ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Hilston]

You accuse us of not understanding Calvinism. It appears that you do not understand Arminianism.

If that is how it appears to you, it is only because you haven't duly processed the argument (all according to God's decree, of course).

... You also wrongly assume that Open Theism is the equivalent of Arminianism. ...

That's not my assumption, so you've wrongly assumed that to be my assumption (all according to God's decree, of course).

Your beef seems to be with both, but do not lump the two together as if they are identical.

Why the double standard? It's OK for you deists to lump Settled Theists together with Calvinists, why can't we lump all you deists together? Why do you enthusiastically criticize the conflation of Arminianism and Open Theism, yet when your blithering blowhard Openness Diseased compadres do this with the Settled View, you don't lift a finger? (all according to God's decree, of course).

... Open Theism is not primarily a soteriological issue. It is a free will theism so it has that in common with Arminianism.

Open Theism, from square one, regardless of what you or any of its proponents claim, has a direct and devastating effect on sound soteriology. If there is any way is which Open Theism is not "primarily" a soteriological issue, it is in word only. You're making an empty claim, and you don't even acknowledge it. Open Theism is directly, primarily, supremely a soteriological issue, and the fact that you don't see it and it doesn't seem to bother you demonstrates how severely your toxic theology has damaged the rational faculties of your mind (all according to God's decree, of course).

You are misrepresenting the views and confuse grounds vs conditions, faith vs works.

There is no confusion on my part. The grounds ("factors forming a basis for action or the justification for a belief") for salvation is the sacrifice of Christ according to electing decree of God. The condition ("a state of affairs that must exist or be brought about before something else is possible or permitted") for salvation for the individual is Christ's death for that individual according to the electing decree of God.

According to the Open View, the condition for the individual's salvation is his belief. Thus, man must work to save himself.

In your effort to drive a wedge between faith and works, you miss the true nature of justification before God (which is only by the shed blood of Christ, Ro 3:24,25 5:9), justification before oneself (which is by faith, Ro 4:3), and justification before others (which is by works, Ro 4:2 Jas 2:24). The Bible is explicitly clear on each of these, and context immediately designates what area of justification is intended.

In your view, the masses also go to hell. Are you playing semantical games to make your explanation less offensive despite the same end result?

This is how very little you Open Theists understand the opposing view. It is not offensive for the masses to go to hell. The results are the same between the Open and Settled Views (masses go to hell), but the level of offense couldn't be further apart.

On the Settled View, there is nothing offensive about the masses going to hell, because God saves the exact number, precisely each individual, that He has elected to save. He does not lose a single one. Every single one the Father gives Him, Christ will absolutely and inexorably save (Jn 6:37-40).

On the Open View, everything is offensive about the masses going to hell, because God is a pathetic loser, who can do nothing to save a single person. Despite the fact that Open Theists pray for God to save people (consider Bob Enyart's Christmas sermon prayer from 2005, which Clete claims was not really a prayer to God, but a prayer for the ears of the congregation), God is powerless to stop the masses from plunging into hell. Everyday that goes by, more and more people go to hell, and more and more hell-bound people are born.

How does the Open Theist go through life without being constantly miserable and depressed? How is there any joy whatsoever in the heart of someone who believes this tragic doctrine? How can you ever laugh at a joke, play a video game, take a vacation, eat at a restaurant, knowing that most of the people around you are going to hell? How do you ride a bus and NOT stand up and proclaim the gospel to everyone within earshot? How can spend any time at all on TOL, preaching to the choir, while there are scores of lost people out there who, according to your theology, need to be persuaded to believe the gospel? How can you sit there and read this very post when your neighbor or friend or co-worker or the stranger walking down your street needs to be persuaded to believe the gospel? What's your excuse? Why aren't you part of a missionary group taking the gospel to third world countries?

This is the logical conclusion of Open View soteriology. How can God Himself ever have a joyful moment, knowing that the preponderance of His pinnacle creation, man, created in His own image, wants nothing to do with Him? This view is not only offensive, it is irrational, an insult to one's intelligence, an insult to the true meaning of love, the spitting of an enormous Satanic loogie in God's face. All according to God's decrees, of course.

The Settled Theist can live a relaxing life of true joy, of true love, of a sure faith, and an unwavering hope, knowing that God will not lose a single soul that He has chosen, and that God will bless them with the privilege of using them to round up the as-yet unrevealed/unregenerated elect, all according to His decrees.

