,

Bob

Do you believe one can have the Law written on the heart and mind and still be ignorant as to what the Law requires or actually means?

If yes, then what do you see is the advantage of having the Law written on the heart as opposed to just reading what has been written on paper?

:jesus:

 

[DHK]

HP: The confusion lies within yourself DHK and with Steaver. Neither of you make any distinction between the grounds and conditions of salvation.

There is no distinction. You make a distinction because you have a false theology. There is no distinction because salvation is all of God. It is a free gift. You might call that the grounds of salvation--by grace through faith.
However it is a free gift. That means that it is unconditional. You put conditions on salvation when there are none. You don't believe the Bible when it says "free gift." You don't understand the term or refuse to believe it. I can offer you $20.00 as a free gift, which you could either accept or reject with no conditions attached. If I say that you had to pay interest on it that it would not be free. If I say that you had to pay it back to me then it would not be a gift.
From a banking point of view, the money that the bank "gives" me is not a gift. I pay interest on it, and I pay it back with interest. That is a loan, not a gift. That is your view of salvation--something that God gives you that you have to pay back with continued obedience. It isn't a gift but on loan. If you don't keep the terms of the Holy Banker, you forfeit the loan. Salvation is not a gift for you (as the Bible defines it), it is simply a loan that can be forfeited at any time depending on the nature or condition of your works. This is totally unbiblical. My God is not a Banker. He is a Savior!!

In relation the grounds of salvation, I can say man has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. Yet if I am speaking of the conditions of salvation, I can say there is absolute some things a man must do if one is to be saved. Blindness on your part does not necessitate a “hypocrisy protest” on my part.

You are the one that is blind. Salvation is all of God. There is nothing that man can do to attain it. There is nothing that man can do to keep it.
He is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
He keeps my salvation; I don't. It is His grace; not my works.

Here are two great examples, the first being of the grounds of salvation, the latter being said concerning the conditions of salvation. Again, there is no contradiction between theses verses. One is speaking in relationship to the grounds of salvation and the other in relationship to the stated conditions of salvation.

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

Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Your second problem is that you conceive of salvation as a one time act forever settled in stone. I believe Scripture refutes OSAS clearly.

And your belief is wrong. There is no contradiction in Scripture.

When you see the word salvation, you are thinking of an unchangeable once for all act. I believe Scripture represents salvation in three tenses not one. Salvation is started by an initial act of faith,

And that is what it is--like a hand that reaches into the sea of sin, pulling the drowning sinner out of the sea and setting him on solid ground, the foundation being Christ himself. It happens but once in a person's life.

but the process of salvation is not entirely consummated until we stand before God in judgment when our faith is turned to sight.

That process is called sanctification. It is growing in Christ. It is being conformed to His image. The believer can never lose his salvation, as a child will never cease being the offspring of his parents. The genetic make-up cannot change. The saved person will always be the child of God; that cannot change. Now, one who has a relationship with God, must keep his relationship close by confession of sin. When a child errs, until the wrong is righted the relationship between parent and child is strained. It needs to be made right. The child will still be the child of the parent. Only the nature of the relationship has changed. So it is with God.

 

[steaver]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
In the case where Saul was saved - then yes he would have to have had the Law of God written on the heart - because that IS the New Covenant and the New Covenant IS the one Gospel in all of time.

In the case where Saul was not saved - then of course he could not have had the law "written on the heart".

in Christ,

Bob

Do you believe one can have the Law written on the heart and mind and still be ignorant as to what the Law requires or actually means?

If yes, then what do you see is the advantage of having the Law written on the heart as opposed to just reading what has been written on paper?

:jesus: