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

HP: Think Amy, think.

Grounds are thought of in the sense of "that for the sake of." Were they not healed 'for the sake of' God's grace?? They were certainly not healed 'for the sake of' looking. Looking has no merit but God's grace certainly does.

Any time we are speaking of conditions of healing, salvation, etc., it is always thought of in the sense of 'not without which' NOT 'that for the sake of.' There is NO merit stated or implied attached to the conditions to receive a gift on the part of the one receiving the gift. No condition required is meritorious in nature period if it is a condition of receiving God's grace, in this case healing. Fulfilling a stated condition of healing or salvation, coming by the hand of God's grace, in no wise constitutes a 'works based' issue as you, Augustine and Calvin have or would falsely claim.

Simply put, to disagree with the Augustinian/Calvinistic notion of grace, by recognizing clear stated conditions for receiving God's grace, does not necessitate a 'works' based salvation, or as in the case at hand, a 'works' based healing.

 

You never did give me a resource (and don't say the bible) that speaks of this "grounds" verses "conditions" doctrine. Is this something you and some fellow Christians came up with or are there well known theologians from the past who has pointed out this concept?

:jesus:

 

HP: You have been presented with clear passages of Scripture that show the distinction between the grounds and conditions of salvation. You do with them whatsoever you will Steaver. Let nothing short of common sense and reason stand in the way of your understanding the Biblical and reasonable concept. As far as I know, this distinction is held by all but Calvinist and those leaning hard towards Augustinianism/Calvinism.

 

I am not a Calvinist and I don't make those distinctions. I believe they are heretical. You don't find them in Scripture. I don't find them in any Scripture that you have posted. You have put a false dichotomy in the faith that one must have to be saved, thereby making a false gospel of works, to which Paul said is "anathema."

 

HP: Call yourself, or think of yourself, in any way you so desire. It does not take away from the fact that the doctrines you teach are pure antinomian and nothing short of determinism. We shall both soon see who the Apostle Paul was saying should be considered anathema. Woe be to that person.

 

>Of a truth, gifts often have stated conditions . . . .

These, we call "grants," not "gifts." When someone gives a gift, title to the gift passes. This is a hard lesson for parents who want to control their children.

 

HP: I do not recall Scripture ever using the term 'grants' in relationship to healing or salvation, but I do see clearly where both are termed gifts and clearly do have conditions. Can you site a Scriptural reference for your assumption?

 

:laugh: I do not recall scripture ever using the words "conditions" either.


Tell me HP, when you give a b'day gift to someone, is it based on them meeting your "conditions"?

 

Please don't say you read my posts, because you really don't, and thus don't know what I believe. So your above post is pure slander. If you actually read my posts you would know what I believe and it certainly isn't antinomianism, determinism, or even Calvinism. I suggest that in the future, you stop with the slander and stick to the facts, the ones that you know.

 

Does this answer mean you do not know of any Christian writer from the past 1800 years or so who has spoken of these "conditions verses grounds" for salvation? It kinda sounds like Catholicism where they preach grace plus sacraments.

Should I believe that for 1800 years no one was "enlightened" about this
"conditions verses grounds" doctrine until HP came along to teach us?

:jesus:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antinomian



“an·ti·no·mi·an

  /ˌæn tɪˈnoʊ mi ən/Show Spelled[an-ti-noh-mee-uh n]Show IPA
–noun
a person who maintains that Christians are freed from the moral law by virtue of grace as set forth in the gospel. Origin:
1635–45; < ML Antinom(ī) name of sect (pl. of Antinomus opponent of (the moral) law < Gk antí anti- + nómos law) + -ian

—Related forms

an·ti·no·mi·an·ism, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010. “


DHK, here is your opportunity to explain for us why it is that you can say salvation is ‘faith alone’ and that nothing one can do, including no amount or type of sin, can separate one from God and yet claim when one calls your theology antinomian they are in your words ‘slandering’ you. It has been rightly said that law without penalty may be good advice or council but is no law at all. When you remove the God ordained penalty of sin Scripture places on sin that is unrepented of, you destroy the law and as such the charge of antinomian is indeed a just charge.

When you state that salvation is ‘all of God,’ disallowing even repentance or faith as a condition of salvation, you are painting a clear picture of determinism. It is in no wise slander to state in clear terms the very doctrinal inclination you attest to in so many posts and in so many ways.

 

I guess the silence has answered my question.

:wavey:

 

How about we just simplify this post and say that it is full of ignorance of Biblical knowledge, your ignorance of what I believe the Bible teaches, slander, and an incredible degree of arrogance.

 

Heavenly Pilgrim...

Ahhh....no. Although the Catholics, Orthodox, and hard core legalists are "Amen-ing" you for sure. :thumbs:

Only ONE? Why stop there?

Read the entire book of Galaciens. The entire book of Ephesians. The entire book of Romans.

The entire New Testament!

Justification through faith alone. I am amazed that you are capable of MISSING it!

How can you miss it???

Read the New Testament! READ...READ...READ!

 

After reading my last post again, but too late to edit, I realize that I should have typed, “good advice or counsel.” Sorry.

DHK, you could you not have tried to hide your true beliefs and sentiments in a more effective manner? Arrogance by the way is when you can write thousands of posts for all to read and then stick your head in the sand thinking that everyone else is unable to discern your true sentiments and as such fail to understand what you really believe.

 

James 2
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works[/b] when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
22 You see that faith was working with his works[b/], and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "" AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED[/b] GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,'' and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works[/b] when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

 

Sinners are accepted by Christ - when they in faith surrender to the promptings of the Holy Spirit - in faith accept the New Birth, and in that new faith turn from theiir sin in full repentance.

From that point on - it is a matter of persevering in that same faith - producing the same obedience as at the start.

Rom 2
4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?


5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the [b]righteous judgment of God,
6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: [/b]

7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9 There will be [b]tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil[/b], of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

 

You have demonstrated your ignorance of the theological term "antinomianism" by trying to define it by a secular dictionary, and then coming up with the wrong definition. If you don't know what the term means then don't use it.

1. Salvation is by faith alone for the Bible says it is (Eph.2:8,9; Rom.5:1)
2. After salvation there is nothing that can separate the believer from God because the Bible says so (Rom.8:38,39).
3. Because you have no idea what antinomianism is your point is both slander and moot.

Since you don't know the meaning of antinomian what you write doesn't make sense.
However, there is a penalty for sin. Do you believe that Christ paid the penalty for our sin, or that you must pay the penalty for your sin, or that you must help Christ pay the penalty for your sin? Which of the three do you believe. I believe in the first--that Christ fully paid the penalty for my sin. In fact that is what the Bible teaches. He paid the full penalty for my sins: past, present, and future.
1John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the whole world.

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?

I don't believe in your quirky theology--"the HP special."
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.

In the future before you state what you think I believe, quote me. Do not say what I believe unless you have a quote. I am tired of your baseless accusations. Find one of my quotes--the many posts that you constantly refer to--and quote me. Your false allegations are totally needless.

BTW: antinomianism:
anti--against.
nomian--from "nomo" name or law.
--against law, or "no law" lit. no law.

Romans 5:20-21 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:1-2 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?
--Paul sets forth the case here for antinomianism.
Where sin abounds so does grace.
Therefore why not sin (those at Rome think), that we might even have more grace--the more sin; the more grace. Right? That is antinomianism. (no law).
Paul's answer--God Forbid!
How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein.
But this passage in Romans 6 has nothing to do with salvation; rather sanctification. I have never advocated antinomianism. Find a post where I have. Better still retract what you have said.

 

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.

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

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......and of course DHK. :smilewinkgrin:

 

​

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.