ECT Grace is unconditional but not universal

[1Mind1Spirit]

The same is, of course, true for the noun hamartia and the verb hamartano.

The difficulty is that Arminians don't recognize even the restored functionality (and beyond) of the original creation as salvation, is still by God's mind and will and hand alone as the Creator.

Just because we're resurrected from within and "re-functionalized", we're created and have no innate power of our own to accomplish anything by our own economy of action. We don't have the uncreated ontology for it.

It can LOOK like man is co-operating with God, but it's merely the latent functionality of the original creation being resurrected and restored - all by the Creator and the nouns of faith and (granted) repentance TO believe and repent (both verbs from the nouns).

Whatever it may seem man has to contribute in initiative and/or cooperation is STILL from God as the source. And since God's Necessity is non-contingent, then there can be no Synergism whatsoever. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

To "accept (charitoo) Jesus Christ as one's Savior" (as is the common reference) is to make Christ the object of one's own grace or to make oneself the object of God's grace. That's jacked, but it's become generic nomenclature in modern church culture. It's about BEING accepted in the beloved.

:cheers:

This scripture's been workin' all day for me.

2 Corinthians 5:5
Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

 

[Sonnet]

The same is, of course, true for the noun hamartia and the verb hamartano.

The difficulty is that Arminians don't recognize even the restored functionality (and beyond) of the original creation as salvation, is still by God's mind and will and hand alone as the Creator.

Just because we're resurrected from within and "re-functionalized", we're created and have no innate power of our own to accomplish anything by our own economy of action. We don't have the uncreated ontology for it.

It can LOOK like man is co-operating with God, but it's merely the latent functionality of the original creation being resurrected and restored - all by the Creator and the nouns of faith and (granted) repentance TO believe and repent (both verbs from the nouns).

Whatever it may seem man has to contribute in initiative and/or cooperation is STILL from God as the source. And since God's Necessity is non-contingent, then there can be no Synergism whatsoever. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

To "accept (charitoo) Jesus Christ as one's Savior" (as is the common reference) is to make Christ the object of one's own grace or to make oneself the object of God's grace. That's jacked, but it's become generic nomenclature in modern church culture. It's about BEING accepted in the beloved.

Then you will be challenged, as all Calvinists are, regarding the options for those God did not elect to restore such functionality?

What are their options PPS?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Then you will be challenged, as all Calvinists are, regarding the options for those God did not elect to restore such functionality?

What are their options PPS?

I'm not a Calvinist. And this false binary is because virtually no one understands time versus timelessness, and presumes Calvinism is Determinism.

Elevating man is not the answer.

I am communing with God from time into timelessness. That fellowship is the means by which He foreknew me. I'm communing with God "before" He created, but there's no "before" for God. That foreknowledge means He predestined me to be conformed to the image of His Son.

I'm a passenger on the good ship USS Elect. Election is secondarily individuals and primarily a "category".

Man was originally created as tov tov ("very good"), and the most overarching meaning for tov is "functional". So man was completely functional according to God's design and instantiation into reality of existence.

That functionality became dys-/mal-/non-functionality with the onset of spiritual death and sin, the wages for the latter being physical death. The facets of salvation are by God's grace to give us faith and repentance, by which we are inwardly resurrected back to (yet far beyond) Edenic functionality.

This looks like Synergism. It looks like either initiative or cooperation by or from man. It's not and can't be. An unrenewed mind cannot apply the will toward God's internal standard for character as the external standard for conduct (that's righteousness); so man is left to his own.

God reenables the original creation's functionality with the new creation. If you knew the explicit distinctions between the hypostasis and ousia of man, it would take away the false dichotomy you've engaged in from one "side".

The "before" for God's election is now... I mean now... I mean now... I mean now...

Now is the only perpetuity that we can conceive of that might seem equivalent to God's timelessness. Believers are resurrected into Christ, having put Him on. That's literal, though not tangible. It's the inner man.

Again... I am NOW communing with God from time into timelessness "before" the divine utterance to create. But there is no "before" for God. So all perceptions of election too often end up as Deistic and/or Deterministic.

