Quote:
Originally Posted by Magma2  Great. And how does this contradict "duty-faith"? |
You said "How could it be the "bounded duty" of those who do not hear something to do whatever it is they never heard about?" In saying this you thereby show that you adhere to the view that man is only duty bound to do that which he knows about. Hence you must accept that unbelief is not a sin for those who never hear of Christ.
How does this refute duty-faith? Well what is it they are duty bound to believe? That Christ died for them? In no wise and yet true saving faith is to say "the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20) and so the reprobate can not be duty bound to have saving faith.
A better starting point would be to ask, what is faith?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magma2 I'll try this one more time. You wrote: "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" then is it the bounden duty of all who do not hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ?" |
I did not, I wrote;
IF [then I quoted Pink saying] "It is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ" [I then posed the question]
THEN IS IT THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF ALL WHO DO NOT HEAR THE GOSPEL TO SAVINGLY TRUST IN CHRIST [ending with a question marke denoting I was not stating anything but asking a question]
? IF x is true,
THEN IS y true
? Quote:
Originally Posted by Magma2 If you will not concede your above statement is invalid, then it is pointless for me to continue with you. If you cannot see that, you cannot see anything. |
It was not a STATEMENT rather it was a QUESTION!
Look at my sentence structure.
You think I said
IF x is true,
THEN y
is true.
What I said was
IF x is true,
THEN IS y true
?
The question was really,
is it the bounden duty of all who do not hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ? which you have already provided an answer for and so the issue is rather moot.
