I posted the following in response to DHK’s remarks. HP: “ Here we have yet another stark contradiction. DHK tells us there is ‘nothing’ more to be done, and them he tells us that we need to do something, in this case ‘accept it by faith.’ One can only assume that to DHK ‘exercising faith’ is equivalent to ‘doing nothing.’ Strange logic to me. How about to you? Since when is doing something nothing???” I further posed the statement: HP: If there is something man must do, it cannot be said there is nothing man must do. If one states that there is nothing a man can do, then one cannot state there is something he must do.” The thread this was posted on is close to being closed due to its length. It so far has been unanswered to my knowledge. Would there be any out there that might have some input into the problem or have a solution that would help make DHK’s theological position less contradictory? Can it be said that a man MUST do something in order to be saved, and at the same time say there is NOTHING he can do? Can one say that there are no conditions to salvation, and then make ‘accepting it by faith’ a condition without being in stark contradiction to ones own statements?