By God renewing our minds, our wills are re-functionalized to choose according to repentance (the noun), and to believe and repent (the verbs). All of that is Monergism, even if Calvinists misrepresent it by superimposing time upon the timeless God.

The non-elect would never have repented and believed. And that isn't in a Molinist sense or (eek) an Open Theism sense. God, in His timelessness throughout time, knows who will and won't receive/frustrate grace.

God didn't foreknow me until I communed with Him. But there is no "until" for God. There's no "after" or any other time construct that contains or constrains God. Those are all in our own minds as parameters of evaluation and perception and understanding.

 

[Sonnet]

Therefore, Wallace tells us that the main function of the Greek article is "to nominalize something that would otherwise not be considered a concept," and "to conceptualize." In saying this, he basically means that an article by itself, or when it is packaged together with another word or phrase, will most often form an expression that can be treated as a noun — as a complete idea of something or someone, as a whole and fully defined concept in one's thoughts, as a view or picture of a total entity in the mind.

As Wallace explains, "... the article is able to turn just about any part of speech into a noun and, therefore, a concept. For example, [the adjective] 'poor' expresses a quality, but the addition of an article turns it into an entity, 'the poor.' It is this ability to conceptualize that seems to be the basic force of the article." Prepositional phrases, adjectives, infinitives and other phrases or expressions can all be turned into 'concepts,' into things, into nouns. English articles hold a bit of this ability, but they do not bear nearly as much of the broad and powerful ability of the Greek article.

So the power of the article is in its ability to conceptualize. Then, when it comes to actually using this core power, a great number of different functions can be performed. Of course, there are times when the Greek article functions much like an English definite article, indicating that the noun or substantive is a particular one, not just any one. However, more of its functions revolve around the broader role of identifying some person, persons, thing or things. Wallace tells us "it is used predominantly to stress the identity of an individual or class or quality." The Greek article creates an identifiable picture out of the word or words following it.

The purpose of the article added to plural hamartia is to personify those who have plural sins as sinners because they are the source for the acts. It's not to point to the acts, but to the source of the acts; and it's the singular inner quality and activity of the sin condition and the plurality of the effects of that condition that produce the outward plurality of actions.

But the articular is not to just identify the actions, but to attribute their source as the void in man's inner character failing to meet the standard of God's righteousness, thus inevitably resulting in conduct that also fails to meet the standard of God's righteousness.

The article serves to not merely identify actions, but to provide the conceptualization that those acts are the result of an inner condition. Economy of action is not incidental, but indicates an inability to exhibit and/or accomplish the righteousness of God by intention.

Yes, I know. And that's because you are an English thinker/speaker attempting to understand Greek noun constructs in arrears, and English has no grid for qualitative things. English quantifies. English has no equivalent for many nuances. English has no cases for nouns, either. Nouns in English are nebulous, but English speakers consider them very concrete because it's their baseline epistemology.

Language formats the sub-conscious and conscious mind in many ways. English formats nouns with no cases and no qualitative distinctions whatsoever. And due to its low-context nature, English doesn't depend on definitions for words as much as it does concepts from phraseology.

Whereas a Greek noun being anarthrous provides broad qualitative considerations and the possibility of adding the article to increase understanding by individual words co-opping other words or a phrase to conceptualize at the word level, English does that by phraseology and subjecting the nouns and their definitions to the phrase.

For instance...
"I love my mother." "I love my wife."
In English, the functional definition of the word love is determined by the entire context of the phrase; so English speakers don't confuse the differing applications of love, even though it's the same word.

But Greek would use different words for love, each with rich differences in meaning, to the point that 'mother' and 'wife' don't provide the meaning for the word 'love'.

"I love ice cream" or "I love football" or "I love the beach" or "I love my pet" all have different meanings for the same word that are determined by another word. In Greek, the anarthrous sense is always present; and the article can be added for emphasis that turns the entire phrase into a noun as a stand-alone concept to be an entity in the mind.

