ECT The Gospel Proper

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The question, "What is the Gospel?" has come up a few times in various recent conversations I've had both here on TOL and elsewhere and I've been somewhat surprised by the degree of confusion that exists around what seems like ought to be a simple thing. Of course the confusion surrounding all the details is no surprise but it seems that not even the basics of the gospel are as easy to nail down as one might expect.

I propose the following as a bare bones, base minimum version of what one must believe in order to get saved. Call it the Gospel Proper, if you will.

  • God exists.
  • He is the Creator of all things and He is holy, perfect and just.
  • We have, by doing evil things, rebelled against God.
  • We, having rebelled against the God who gave us life, deserve death.
  • God, being unwilling that all should perish, provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ and who is God Himself become flesh.
  • Jesus, being Himself innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
  • Jesus rose from the dead.
  • If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.


I thought of taking each point one at a time and commenting on each but about half way through I thought it would be better to just leave them as they are. Otherwise, the temptation would be to take issue with something in my commentary rather than with any one point of the gospel proper that I've presented. I've also intentionally left out scripture references. Again, it felt like I was already debating an issue that may not be in dispute. Such references are easily found and presented if anyone wants to challenge the biblical veracity of any of these points.

Is there something that you think I've left out?
Is there something that I've included that you think might be good doctrine but isn't necessary to believe in order to get saved?
Is there something that you think is just flat out wrong?

Whatever you've got, bring it. Just try to be respectful and kind, please.

Resting in Him,
Clete


P.S. I've posted a revision of my list below. I'm leaving the original list above so as to preserve the integrity of the discussions that are based on it through the first 500 posts of the thread. This list can also be found in post #502

  • God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
  • We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
  • Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
  • Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
  • Jesus rose from the dead.
  • If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
  • If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.
This one, biblically, is the requirement to be a Christian. I've narrowed it down even further, based on 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV essentially saying that Christ's Resurrection is the 'sine qua non' of the faith, and that therefore, believing in His Resurrection constitutes authentic Christian faith. But I also do so with the presumption, that might be unwarranted, that anybody who can believe that He is risen from the dead, can and will also easily acknowledge Him as 'Lord.'

The Resurrection is not the whole Gospel, but it in some sense 'contains' or 'implies' the whole Gospel, like a seed 'contains' the plant and the eventual fruit of the plant, even though it is just a seed.

And the Gospel is a story. And there's only one authentic version of the story. Your other points seem to comport with my understanding of that story. I also think that the whole Gospel is identical to the whole Word of God.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
This one, biblically, is the requirement to be a Christian. I've narrowed it down even further, based on 1st Corinthians 15:14 KJV essentially saying that Christ's Resurrection is the 'sine qua non' of the faith, and that therefore, believing in His Resurrection constitutes authentic Christian faith. But I also do so with the presumption, that might be unwarranted, that anybody who can believe that He is risen from the dead, can and will also easily acknowledge Him as 'Lord.'

The Resurrection is not the whole Gospel, but it in some sense 'contains' or 'implies' the whole Gospel, like a seed 'contains' the plant and the eventual fruit of the plant, even though it is just a seed.

And the Gospel is a story. And there's only one authentic version of the story. Your other points seem to comport with my understanding of that story. I also think that the whole Gospel is identical to the whole Word of God.

Well, that single point alone can be taken to mean a lot of different things, can it not? If one's understanding of those things are wrong, then they aren't really believing the gospel, are they?

Mormons, for example, believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead but they are a long way from believing the gospel.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Well, that single point alone can be taken to mean a lot of different things, can it not?
It can, and does. But from the Resurrection, it is possible to map out from there to the whole, authentic Gospel. There is only one authentic meaning to Romans 10:9 KJV, but getting all the rest of the Gospel wrong, will not forfeit bona fide faith in His Resurrection.
If one's understanding of those things are wrong, then they aren't really believing the gospel, are they?
They are if they believe in Christ, which is at minimum, believing that He is risen from the dead.
Mormons, for example, believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead but they are a long way from believing the gospel.
They get many thing wrong, but they get the Resurrection right. Compare the JWs, who like the 'Docetists' and Mulsims, disbelieve that His Passion and Resurrection are real historical events. I'd never advise anybody to seek the Mormons for the authentic teachings of the one Christian faith (Eph4:5KJV).
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
They get many thing wrong, but they get the Resurrection right. Compare the JWs, who like the 'Docetists' and Mulsims, disbelieve that His Passion and Resurrection are real historical events. I'd never advise anybody to seek the Mormons for the authentic teachings of the one Christian faith (Eph4:5KJV).