I am still perplexed that you seem so smart on one hand, yet so ignorant/arrogant on the other hand. Perhaps you are an idiot savant ('unlearned/skill')?

Your observations are true. I'm not very smart. But I'm very good looking. I am also very ignorant, which is matched by my arrogance. And I use the word "very" way too much. Idiot-savant is accurate, however, the "skill" part lies in my ignorance and arrogance. I'm very skilled at both.

All according to God's decree.

 

[Hilston]

Preface to this post: If your name is Clete, please put me on your ignore list and read no farther. If you are a friend of Clete, please inform him of the following excerpt from the TOL FAQs:

Ignore lists are used for those people who's messages you wish not to read. By adding someone to your ignore list, those messages posted by these individuals will be hidden when you read a thread.​

Of course, I'm being a bit disingenuous here. Clete is such a long-time member and participant of TOL that I have little doubt of his awareness of the "Ignore List" feature. But despite his awareness of this feature, why do I continue to get the following messages from Clete in my negative rep rubbish bin?:

DO NOT RESPOND TO MY POSTS! Do not quote me, do not discuss me, do not discuss my beliefs, do not do anything that would acknowledge that I exist. As far as you are concerned I am dead. Now go away!

... and ...

Don't respond to my posts you fool! I wasn't talking to you nor am I interested in doing so.

First, I have made it clear on more than one occasion that I am neither responding to Clete nor am I directing my posts at Clete, yet he persists in this fantasy delusion that I am. Furthermore, I have permission from the moderator to quote and comment on Clete's posts, as long as I don't muck around with his name in the quote feature. Be assured that my comments on the content of Clete's posts, his beliefs and things that acknowledge his existence, living or dead, are germane to this discussion. Just consider how many of his posts that I don't quote or comment on.

Someone, preferably a friend of his, should inform Clete that anyone who speaks or publishes in a public forum, whether in a book, newspaper, magazine, online, etc., gives anyone and everyone the right to quote him or her, as long as libel laws are respected.

So the question on everyone's mind should be: If Clete has the ability to put me on his ignore list, why has he not done so? Or maybe, not unlike his claim to have become a Calvinist under the auspices of three Arminian churches, he mistakenly thinks he has done so, yet for some inexplicable reason he is still able to see my posts?

Seriously, people. Tell your friend to choose, using the free will God gave him, one of the following:

• Add Hilston on his ignore list, or
• Grow up and show some self-discipline by not reading my posts.

All according to God's decree,
Jim

 

[Poly]

Of course, I'm being a bit disingenuous here.

Nah!! You??

No way!!

Keep that kind of stuff up and people around here might mistake you for a despicable and astronomically pompous jerk.

All according to God's decree of course.

 

[Hilston]

Nah!! You??

No way!!

Way.

Keep that kind of stuff up and people around here might mistake you for a despicable and astronomically pompous jerk.

That wouldn't be a mistake. I am a despicable and astronomically pompous jerk. But I'm soooo good-looking.

"God is the author of sin" -- Hilston

"I'm not very smart"-- Hilston

Did you leave out the part about my being "soooo good-looking" on purpose?

All according to God's decree of course.

Of course.

 

[godrulz]

Hmmm. I think I am beginning to like Hilston. He is consistent...and good looking (I am married, not gay).

If the Holy Spirit leads into all truth, why would it be decreed for us and false religions to be led into error, by His decree? This seems contradictory. God desires all men to know truth that sets free. Satan desires to deceive. Either Jim's god is Satan, or he misrepresents the God of truth.

Despite Piper's good heart, does not Jim's view lead to passivity in evangelism? Does it negate the Great Commission? Why preach the gospel as a lie challenging people to repent and believe when there is no chance that they are able to.

Why would God elect Mom, but not Dad, non-elect sister, but elect her twin brother? God's love is not partial/arbitrary. He desires the highest good of Himself and others. Saving some, but damning others that He could save if He wanted to His not consistent with His revelation.

 

[sentientsynth]

Who cares what seems highly problematic to you?

My fans.

I didn't say that. The parallel has to do with the word for spirit (not necessarily THE Spirit although that too is referred to with the same Hebrew word) having "breath" as a secondary (if not a primary) meaning. The concepts of breath and spirit are connected is the point.

Very true. So, then, gorillas and alligators possess spirit.

Ge 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

I just reread my post and I think it is quite clear that I never meant to suggest that they were given THE Holy Spirit but were simply given a spirit.

You proffered the giving of holy spirit as parallel to the giving of the breath of life to Adam.

