The NT insists you must obey Jesus to gain eternal life!

[ajdiamond]

Do you need to see the 10 verses which clearly say:
one needs to endure with his faith all the way until his death to have eternal life?

Sure, post them if you wish. But, you unwittingly provided the wisdom in this little quote tho, in that you say, "all the way until his death"

For most, until death means when the body physically dies at 84 of natural causes.
For those with ears to hear, the death is along the lines of I die daily so that Christ (who is Life) may live in me; here, now.

 

[John Zain]

Sure, post them if you wish. But, you unwittingly provided the wisdom in this little quote tho, in that you say, "all the way until his death"

For most, until death means when the body physically dies at 84 of natural causes.
For those with ears to hear, the death is along the lines of I die daily so that Christ (who is Life) may live in me; here, now.

IMO, you really don't want to see them ... and if you did, you wouldn't believe them!

Yes, for most "Christians", the doctrines of men trump the Scriptures!

 

[Asyncritus]

Paul says it best.

Eph.2. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

So, as we all should know, salvation is a GIFT.

But it comes 'through FAITH in Christ.

This averts the danger concomitant with believing that works can save, as he now makes perfectly plain:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

However, it is essential that we do the works that God requires, however perfectly or imperfectly:
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

We are like musical instruments, created to play music - and if we don't play any music, then of what use are we?

There's question here, which I'd like someone who knows some Greek to comment on, please.

It's the construction of 'are ye saved' in v8 above. I read Wuest saying that it is in the perfect tense, which means that it happened in the past, and remains so in the present.

But he says that the Greek este sesosemenoi is in 2 parts, as you can see. sesosmenoi means that you have been saved in the past, and remain so in the present.

But the este he says, carries with it the sense 'and remain so into the future' i.e. through the present

Which means, as he puts it in his expanded translation:

For by the grace have you been saved in time past completely, through faith, with the result that your salvation persists through present time; [salvation] is not from you as a source; of God it is the gift, not from a source of works,

If that is correct, then it is very heartening news indeed. But as I say, I need someone to comment in an informed manner on the translation.

Thanks

Asyncritus.

 

[williemac]

IMO, you really don't want to see them ... and if you did, you wouldn't believe them!

Yes, for most "Christians", the doctrines of men trump the Scriptures!

This should come as no surprise to one who has been trumping scripture ad nausium. For example, Paul said to work "out" your salvation with fear and trembling (as you have quoted). Your twist is that we are working "for" our salvation with fear and trembling.

The sad part is that you call this a warning. Why not call it exhortation? Why not call it instruction? These words too tame for you?

Of course they are. Your agenda is to take such instructions and attach qualification for life onto them. Thus the word "warning" is necessary.
I suppose it is not convenient for you to look at the context of that quote. (Phil.ch.2) It has the word "therefore" in it. (vs.12) Paul had just exhorted them to have the same mind of Jesus which is the mind of humility in serving rather than grasping at or holding onto one's position. And the nest verse (13) is the assurance that it is God who works in them (us). That context is all about our motive. The one that is to be avoided is to be consumed with securing one's own place and to rather .....let it go and let God maintain it. So congratulations. You have managed to completely reverse the point of the passage.

However, the scripture you are trumping in this case is Rom.10:9,10. It says 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" For with the heart one believes to righteousness and with the mouth CONFESSION is made to salvation.

Then you go from there to jumping hoops of behavior and works to maintain (grasp...hold onto) salvation? curses...trumped again!

 

[John Zain]

There's question here, which I'd like someone who knows some Greek to comment on, please.

If you would care to check some Greek, please see what one of our Moderators has to say
about some very important conditional Scriptures here in post #51 ...
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/19241-the-unpopular-but-deadly-truth-of-conditional-salvation/page-2

 

[williemac]

If you would care to check some Greek, please see what one of our Moderators has to say
about some very important conditional Scriptures here in post #51 ...
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/19241-the-unpopular-but-deadly-truth-of-conditional-salvation/page-2

Hey, bro. You ignoring me for a reason? My comments too much for you to handle? Please excuse the bluntness of my comments to you, but they are meant to challenge you to take a serious look at the points I am making. I am using scripture, and I am not ignoring those which you are sharing. I feel I am making a strong case. And once again, I say that your doctrine is in contradiction with the gospel of grace, as it contains the leaven of the law. This was a big issue with Paul and he did not pull any punches either.
And make no mistake, I am not against conditional salvation. That is not my problem with your stuff. I am against the actual conditions that you are presenting, as they are in contradiction with the gospel and the new covenant.