I suggest you do some reading about Mormon doctrine.

They believe, among other crazy things, that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers from the same celestial father. These two brothers had a dispute over who would become the savior of the Earth. Jesus won the dispute and the one third of the angels that sided with Lucifer were cast out of heaven and the other two thirds became the human race. Jospeh Smith taught the black skin was the result of the curse of Cain and then in the late 19th and early 20th century the idea that blacks were people who had failed to take a side in the war in heaven became popular. Mormons also believe that if you're a good enough Mormon, that you get eventually to be the celestial father of your own planet where a similar Jesus/Lucifer war scenario might ensue.

Mormonism is a cult that mixes bits and pieces of Christianity into their doctrine including their belief that there was a person named Jesus who died and rose from the dead but their faith is in entirely the wrong Jesus. NONE of them are saved in any sense of the word precisely because they do not believe the gospel.

The more I think about it, the more I like my list. Any one of the points, not the least of which is the one you've focused on, has quite a lot that can be unpacked and scrutinized within it. Some of that unpacking can be erroneous or even outright wrong without destroying the core of the gospel. In fact, as you've suggested, the first seven points can rightly be considered an unpacking of the last point, but I think that it is the least amount of unpacking that can be done without putting the gospel proper in serious jeopardy. Even if one doesn't explicitly affirm those seven points and understand them in those specific terms, the concepts have to be intact or else the gospel message has been wrongly communicated.

Clete
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I suggest you do some reading about Mormon doctrine.

They believe, among other crazy things, that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers from the same celestial father. These two brothers had a dispute over who would become the savior of the Earth. Jesus won the dispute and the one third of the angels that sided with Lucifer in the fight were cast to Earth and became the black race. They believe that if you're a good enough Mormon, that you get eventually to be the celestial father of your own planet where a similar scenario might ensue.
Those poor people.
Mormonism is a cult that mixes bits and pieces of Christianity into their doctrine including their belief that there was a person named Jesus who died and rose from the dead
Don't they call Him 'Lord?'
but their faith is in entirely the wrong Jesus. NONE of them are saved in any sense of the word precisely because they do not believe the gospel.
I disagree. I'm not authorized to make such a judgment on their souls, and from how I read Scripture, so long as they 'do' Romans 10:9 KJV, which I believe is so, then they are saved. Christians, even. Wayward, to be sure, but Christians.
The more I think about it, the more I like my list. Any one of the points, not the least of which is the one you've focused on, has quite a lot that can be unpacked and scrutinized within it.
As I said, I believe Christ's Resurrection 'contains' in some sense, the whole, authentic Gospel, and Word of God. The whole faith can be 'unpacked' from the Resurrection, if done correctly, which is possible.
Some of that unpacking can be erroneous or even outright wrong without destroying the core of the gospel. In fact, as you've suggested, the first seven points can rightly be considered an unpacking of the last point, but I think that it is the least amount of unpacking that can be done without putting the gospel proper in serious jeopardy. Even if one doesn't explicitly affirm those seven points and understand them in those specific terms, the concepts have to be intact or else the gospel message has been wrongly communicated.

Clete
I just believe that there's grace for those who believe that Christ Jesus is risen from the dead. I do not think anybody should be teaching anything other than the whole authentic Gospel, and the authentic Christian faith, but as far as what is needful to be saved, I maintain that 'doing' Romans 10:9 KJV is it.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Those poor people.
Indeed! But they're no more lost than any other unbeliever.

Don't they call Him 'Lord?'
It's the wrong 'him'!

I disagree. I'm not authorized to make such a judgment on their souls, and from how I read Scripture, so long as they 'do' Romans 10:9 KJV, which I believe is so, then they are saved. Christians, even. Wayward, to be sure, but Christians.
Umm, no sir.

This is clearly just your ignorance (i.e. not stupidity - not being insulting here!) talking here. They are not Christians at all whatsoever. They worship what they believe to be a person who was previously a good Mormon. They believe in a god that does not exist.

As I said, I believe Christ's Resurrection 'contains' in some sense, the whole, authentic Gospel, and Word of God. The whole faith can be 'unpacked' from the Resurrection, if done correctly, which is possible.
Well, that's just the point, isn't it?

Like I said in the opening post. I've been somewhat surprised by the confusion surrounding what we are not referring to as the "unpacking" of the gospel. Each bit of unpacking is a fork in the road and very many wrong turns will get you way off course. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.)

I just believe that there's grace for those who believe that Christ Jesus is risen from the dead.
As do I but it has to be the right Jesus.