For example... If a table is holding up a vase and candle, while also having an entire array of dishes for dining; its is not "tabling" to be "doing" this "holding up" of all these other things. It's the very qualitative characteristics of the "it-ness" of a table to have this latent functionality and activity. One would never refer to such "tabling" as a verb. That's the anarthrous Greek noun. Qualitative characteristics and functional activity, but never as "doing" like a verb.

Adding the article not only particularizes, but personifies and conceptualizes (and several other functions). So THE sin personifies someone as having an inner sin condition. THE sins personifies the plurality of inner functionalities, whether they come forth into individual manifested actions or not.

A murderer is a murderer in his heart before ever committing the acting and resulting established act/ion of murder. Likewise, it's the inner qualities and (dys-)functionalities of hatred, envy, and whatever else that culminate in any such act as murder.

This "concupiscence" in the heart is considered no differently than actions. Even the Mosaic Law was predicated more upon the heart than the actions, because it was a covenant, not legislative codification. That's what Jesus took issue with amongst the Pharisees. They had abandoned the covenantal nature of the Mosaic Law to make it only a human system of justice for the Theocracy by exhibiting behavior modification rather than keeping the Law from the heart.

Modern English speakers are the ones who separate the inner condition from outer conduct by misrepresenting renderings such as in 1Corinthians 15:3. This isn't referring to a columnar listing of outward acts alone. It's intrinsically referring to an entire conceptualization of the sinner from the inside out, as evidenced by the plurality of resulting actions. So the focus is on the sin condition as the source of it all, not just the outer behavior that can often just be modified or justified. The indication is much more than that which was on the far side of the verb.

But I asked you to explain your reasoning behind your particular nuances definitions of hamartia. The conceptualizing and nominalizing through the use of the article are in a general sense, but you have gone much further.

Greek nouns are ALL anarthrous. The article is added to anarthrous nouns. It's not an either-or. The anarthrous noun either doesn't have the article or it has the article added. And the article is never meaningless to only specify, even though specificity and identity is the threshhold of its meaning.

Greek does not have the indefinite article, so why are you still saying 'Greek nouns are ALL anarthrous'?

It's a fact of low-context languages. English provides almost infinite opportunity for misrepresentation of every word. That's largely why doctrinal variance has exploded since the Reformation. English.

And yet... As virtually the lowest-context langauge extant in human history, it also has the greatest capacity to ultimately represent truth because of its generic adapatable structure. But one must be meticulous in translation with an understanding of what is missing from the English language and what it substitutes for that which is present in donor languages translated into English.

English speakers misunderstand scripture because the language fails in translation? Unsubstantiated.

That's because poieo doesn't fit a simplistic English grid, just like most other Greek verbs from their noun counterparts.

Poieo is the most common action word for "doing" in Greek, and it's worth months and months of accessing and acquiring an understanding of all that it includes.

It's an artist's term, like for painting. But even as a verb for action, it is never referring to the brushstrokes of the painter while painting. It only refers to the general doing and the done. The brushstrokes are implicitly included. They're not considered separately. They're not really considered at all.

It's about that which is inside the artist being brought forth as the finished result of the masterpiece. So the corollary is God bringing forth the masterpiece of His artistry in humanity. The same is true very explicity for the poet and the poem. So poieo is about the artist and the finished art. The poet and the finished poem.

It's not about the brushstrokes or the canvas. It's not about the penstrokes or the paper. The canvas doesn't determine the painting, though there must be a certain qualitative kind of canvas. It can't be a piece of burlap sack. The paper doesn't determine the writing, though there must be a certain qualitative kind of paper. It can't be a sheer napkin.

The painting doesn't paint itself, or indeed help paint itself. The poem doesn't pen itself, or indeed help pen itself.

Not following your point.

It's not an either-or. That's English vagueries. It's the Greek article not merely particularizing resulting actions, but conceptualizing and personifying the entire phrase as indicating the interal source for all the acting and actions. The emphasis is always on the source and the qualitative nature of the noun/s.

English doesn't even begin to translate Greek nouns. That's why it's called the death of the letter and the life of the Spirit.