The Greek is not needed to handle this subject. If the scripture is not plain enough in our own language on this subject, then God failed to preserve His word. Enough said. cheers and blessings.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The sad part is that you call this a warning. Why not call it exhortation? Why not call it instruction? These words too tame for you?

Exhortation and instruction are the work of love, and don't have the bite of condemnation that satan needs to deceive and oppress people in order to draw them away from the liberty we have in Christ.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
†. Eph 1:15-18 . . I do not cease giving thanks for you, while making
mention of you in my prayers; that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the
knowledge of Him. I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened,

The eyes of one's heart are different than the eyes of one's mind. What
we're looking at in that passage isn't mentality; but rather: intuition; which
Webster's defines as the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge
or cognition without evident rational thought and inference. I'm not talking
about Gnosticism here. I'm talking about knowing what the Bible means
without it having to be explicit.

For example: in the 45th chapter of Genesis; Joseph broke down sobbing
during the reunion with his wicked brothers. Genesis makes no attempt to
explain Joseph's feelings because you're supposed to know things like that
without someone having to try and explain them to you. That's intuition; viz:
people discussing Christianity on internet forums sans the special intuition
spoken of in Eph 1:15-18, are like blind men in a dark room looking for a
black cat that isn't there; resulting in endless debates and perpetual bull
sessions about salvation and eternal life that never get to the bottom of
anything.

Buen Camino
/

 

[John Zain]

Posted by a BAC elsewhere ...

[SIZE=11.5pt]I'm amazed at how so many people instantly hear e-7’s argument as an argument for a works based salvation. [/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt]This happens because the church has been so utterly indoctrinated with this doctrine of salvation that says salvation is so utterly gracious and unmerited that you can continue in your sins and still expect to be saved on the Day of Judgment. [/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt]In effect turning the grace of God into a license to sin. The exact thing the Bible warns us not to do.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.5pt]The issue is about being a slave to the sin we will have to deal with to the end of our lives.
Paul says slavery to sin is the result of purposely choosing to live in sin, effectively rejecting the forgiveness of God. [/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt]He also says slaves have no part in the inheritance.[/SIZE]
It's important to see that perfection is not what e-7 is advocating. A mindset fastened on Christ is what he is advocating. That means rushing back to the forgiveness of God in Christ when we fail, and not accepting our failures as 'that's just the way it is in this life' and continue along in that sin, not seeking the forgiveness of God, and thinking that somehow the grace of God covers it anyway. For the sincere Christian that might mean seeking that forgiveness and repenting of the sinful behavior more than one time in one day. Perfection is simply not the argument here. But that is how the argument is instantly heard by the church today.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Posted by a BAC elsewhere ...

[SIZE=11.5pt]I'm amazed at how so many people instantly hear e-7’s argument as an argument for a works based salvation. [/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt]This happens because the church has been so utterly indoctrinated with this doctrine of salvation that says salvation is so utterly gracious and unmerited that you can continue in your sins and still expect to be saved on the Day of Judgment. In effect turning the grace of God into a license to sin. The exact thing the Bible warns us not to do.[/SIZE]

This is a mischaracterization to a large degree. Surely there are some (many?) people who say that, but I don't think they are found on this forum. We have freedom in the grace of Christ to believe in GOD and love others. The law of Moses required nothing more than this. Anyone who teaches there is more to obedience than this is leading people astray IMO.

 

[williemac]

Posted by a BAC elsewhere ...

[SIZE=11.5pt]I'm amazed at how so many people instantly hear e-7’s argument as an argument for a works based salvation. [/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt]This happens because the church has been so utterly indoctrinated with this doctrine of salvation that says salvation is so utterly gracious and unmerited that you can continue in your sins and still expect to be saved on the Day of Judgment. [/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt]In effect turning the grace of God into a license to sin. The exact thing the Bible warns us not to do.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.5pt]The issue is about being a slave to the sin we will have to deal with to the end of our lives.
Paul says slavery to sin is the result of purposely choosing to live in sin, effectively rejecting the forgiveness of God. [/SIZE][SIZE=11.5pt]He also says slaves have no part in the inheritance.[/SIZE]
It's important to see that perfection is not what e-7 is advocating. A mindset fastened on Christ is what he is advocating. That means rushing back to the forgiveness of God in Christ when we fail, and not accepting our failures as 'that's just the way it is in this life' and continue along in that sin, not seeking the forgiveness of God, and thinking that somehow the grace of God covers it anyway. For the sincere Christian that might mean seeking that forgiveness and repenting of the sinful behavior more than one time in one day. Perfection is simply not the argument here. But that is how the argument is instantly heard by the church today.