I do not think anybody should be teaching anything other than the whole authentic Gospel, and the authentic Christian faith, but as far as what is needful to be saved, I maintain that 'doing' Romans 10:9 KJV is it.
Yes, I agree with this as well but it really matters what one believes Rom. 10:9-10 means.

Clete
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
The question, "What is the Gospel?" has come up a few times in various recent conversations I've had both here on TOL and elsewhere and I've been somewhat surprised by the degree of confusion that exists around what seems like ought to be a simple thing. Of course the confusion surrounding all the details is no surprise but it seems that not even the basics of the gospel are as easy to nail down as one might expect.

I propose the following as a bare bones, base minimum version of what one must believe in order to be saved. Call it the Gospel Proper, if you will.

  • God exists.
  • He is the Creator of all things and He is holy, perfect and just.
  • We have, by doing evil things, rebelled against God.
  • We, having rebelled against the God who gave us life, deserve death.
  • God, being unwilling that all should perish, provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) in the person of His only begotten Son, God the Son, whom we call Jesus.
  • Jesus, being Himself innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
  • Jesus rose from the dead.
  • If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.


I thought of taking each point one at a time and commenting on each but about half way through I thought it would be better to just leave them as they are. Otherwise, the temptation would be to take issue with something in my commentary rather than with any one point of the gospel proper that I've presented. I've also intentionally left out scripture references. Again, it felt like I was already debating an issue that may not be in dispute. Such references are easily found an presented if anyone wants to challenge the biblical veracity of any of these points.

Is there something that you think I've left out?
Is there something that I've included that you think might be good doctrine but isn't necessary to believe in order to be saved?
Is there something that you think is just flat out wrong?

Whatever you've got, bring it. Just try to be respectful and kind, please.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The Lord Jesus Christ is God.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Not the ones that created that horrible heretical doctrine.
Agreed. They appear to be knowing, deliberate frauds.
They use the term, but completely change the meaning.
idk. How many meanings can there be? As long as they don't mean 'servant,' then 'Lord' must mean something like 'boss,' 'head honcho,' 'commanding officer,' or like this, right? Someone superior to yourself. They can't mean something diminutive, I wouldn't think.

And I mean Mormons, the Mormon people, not the ones that created Mormonism. The poor people who buy into it, not knowing any better, and being deceived, by deceived people. I'm not talking about the founders.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The Lord Jesus Christ is God.

I, of course, agree with this but I'm not so sure that someone must know this fact in order to get saved.

I'm thinking of the brand new Christian who has just come to a saving faith in Jesus. What is the bare minimum he must understand to have gotten that far. What he knows tomorrow is a seperate question.

I can certainly see how someone might intuitively ask the question, "How can the death of one man pay for the sins of the whole world?". And answering that question by explaning the infinite worth of God the Son's life may well be the answer that takes someone over the line into a saving faith. In such a case, this point of fact was needed but does that mean it's necessary in all cases? Can someone possibly come to faith in Christ without understanding that Christ is God? I think so, although it won't be long before they find out.

Agree?

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Agreed. They appear to be knowing, deliberate frauds.
idk. How many meanings can there be? As long as they don't mean 'servant,' then 'Lord' must mean something like 'boss,' 'head honcho,' 'commanding officer,' or like this, right? Someone superior to yourself. They can't mean something diminutive, I wouldn't think.

And I mean Mormons, the Mormon people, not the ones that created Mormonism. The poor people who buy into it, not knowing any better, and being deceived, by deceived people. I'm not talking about the founders.

It isn't the word 'Lord' that they change, it's the word "him". They worship a God and therefore a Jesus that bares almost no resemblence to the one that actually exists.

Not only that but normal every day Mormons know what regular Christianity teaches and they knowingly reject it. They worship a false god and as such, they are not Christians and they are not saved.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Agreed. They appear to be knowing, deliberate frauds.
idk. How many meanings can there be? As long as they don't mean 'servant,' then 'Lord' must mean something like 'boss,' 'head honcho,' 'commanding officer,' or like this, right? Someone superior to yourself. They can't mean something diminutive, I wouldn't think.
That wasn't exactly what I meant. The "Lord Jesus" that they refer to is NOT the real one. The Mormons, the JW's, the Christians Scientists.... all have a FAKE Jesus. So it matters not that they all call him "Lord".

And I mean Mormons, the Mormon people, not the ones that created Mormonism. The poor people who buy into it, not knowing any better, and being deceived, by deceived people. I'm not talking about the founders.
I wonder how much burden goes to those that are deceived. You are deceived about your "church".
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It isn't the word 'Lord' that they change, it's the word "him". They worship a God and therefore a Jesus that bares almost no resemblence to the one that actually exists.
You and I agree on this Clete, the Mormon teachings are largely just wrong, including their teachings on Christ.