Originally posted by Clete

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

John 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.


The parallel here is obvious​

It was rather clear what you were saying.

Read the post again, if you read it in the first place. To deny that the concepts of spirit and breath are connected in the Hebrew language is simply to deny the obvious.

I readily acknowledge this. What you fail to understand is that the base animals over which Adam was given dominion were given this same spirit.

When I showed Clete that even the beasts of the field possess breath (spirit) of life, he replied:

And yet this exact same word is translated "Spirit" or "spirit" 232 times in the KJV including the very first time it is used in Genesis 1:2.

Thank you for proving my point.

You're very dense, Clete. I'm not denying that the term can be translated "spirit." I'm merely showing you that the "spirit" Adam was given is the same "spirit" that the animals were given. And nowhere do we read that this "spirit" was qualitatively different.

I said:
In summary, clearly all that is shown by "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" is that Adam was made alive.

Clete responds:

Spiritually alive.

No, he was made a living soul. That this is a "spiritual" life is simply what you impute into the text.

That is, he was alive to God and could fellowship with Him.

Once again, you're merely assuming that Adam was created for fellowship. Also, you're merely assuming that in order for fellowship to take place, it must be a spiritual sort of fellowship. But, first things first, where is it written that Adam was created to have spiritual fellowship with his Creator, and not, as it is written, to have dominion over the earth and to till and keep the garden of God?


I said:
And the fact that his creation as a "living soul" is contrasted to the Lord being a "quickening spirit" is further evidence that Adam possessed no spirit.

Clete replies:

You ignore the context of 1 Corinthians 15! Look just a few verses earlier...

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.​

How could Adam have died spiritually if he never had a spirit to begin with?

Now, was Christ risen spiritually? or physically? Physically. The resurrection was physical; the death was physical; it was all physical.

Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.​

Adam didn't die physically for another 930 years and his soul didn't die nor can it, but on the day he ate of that Tree, he died spiritually.

The Hebrew is "dying you shall die." When Adam ate the fruit, part of him was *awakened*, and then it was only then that Adam became *like God*. "Dying thou shalt die." The process of dying began when Adam ate.

I have used nothing but Scripture to substantiate the doctrine.

A feeble, lack-luster, wholely unsatisfactory attempt.

This is funny coming from you, Augustine boy!

I've never read Augustine, except for minor portions. I've read far more Carl Jung than I have Augustine.

I said:
Circular reasoning.

How so?

Premise one: Non spiritual or spiritually dead creatures cannot have a love relationship with God.

Premise two: Adam was created to have a love relationship with God.

Therefore Adam was spiritually alive.

In what way is that circular?

Your conclusion is assumed in the premises.

From Clete's original post:

There is simply no reason at all to doubt that Adam was alive spiritually before the fall.

On the contrary, there is every reason to doubt it. Clete wants the readers to simply turn off their minds and to trust him. "There is simply no reason at all to doubt..." translates to "please please don't doubt this, it's our pet doctrine, so whatever you do, don't try to substantiate it Biblically, just assume its true because it's been told to you."

:vomit:

He was created to have a relationship with God, for crying out loud!

Adam was created to tend the garden and to have dominion over the earth. Where does relationship at all enter into this? That Adam was created for "relationship" is an assumption that has gone on in Christendom for too long. Just as the prerequisites (spiritually alive, et al) for said "relationship" prior to the opening of man's eyes has been a mere assumption for far too long. It's time to shake the dust of our boots off on this thing.

Can a non-spiritual being be in any sense "in the image of God"? ... Is God flesh (or was He at the time)?

The Son has always had the appearance of a man.

Eze 1:26 ¶ And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.

The angels as well are described as men throughout the Hebrew scriptures. Look and see.

God is Spirit as was Adam when He created him.

Adam was created a living soul.

Further, God could have made a mere animal for the purpose of keeping the garden. There was no need to have a creature made in His own image for such a task.

There was no need for God to create anything, no, not one single thing. He made what He made simply for the pleasure of it, nothing of necessity. He didn't need to make an earth that had to be tilled, but He wanted to. No, there wasn't a need to have a creature mde in His own image for this tast, but that's what it pleased Him to do. And that's what the Bible (our authority) says He created Adam for.



S

 

[patman]

for sentientsynth, but applies to many others too....

for sentientsynth, but applies to many others too....

No. I get it very plainly. You'd love for this verse to mean that God doesn't know something, even though what this verse entails is far from that.

.....

You're driving a (heretical) wedge between the Father and the Son.