The perspective that you are sharing in defense of e-7, is nothing new. And the arguments against it are not for the purpose of excusing a sinful pursuit. They are for the purpose of defending the principles laid out in scripture concerning God's plan and purpose in salvation, for starters.
e-7 is ignoring several important truths, whether purposely or in ignorance. I assume the latter.

Firstly, how is it that we assume God has no interest or ability in preserving those whom He has given life to by faith? Ever heard of chastening? Jesus has promised that all whom He loves, He rebukes and chastens. This is His answer to those who stray into disobedience. It is the same one we have with our own children. Any good parent will never...ever...ever...give up on his/her child. Do we lock them out of the house when they are bad? Do we kill them or disown them? No? Then why would we attribute a worse pattern than that with God? Are we more loving than He? Did Jesus not assure us that He will go to the ends of the earth to pursue a sheep that is astray?

I say 'snap out of it' to those who think God has not solved the sin issue. There are those who have concluded that it is our own job and role to 'help Him' solve sin. They mistakenly minimize the effectiveness of the cross by giving it a temporary victory. They compromise the cross by adding a man's own work of obedience to it for justification.

Here is a thought that will no doubt cause dissension; The very reason we are exhorted to keep from using grace as a license to sin...is because it is possible! If it were not possible, then the exhortation would not be necessary.

But who cares about a license. Are we now going to put sin on a pedestal? Is it some kind of wonderful and fulfilling experience that God is keeping us from enjoying? Has anyone yet decided to examine why it is that people sin? Do you think they are getting something called 'life' from it?

Got good news for you. We are NOT invited to come over and over again to the throne of grace for forgiveness of sin. If forgiveness has been removed from God's heart to a believer, He has denied His own accomplishment at Calvary and has revoked His promise to remember our sins no more. No, what we are invited to do is come to the throne of grace to find HELP!!!!

Sadly, Christians go to Him over and over to get forgiven over and over, all the while claiming that they are NOT slaves to sin....Huh?

The fact is, the day one accepts His permanent forgiveness for sin is the day that he is set free from the slavery. Slavery occurs in the mind. This apparent license to sin is counter intuitive. It is actually the very thing that frees us from the slavery to it. Anyone who thinks that sin is still an issue in relation to their salvation is in bondage.

The old man is dead already!!!

 

[mjrhealth]

Nice posts wilemac, you see more than most. we d not have a licence to sin, but once we have accepted what Christ has done, than although we still "in the flesh" sin,for that is where sin has being condemned to, we no longer have to beg for forgiveness , it has already being given. he difference is those who have not accepted His work will always feel condemned when the mess up, those who have accepted what He has done, just go, " oh well and keep going on", thats where satan looses out for he finds he cant turn them away from God, where those who feel condemend he aready had won. We will sin till the day we die or are convereted unless you are Jesus and you are not.

In all His Love

 

[williemac]

Nice posts wilemac, you see more than most. we d not have a licence to sin, but once we have accepted what Christ has done, than although we still "in the flesh" sin,for that is where sin has being condemned to, we no longer have to beg for forgiveness , it has already being given. he difference is those who have not accepted His work will always feel condemned when the mess up, those who have accepted what He has done, just go, " oh well and keep going on", thats where satan looses out for he finds he cant turn them away from God, where those who feel condemend he aready had won. We will sin till the day we die or are convereted unless you are Jesus and you are not.

In all His Love

Thank you for your kind words. Your comments are well said, too. But among the difficult hurdles in this discussion, the post that I responded to touches on one of them. It insists that sin is the equivalent of rejecting God's forgiveness. This idea no doubt is fostered from Heb.10:22, where we find that one who sins willfully is not covered by any sacrifice.