But even here you admit that it is 'almost no resemblance,' and not 'no resemblance.' My view is that there are Lots of bona fide Christians for whom you could say that their view of our Lord bears at best some resemblance to Him.
Not only that but normal every day Mormons know what regular Christianity teaches and they knowingly reject it.
imo, they can't knowingly reject it, being deceived by their Mormon inculcation. That's a tough nut to crack for most people, again imo.
They worship a false god and as such, they are not Christians and they are not saved.
This bears on the above 'almost no resemblance.' This appears to conflict with what you're saying here. If their view of Him bears 'almost no resemblance,' then it therefore must bear 'some resemblance' to Him, and so it can't, to me, be also true that they unqualifiedly 'worship a false god,' not like how ancient idolaters worshiped 100% no-question-about-it false gods. They at least start with the right God. They at least have Christian Bibles (they have their own scriptures too, but they still have the one Bible).

But also, I read above where you told St. John W the following:
The Lord Jesus Christ is God.
I, of course, agree with this but I'm not so sure that someone must know this fact in order to get saved.
To my way of thinking, wrt your above 'almost no resemblance' comment, there just couldn't be a worse error than to wrongly think that God is not God. So while I agree with what you say here, I don't understand how you could agree with it, again in comparison to 'almost no resemblance.' If someone's view of Christ is that He is not God, then that's as close to 'almost no resemblance' as I could personally imagine.
Can someone possibly come to faith in Christ without understanding that Christ is God? I think so, although it won't be long before they find out.

Agree?
Right on. One way or another. :up:
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
That wasn't exactly what I meant. The "Lord Jesus" that they refer to is NOT the real one. The Mormons, the JW's, the Christians Scientists.... all have a FAKE Jesus.
I agree. I just think that there's grace for people who 'think' they believe in the Real Lord Jesus Christ, especially if they freely refer to Him by His name, 'Lord Jesus Christ.'
So it matters not that they all call him "Lord".

I wonder how much burden goes to those that are deceived.
If you're deceived, you just don't know the truth. I think that the guilt for being deceived is less than for being the deceiver. You probably agree.
You are deceived about your "church".
I'm happy to debate anybody on that publicly. I'll win.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
I, of course, agree with this but I'm not so sure that someone must know this fact in order to get saved.

I'm thinking of the brand new Christian who has just come to a saving faith in Jesus. What is the bare minimum he must understand to have gotten that far. What he knows tomorrow is a seperate question.

I can certainly see how someone might intuitively ask the question, "How can the death of one man pay for the sins of the whole world?". And answering that question by explaning the infinite worth of God the Son's life may well be the answer that takes someone over the line into a saving faith. In such a case, this point of fact was needed but does that mean it's necessary in all cases? Can someone possibly come to faith in Christ without understanding that Christ is God? I think so, although it won't be long before they find out.

Agree?

Clete

Wrong, Clete. The "kinsman redeemer" concept explains why the Lord Jesus Christ must be God, to be qualified to redeem.

According to the Old Testament laws regarding punishment and retribution for a crime(sin), when one was assaulted, robbed, murdered...., the responsibility to bring the criminal to justice and to protect the lives/property of the relatives fell to the nearest "kinsman". This responsibility/obligation was referred to as "redeeming", and the man who had this role was called a "redeemer"('goel' in Hebrew). Thus, the LORD God would use this object lesson to teach that redemption(to buy back/release for the purpose of setting free) is provided by a kinsman redeemer. The kinsman redeemer is someone who is qualified to execute the law of redemption-he is qualified to pay the price of debt. This kinsman redeemer of the Old Testament was a "type" of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Redeemer. There were 4 requirements for redemption, one being:



The redeemer must not be compromised by his predicament, i.e., the redeemer must be free from that which caused the need for redemption. Thus, the redeemer could not redeem himself. No slave, for example, could redeem another slave. A person in bondage was in no position to redeem another. This explains the virgin conception. This REQUIRES that the redeemer be God. The Lord Jesus Christ "...knew no sin...."(2 Cor. 5:21 KJV-see also 1 John 3:5 KJV, 1 Peter 2:22 KJV, Hebrews 4:15 KJV , John 8:46 KJV, Exodus 12:5 KJV="YOUR LAMB SHALL BE WITHOUT BLEMISH(emphasis mine)". Only God fits this REQUIREMENT.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
To argue that someone could be regenerated (born anew) without acknowledging Our Lord's divinity is to grant a pass to the Arian.