Too much dead letter is the problem.

So every one of the English translations we have has failed? Your not even close to substantiating that.

 

[Sonnet]

I'm not a Calvinist. And this false binary is because virtually no one understands time versus timelessness, and presumes Calvinism is Determinism.

Elevating man is not the answer.

I am communing with God from time into timelessness. That fellowship is the means by which He foreknew me. I'm communing with God "before" He created, but there's no "before" for God. That foreknowledge means He predestined me to be conformed to the image of His Son.

I'm a passenger on the good ship USS Elect. Election is secondarily individuals and primarily a "category".

Man was originally created as tov tov ("very good"), and the most overarching meaning for tov is "functional". So man was completely functional according to God's design and instantiation into reality of existence.

That functionality became dys-/mal-/non-functionality with the onset of spiritual death and sin, the wages for the latter being physical death. The facets of salvation are by God's grace to give us faith and repentance, by which we are inwardly resurrected back to (yet far beyond) Edenic functionality.

This looks like Synergism. It looks like either initiative or cooperation by or from man. It's not and can't be. An unrenewed mind cannot apply the will toward God's internal standard for character as the external standard for conduct (that's righteousness); so man is left to his own.

God reenables the original creation's functionality with the new creation. If you knew the explicit distinctions between the hypostasis and ousia of man, it would take away the false dichotomy you've engaged in from one "side".

The "before" for God's election is now... I mean now... I mean now... I mean now...

Now is the only perpetuity that we can conceive of that might seem equivalent to God's timelessness. Believers are resurrected into Christ, having put Him on. That's literal, though not tangible. It's the inner man.

Again... I am NOW communing with God from time into timelessness "before" the divine utterance to create. But there is no "before" for God. So all perceptions of election too often end up as Deistic and/or Deterministic.

By God renewing our minds, our wills are re-functionalized to choose according to repentance (the noun), and to believe and repent (the verbs). All of that is Monergism, even if Calvinists misrepresent it by superimposing time upon the timeless God.

The non-elect would never have repented and believed. And that isn't in a Molinist sense or (eek) an Open Theism sense. God, in His timelessness throughout time, knows who will and won't receive/frustrate grace.

God didn't foreknow me until I communed with Him. But there is no "until" for God. There's no "after" or any other time construct that contains or constrains God. Those are all in our own minds as parameters of evaluation and perception and understanding.

Okay - we don't know the answer.

 

[Sonnet]

An unrenewed mind cannot apply the will toward God's internal standard for character as the external standard for conduct (that's righteousness); so man is left to his own.

Since believing in God is not righteous conduct then you have created a straw man. That which you say man cannot do is the very thing Paul appeals to men to do.

Your position renders this whole preaching / believing process a charade and leaves man without worth.

 

[Sonnet]

The same is, of course, true for the noun hamartia and the verb hamartano.

The difficulty is that Arminians don't recognize even the restored functionality (and beyond) of the original creation as salvation, is still by God's mind and will and hand alone as the Creator.

Just because we're resurrected from within and "re-functionalized", we're created and have no innate power of our own to accomplish anything by our own economy of action. We don't have the uncreated ontology for it.

It can LOOK like man is co-operating with God, but it's merely the latent functionality of the original creation being resurrected and restored - all by the Creator and the nouns of faith and (granted) repentance TO believe and repent (both verbs from the nouns).

Whatever it may seem man has to contribute in initiative and/or cooperation is STILL from God as the source. And since God's Necessity is non-contingent, then there can be no Synergism whatsoever. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

To "accept (charitoo) Jesus Christ as one's Savior" (as is the common reference) is to make Christ the object of one's own grace or to make oneself the object of God's grace. That's jacked, but it's become generic nomenclature in modern church culture. It's about BEING accepted in the beloved.

Romans 9:30-32
What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

She ignores you like you ignore those whose questions you don't want to answer . .or can't.