There are two ways this could be taken. The first is to say that willful sin is not forgivable. The second is to say that it is meant within the context of the rejection of the sacrifice of Jesus through unbelief. The first option has to be more than unlikely. Jesus said that all sin would be forgiven.

To add further complication, those who use this verse that way proceed to give their personal opinion as to the definition of willful sin. These opinions vary, but the most common one is that willful sin is some kind of ongoing habitual practice. Furthermore, they allow for their idea that this consequence of no sacrifice available can be altered through confession and/or repentance. These two ideas have in common the fact that the text in question does not make mention of either.

What the text does say is that one will be held accountable for rejecting the sacrifice of Jesus. It also concludes that we (they) are not of those who draw back to perdition but of those who believe to the saving of the soul (vs.39). The context therefore, validates the second case that I highlighted in blue. The author was not inventing or talking about some specific degree of sin. He was talking about the scenario of one sinning outside of the blood sacrifice of Jesus. Therefore for them, there no longer remains a sacrifice, as all the ones in place prior to Jesus have been removed and abolished, both by man and by God.

Blessings, Howie

 

[FHII]

Willimac,

I think you are speaking of Heb 10:26, not 22.... But that's a small matter.

What is a bigger matter is that many folks quote verse 26 without understanding or regarding verse 25. When the Bible says "for if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of truth.." they don't understand that it's talking about one specific spiritual sin which is "forsaking the assembling". They isolate verse 26 and then we get a doctrine of "habitual sin" or "willful sin" being unexcusable. But if they would read and accept the verse in context, they'd see something else:

"Let us hold fast to the profession of our faith, without wavering (for he is faithful that promised), and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works. Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another: and so much the more so, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,...."

Takes on a whole different meaning when you read it in context, but folks who quote Hebrews 10:26 rarely do.

 

[williemac]

Willimac,

I think you are speaking of Heb 10:26, not 22.... But that's a small matter.

What is a bigger matter is that many folks quote verse 26 without understanding or regarding verse 25. When the Bible says "for if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of truth.." they don't understand that it's talking about one specific spiritual sin which is "forsaking the assembling". They isolate verse 26 and then we get a doctrine of "habitual sin" or "willful sin" being unexcusable. But if they would read and accept the verse in context, they'd see something else:

"Let us hold fast to the profession of our faith, without wavering (for he is faithful that promised), and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works. Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another: and so much the more so, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,...."

Takes on a whole different meaning when you read it in context, but folks who quote Hebrews 10:26 rarely do.

I agree about your comment about some folks. And thank you for the correction on the verse #. But the context is larger than the few verses before, as you know. And it couldn't be talking about one specific spiritual sin, because the conclusion from it is that it is not covered by any sacrifice. How is it that Jesus did not die for the forsaking of assembling together, but He died for all other sin? No, I still prefer my own conclusion. And it actually ties in with the first part of that which you quoted, which is to hold on to our profession of faith. I still maintain that the author is speaking of a scenario where faith in the sacrifice of Jesus is absent. It is all about faith. It will always be all about faith. cheers, Howie

 

[John Zain]

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

The correct meaning of the Greek is ...

For if we keep on sinning willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth,
there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,...

... without repentance.

And this means one has given up his faith in Christ.
And this means his salvation is lost.

That's why 10 verses say one must endure with his faith until the end of his life to be saved.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

The correct meaning of the Greek is ...

For if we keep on sinning willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth,
there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,...

... without repentance.

And this means one has given up his faith in Christ.
And this means his salvation is lost.

That's why 10 verses say one must endure with his faith until the end of his life to be saved.

This is a very good argument that I haven't seen before. It's one of countless ways that OSAS is clearly contradicted by scripture and you gave me one more to add to the list.

 

[FHII]

I agree about your comment about some folks. And thank you for the correction on the verse #. But the context is larger than the few verses before, as you know. And it couldn't be talking about one specific spiritual sin, because the conclusion from it is that it is not covered by any sacrifice. How is it that Jesus did not die for the forsaking of assembling together, but He died for all other sin? No, I still prefer my own conclusion. And it actually ties in with the first part of that which you quoted, which is to hold on to our profession of faith. I still maintain that the author is speaking of a scenario where faith in the sacrifice of Jesus is absent. It is all about faith. It will always be all about faith. cheers, Howie

I see us thinking along the same path, and I have no problem with verse 26 applying to all spiritual sin (which ultimately does come down to the absense of faith in Christ). Certainly I do think it's true. But attending the assembly is indeed one of them, and I note you disagree but it is the one listed right before verse 26, so it is the one being talked about at the time.