Maybe I get a little too touchy, but sometimes it "feels" like we try to "out do each other" rather than listen.

I guess I get that because you and I have never really spoken before, and the first thing you say is an attack/assumption on my view of God, without merit.

If I said God authored sin.... there is merit to any criticism. But you just assume I want God to be wrong? You think I am trying to wedge Father and son? Just because I point out something, (for arguments sake, in my eyes, I see this as truth ), that happened... I get the typical "You wanna degrade God..." with no real explanation as to why.

And no I don't. In that very same post I tried very hard to exalt God. That was the real point of it and you were seem too willing to nitpick an O.T that you missed it.

And I didn't even have to use 'my own words' to exalt God. All I had to do was put that link of the picture of the Universe for you to realize "God did that. WOW!"

It does it for me every time I look at that picture. Just think: How many inches are in the sky, just above the atmosphere? Zillions of square inches(my guess is at least 3,255,006,504,000 [in^2 of earths circumference is just a starting point])? That picture represents Universes viewed just with in one inch of the sky(Highly magnified, of course)!

Click the link. Let the entire thing load. Just look at what one small inch of the universe holds. And realize God, with nothing but a few words, put that there in a day! That is so awesome.

And it Gets better!

Imagine that picture 3,255,006,504,000 times over and over and over again, vast, different, powerful, working, functional universes all abiding by the laws of physics! Don't you get it? I believe God is an awesome God. I can barely take his creativeness represented by a one inch (highly magnified) picture of the universe!

I just don't see why, If I said that, why you want to accuse me like you did. And I am not the only victim here. Open Theism isn't the evil theology, we love God, we try to see him as he is.

If he is powerful enough to do THAT then why does his unknowing of the future make him weaker in your eyes? It is a real question! I do not intend to smart off to you.

So, please. Take my statements with less cynicism. I really do Love God, I simply want to present God as the Bible does!

No conspiracies I promise!

If you believe my explanations of scripture to be wrong, tell me how, don't start off with accusing me of the worst thing you can. I really do want to represent God in truth... really!

So do we all! And you barely know me, I just want to emphasize that. Yo do not yet know anything about me other than what I tell you.

ANYWAY.

You said:
"God is free to change the future."

I ask:
"Can God foresee the changes he will make before he changes them?"

Thank you.
-Pat

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Keep that kind of stuff up and people around here might mistake you for a despicable and astronomically pompous jerk.

All according to God's decree of course.

:rotfl:
Of course, you didn’t think it's Hilston's fault he is socially retarded did you? It's God's eternal decree! Hilston doesn't have to take responsibility for how he talks to other people because it is only God who is culpable if he's a jerk to fellow blievers.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

On the Open View, regardless of the lipservice they pay to the doctrine, there is no security in Christ's death, because His death doesn't really accomplish anything. Christ does not save, according to the Open View. Rather, man must save himself. For those who go to hell, Christ's death accomplished nothing. So what is effective component of our salvation according to the Open View? Man's work of believing. It is a salvation by works, anyway you cut it.

You have confused "means" and "method", and then inserted your confusion onto the Open View. Your ignorance is not transferable in the manner you had hoped.

Clearly Christ's death did all of the work of salvation on the cross, and nothing that a man can do will save him. However, God is not completely arbitrary (as you've already unwittingly admitted), and he hands out his grace based on criteria He chooses. Man's belief in God does not "earn" salvation, or "save himself", but it is the course that God has chosen to elect men by.

Certainly "elected" individuals cannot elect themselves. George Bush could not, by himself, get elected. However it is a fool that suggests that he had absolutely noting to do with his election. Only in the deep departure from the rest of reality (and vocabulary) that Calvinism dwells in can the word "elect" mean that you had absolutely nothing to do with God choosing you.

 

[Clete]

Synth,

You are not a Christian. Our discussion is over as we have no common ground upon which to proceed. I might as well be discussing this with a Jehovah's Witness.

:wave2:

 

[sentientsynth]

You are not a Christian.

Words cannot express how relieved I am that Clete, who holds himself as judge over the very God above, thinks that I'm not a Christian (which, properly designated, I am not, nor have ever been). This is a positive affirmation, perhaps of the strongest sort, that I have not erred in what I've maintained during our discussion.

Thank you, Clete. You have made my day just a little bit brighter.

 

[Poly]

:rotfl:
Of course, you didn’t think it's Hilston's fault he is socially retarded did you? It's God's eternal decree! Hilston doesn't have to take responsibility for how he talks to other people because it is only God who is culpable if he's a jerk to fellow blievers.