This argument ignores the plain fact that it is God that grants faith. A person's faith is upon an object, the Person, Jesus Christ, one Person with fully divine and human natures. How exactly could God's house be so divided such that the Father grants faith of a man or woman who has set the object of their faith upon a mere man? The Arian worships an idol of their own making. In effect God would be granting faith to an idolater of an object, a mere man, incapable of propitiating the wrath of God for sin. May it never be.

No one is arguing that a new believer's faith fully envelops Christological doctrines. Some may never come to a more wholesome understanding of exactly who Jesus Christ is. But all who a truly born anew will acknowledge Jesus Christ as God who came in the flesh.

AMR
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You and I agree on this Clete, the Mormon teachings are largely just wrong, including their teachings on Christ.

But even here you admit that it is 'almost no resemblance,' and not 'no resemblance.' My view is that there are Lots of bona fide Christians for whom you could say that their view of our Lord bears at best some resemblance to Him.
No. Just simply, no.

Mormons do not worship the same Jesus. There is but one Jesus that saves. The false god Vishnu bares "some resemblance" the Christ. Are you going to suggest that Hindus are Christians too?

imo, they can't knowingly reject it, being deceived by their Mormon inculcation. That's a tough nut to crack for most people, again imo.
You're entitled to your opinion but this applies to practically every member of every cult in the world!

You seem to have no boundary that one is able to cross into unbelief.

This bears on the above 'almost no resemblance.' This appears to conflict with what you're saying here. If their view of Him bears 'almost no resemblance,' then it therefore must bear 'some resemblance' to Him, and so it can't, to me, be also true that they unqualifiedly 'worship a false god,' not like how ancient idolaters worshiped 100% no-question-about-it false gods. They at least start with the right God. They at least have Christian Bibles (they have their own scriptures too, but they still have the one Bible).
So Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and perhaps a thousand other cultists are all saved because they happen to use the bible and have some terminology in common with real Christianity.


But also, I read above where you told St. John W the following:
To my way of thinking, wrt your above 'almost no resemblance' comment, there just couldn't be a worse error than to wrongly think that God is not God. So while I agree with what you say here, I don't understand how you could agree with it, again in comparison to 'almost no resemblance.' If someone's view of Christ is that He is not God, then that's as close to 'almost no resemblance' as I could personally imagine.
Being ignorant of a fact is not at all the same as rejecting it.

Further, I'm open to being wrong about that particular point. I might could be persuaded that a knowledge of this particular point of doctrine is a necessary aspect of the gospel. So far, no one has made an argument to that effect.


Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Wrong, Clete. The "kinsman redeemer" concept explains why the Lord Jesus Christ must be God, to be qualified to redeem.

According to the Old Testament laws regarding punishment and retribution for a crime(sin), when one was assaulted, robbed, murdered...., the responsibility to bring the criminal to justice and to protect the lives/property of the relatives fell to the nearest "kinsman". This responsibility/obligation was referred to as "redeeming", and the man who had this role was called a "redeemer"('goel' in Hebrew). Thus, the LORD God would use this object lesson to teach that redemption(to buy back/release for the purpose of setting free) is provided by a kinsman redeemer. The kinsman redeemer is someone who is qualified to execute the law of redemption-he is qualified to pay the price of debt. This kinsman redeemer of the Old Testament was a "type" of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Redeemer. There were 4 requirements for redemption, one being:



The redeemer must not be compromised by his predicament, i.e., the redeemer must be free from that which caused the need for redemption. Thus, the redeemer could not redeem himself. No slave, for example, could redeem another slave. A person in bondage was in no position to redeem another. This explains the virgin conception. This REQUIRES that the redeemer be God. The Lord Jesus Christ "...knew no sin...."(2 Cor. 5:21 KJV-see also 1 John 3:5 KJV, 1 Peter 2:22 KJV, Hebrews 4:15 KJV , John 8:46 KJV, Exodus 12:5 KJV="YOUR LAMB SHALL BE WITHOUT BLEMISH(emphasis mine)". Only God fits this REQUIREMENT.
Of course! As I said, I completely agree that Jesus is the Creator God (Romans 1) and that His divinity is part of what qualifies Him to be a sacrifice for the sins of the world and that the whole thing falls apart if Jesus is a mere man. I understand and fully agree with all of that. What I question is whether this particular truth is one of those that a person must understand and believe in order to get saved. Is this aspect of biblical truth one that an evangelist must go ever with a potential convert in their discussions about the gospel and getting saved? Is this particular truth a prerequisite for salvation or can the understanding of it come after?

It seems to me that it could come after. You seem to think otherwise. I'm open to being convinced that you're right.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top