I wish, to be frank with you on this issue. I hope you realize that you Sir, are one of my dearest friends on TOL. So, because of that close relationship that we share I can be blunt with you when I say, you are sadly lacking in the areas of civility, manners, intelligence, honor and knowledge. I have a willingness to answer any and all of your questions as long as I deem them relevant, respectful, coming from a mind that adheres to clarity and is pertaining to the subject at hand. To be honest with you, I don't see a lot of mental or emotional stability in your posts? You seem to be "grasping at straws" a majority of the time.

You make it very difficult to have a reasonable and thought worthy/provoking discussion with you. You always seem to be on the verge of some sudden rant and rave session. Evidently, you suffer from a copious amount of anger issues? Perhaps you've lived through a myriad of life's little disturbances and haven't coped well with them? On the other hand, maybe you just haven't dealt with your "problemed" life? I wish you only the best and hope that you'll get some much-needed help in dealing with these overwhelming distractions that keep you from communicating in a proper manner.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Here's the article. I don't agree with everything GES believes, but they do nail some errors to the wall even if their own remedies aren't quite right.

https://faithalone.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Lazar-WayneGrudemGenuineFaith.pdf

It sounds like the fellow that speaks of what "real faith" consists of, makes the Grace message more difficult than what it actually teaches/preaches. By adding a lot of so-called "attachments" to faith makes it seem like a work based belief system more than a free gift of God. Faith is placing ALL your trust in the death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ who paid the price for ALL of humanities sins. The ONLY prerequisite to receiving eternal life is, to hear the Gospel and place ALL of one's faith in Christ as your Savior. It comes down to "simple child-like faith." God does everything else. It's a matter of placing our faith then, the Holy Spirit indwells, seals, and baptizes (not by water) us into the Body of Christ. Once this Spiritual process has taken place, we not only are given eternal life but, we also receive the righteousness of Christ. We cannot lose our position in Christ no matter what we do. During the course of our life, the Holy Spirit works to conform us into the image of Christ. It's a lifetime occurrence. Once we start depending on ourselves rather than depending on the indwelling Holy Spirit, we tend to see our shortcomings and therefore are subject to doubt.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Okay - we don't know the answer.

Of course not.

Your question was invalid.

Romans 9:19
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

 

[marhig]

Such truth is so clarifying, and thank you for making it clear to us on this forum.

Unfortunately, it seems many have not been given new hearts or new ears to hear. . .

You know a person's heart by their life, and you know who belongs to God by their fruits. And those with a new heart will have the spirit of Christ living through them. And they will be obeying the will of God.

As for ears to hear, natural wisdom isn't of God, so knowing the ins and outs of English language doesn't give us spiritual wisdom. The deciples asked Jesus to increase their faith, and Jesus told the parable of the grain of mustard seed, he started by saying if "you" have faith. If we have faith in him, then the tiniest bit if faith can work miracles, just like the woman with the issue of blood, who was healed because of her faith.

Jesus said a grain of mustard seed grows into the greatest of trees.

Naturally a tree grows and becomes strong by water and light from the sun.

Spiritually Gods people become strong by the word and light, and the more that they hear and see, then their faith increases. And they become strong witnesses of God.

Also, when the centurion came to Jesus to have his servant healed, Jesus said this about him

Luke 7

When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel

That faith wasn't given from Jesus, the centurion believed that Jesus could work the miracle without even going to his house, the centurion believed in Jesus. He had faith in him.

 

[marhig]

It sounds like the fellow that speaks of what "real faith" consists of, makes the Grace message more difficult than what it actually teaches/preaches. By adding a lot of so-called "attachments" to faith makes it seem like a work based belief system more than a free gift of God. Faith is placing ALL your trust in the death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ who paid the price for ALL of humanities sins. The ONLY prerequisite to receiving eternal life is, to hear the Gospel and place ALL of one's faith in Christ as your Savior. It comes down to "simple child-like faith." God does everything else. It's a matter of placing our faith then, the Holy Spirit indwells, seals, and baptizes (not by water) us into the Body of Christ. Once this Spiritual process has taken place, we not only are given eternal life but, we also receive the righteousness of Christ. We cannot lose our position in Christ no matter what we do. During the course of our life, the Holy Spirit works to conform us into the image of Christ. It's a lifetime occurrence. Once we start depending on ourselves rather than depending on the indwelling Holy Spirit, we tend to see our shortcomings and therefore are subject to doubt.