That suddenly reminds me of when I was a Settled Theist and used to blame God (way deep, deep, DEEP!!! down inside, of course, never even daring to admit it, even to myself, sometimes) for the bad things I did. I repented but yet God ordained it for some reason so it helped to take away some of the sting that I should have felt fully and completely!

Yucky, yucky, nasty, ICK!!!! Too much walking down memory lane. Must find my way back!!!

::::oly taps red sparkly shoes together::::

There's no place like home! There's no place like home!!!!

Ahhh, that's better! Open Theism, where I can finally rest. :cloud9:

 

[patman]

That suddenly reminds me of when I was a Settled Theist and used to blame God (way deep, deep, DEEP!!! down inside, of course, never even daring to admit it, even to myself, sometimes) for the bad things I did. I repented but yet God ordained it for some reason so it helped to take away some of the sting that I should have felt fully and completely!

Yucky, yucky, nasty, ICK!!!! Too much walking down memory lane. Must find my way back!!!

::::oly taps red sparkly shoes together::::

There's no place like home! There's no place like home!!!!

Ahhh, that's better! Open Theism, where I can finally rest. :cloud9:

I regret having been a S.T. too. All those years, stuck in a theology that had too many questions - no answers. I didn't grow in my faith. Not one bit. Everything lead me back to what you said.

I am so glad to be freed by understanding and am closer than ever to God.

So much fear of the O.V. Even me at first. But once you allow yourself to loose the fear, it makes soo much more sense.

 

[Poly]

I regret having been a S.T. too. All those years, stuck in a theology that had too many questions - no answers. I didn't grow in my faith. Not one bit. Everything lead me back to what you said.

I am so glad to be freed by understanding and am closer than ever to God.

So much fear of the O.V. Even me at first. But once you allow yourself to loose the fear, it makes soo much more sense.

It's nice to know what "rest" certainly means, huh?

I certainly feel ya!! :up:

 

[Mustard Seed]

The mormon cult believes Adam need not sin and could have become God

LDS theology holds the transgression/fall of Adam as vital. We hold that Adam will become, as all righteous followers will be, joint heirs with Christ.

Thanks for allowing (not that I could be stopped) the clarification.

 

[Bob Hill]

Paul was inspired by God to preach the gospel, how to be saved in the Dispensation of Grace.

He wrote in 1 Co 15:1-4: “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you - unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” That salvation depended on believing certain things. He wrote, under inspiration, that the gospel of salvation in the dispensation of Grace rested on the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Paul was taught by the ascended Lord Jesus Christ that the salvation of a believer has always been through faith or belief in God’s Word. The Bible shows a progressive revelation over many dispensations (house rules) and many years.

However, what they had to believe (different house rules) has changed from dispensation to dispensation.

For instance, we see that the Scripture shows that Peter was saved, but Peter did not understand that the death and resurrection of Christ was what was necessary for his salvation early in Christ’s ministry.

The dispensation of grace began with the Apostle Paul. He wrote in 1 Co 9:17,18 “For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a dispensation. 18 What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel.”

In Eph 1:7-12, he wrote about our present Dispensation of the Mystery: “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.”

He showed the basis of salvation in Eph 3:1-6 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles -- 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel.

Salvation from Paul until today has been the same.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

It’s striking that all of the events up to and including Pentecost were about the Messianic Kingdom of which Peter had the keys. None of those events were about the Body of Christ. In fact, when Peter was preaching on the day of Pentecost, the method God gave him included water baptism for salvation: Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

In contrast, here are the Pauline passages that show salvation in the dispensation of Grace only required faith, or belief.
Acts 16:30,31 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (NKJV)
Rom 1:16,17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” (NKJV)
Rom 5:9-11 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. (NKJV)
Rom 10:8-13 “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.” (NKJV)
1 Co 3:9-15 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (NKJV)
Eph 1:13,14 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. (NKJV)
Eph 2:8-10 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. (NKJV)
Titus 3:4-7 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (NKJV)

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

The passages from the “Circumcision Gospel” that Christ gave to the Eleven Apostles for the dispensation when the offering of the kingdom was made to Israel, was on the day of Pentecost.

It was re-given in the gospels and the circumcision writings of Hebrews through Revelation. That gospel will also be for those who will go through the future tribulation.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

After Israel was set aside, the Lord gave Paul the new message of Grace.

In Christ,
Bob Hill