I believe that we can lose that position in Christ, we can turn away. As James put it, as a dog returning to its own vomit and a sow wallowing in the mire. We to can turn back to the world and lose our place. Judas is a good example of this. One of the twelve chosen apostles who lost his place because of his lusts for the world.

No one can pluck us out of the father's hand, because if the spirit of him is within us, then nothing of this world can take us away. God is too strong for Satan. But, we can turn from him through our own lusts, and go back to our old ways of the flesh again. In doing so God will remove his spirit.

It's no good being swept and garnished, so that many devil's can enter in, we are to be swept and furnished with the holy spirit within, so that no evil can enter our hearts.

Jesus said that the pharasees were white washed sepulchres full of dead men's bones. Looked the part on the outside, but full of pride, empty and dead within. Gods true people are humble and lowly but full of the strength of the spirit and alive within. That's if we keep our faith, and we obey God. Love him with all our hearts and minds and love our neighbours as ourselves, they who do these things are they who are are truly following Jesus.

 

[Sonnet]

Of course not.

Your question was invalid.

Romans 9:19
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Meaning, why is it that we Israelites (and man in general) cannot attain righteousness through our works. Paul is telling his kinsmen that, 'no you can't,' and that, rather, righteousness comes through faith.

Paul is not saying that which the Calvinists claim about these scriptures.

 

[heir]

Paul preached the same gospel to Gentiles and Jews...1 Cor 15:11.

No, it doesn't say that. Paul and they preached resurrection.

 

[heir]

Paul preached to the Jews in the synagogue. Nothing says he preached a different Gospel to them.

Paul preached the gospel of God in the synagogue and the gospel of Christ (the gospel of Christ having been before a mystery Romans 16:25-27 KJV, 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 KJV).

 

[heir]

Indeed, the gospel was the same.

:nono:

Acts 2:38 KJV does not equal 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.

 

[heir]

Indeed.

Acts 17:1-4
When Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.

That's the gospel of God (Romans 1:1-4 KJV):

Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

not the gospel of Christ 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV.

 

[heir]

This is simply not so . . .

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

Acts 2:44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

Acts 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

 

[heir]

Every aspect of God's salvation is a gift.

Every aspect of God's salvation is a gift.

Every aspect of God's salvation is a gift.

What is the gospel of your salvation?

 

[heir]

I believe that we do have works to do.

Serving God is not salvation. Salvation is not by works (Titus 3:4-7 KJV)

But first we must have true faith and by the grace of God we will be baptized of the spirit.

There is no such baptism.

Once God sees that we have a willing heart and we obey him becoming a living sacrifice, the spirit then starts working within us. and the spirit is a gift, without the spirit in our hearts we are dead in our sins.

No, if Christ be not risen, ye are yet in your sins 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV), but He is and for what (Romans 4:25 KJV)?

We need the indwelling spirit of God to be working in our hearts every day, putting us to death, we then become a temple not made with men's hands but by the hand of God and he will be guiding us through our conscience.

You're not crucified with Christ Galatians 2:20-21 KJV)?

And our works are to, obey God and deny our sins and bring the love of God to others. Jesus said, "deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me"

He meanst what He said and to whom He said it (Matthew 15:24 KJV). That's not us!

so there are works to be done.

Then get saved and serve!

it's no good hearing the word only, we must be doers of the word. we must live it out. James said, faith without works is dead.

Who was James talking to? James 1:1 KJV is not us!

God works on our heart, and we should be obeying him and carrying those works out in our lives, denying the flesh and Christ should be living through us. and if we are truly following Jesus and obeying God, then we will be producing the fruits of the spirit outwardly.

it says in Revelation 20

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Paul said in Hebrews 10

:nono:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.

We are forgiven all trespasses (Colossians 2:13 KJV)!