I've seen quite a few threads and comments which seem to question or attack the importance of Church, and it irritates me to a small degree. First let me say they see the word "assembling" and they might want to say that means visiting the brothren (thus, no need to go to Church). Sure, that's included, but when you assembled as a Church you are there for one specific purpose and that is God's purpose. Among the things you get to do is hear preaching, which is of vital importance. God said through his Apostle Paul that faith comes by hearing a preacher. People might try to get by that by saying, "yes, for the unbeliever". Ok. Paul also said that God chose the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

So while I do agree that all aspects of faith are important, the assembling for the purpose of Church is one of them. But again, I don't see anything wrong with applying verse 26 to all aspects of faith. Just as long as it isn't applied to works of the flesh, which the author of Hebrews spent the first half of chapter 10 explaining that they were paid for!

 

[John Zain]

This is a very good argument that I haven't seen before.
It's one of countless ways that OSAS is clearly contradicted by scripture
and you gave me one more to add to the list.

Well, maybe you should think twice about that ...
your computer might crash because of too many verses versus OSAS.
Hope your list is titled, VERSES VERSUS.

IF there is room for even one more, you can also add ...

Everyone who wants the privelege to “buy and sell” must take the mark of the beast
Rev 13:15-18 • “He (the Beast from the earth) was granted power to give breath to
the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause
as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. He causes all,
both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their
right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one
who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number
of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666.”

Everyone who chooses to take the mark of the beast will spend eternity in hell
Rev 14:9-12 • “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on
his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God,
which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented
with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night,
who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God
and the faith of Jesus.”

Is this warning for a billion BACs before the rapture?
Or ...
Is this warning for a few new BACs after the rapture?

I plead ignorance because I lost interest in eschatology about 20 years ago.
IMO, there are a few things more important than the study of end-times.

 

[williemac]

The correct meaning of the Greek is ...

For if we keep on sinning willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth,
there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,...

... without repentance.

And this means one has given up his faith in Christ.
And this means his salvation is lost.

That's why 10 verses say one must endure with his faith until the end of his life to be saved.

Actually, you are close, but no 'cigar'. We can see a big hint in the words.."keep on". You have understood correctly that this indicates no change in the person. However, and this is a BIG however, this passage is not speaking of a BAC who is in continual sin. This passage is about one who has heard the truth and has not believed it. How do I know this? Simple. Rather than rely on one verse and rely on a Greek interpretation of one part of it, I have looked at the entire context, which includes verses well before and well after this one.

The author of Hebrews went to great lengths to reveal just what the sacrifice of Jesus accomplished as opposed to the prior sacrifices. Back in chapter 7, he said that the former commandment was annulled because of its weakness and unprofitableness (vs.18), and in the next verse he reminded them that the law made nothing perfect. Vs.22 says there is a better covenant. Vs.24 says Jesus has an unchangeable priesthood, because He continues forever.

In ch.8 he says that if the first covenant was faultless then no place would have been sought for a second one (vs.7). And what was the fault? Next verse..."because, finding fault with THEM..." What was the problem, then with that covenant? The people could not keep it. What was their fault? Their sin. What determines and identifies sin? The law. In 8:12...we read this promise..." For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more."

How does this work then? It is accomplished by the sacrifice of His Son. In echoing the thoughts from ch.7, the author in ch.10 begins to lay out the good news. vs. 4 says that it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. However, Jesus solved that problem. His sacrifice was not merely for forgiveness. It was for remission, that is to say, the REMOVAL of sin. Remember the law can not make anything perfect? Well now we see that in vs.14.." He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified". Forever is a powerful word. Are you going to tell us that we can reverse it by sinning? We can cancel out His sacrifice by sinning?

In 10:17, the words are again repeated..." Their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more". vs. 18..."Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin". The very first place that the sins were removed from is God's memory. Therefore no further work needs to be done to remove sin. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE COVENANT and of the ONE sacrifice for sins forever!!

The work of removing our sin is accomplished by way of doing away with our species altogether and creating a new one.

The work has begun in us through the new birth and will be completed at the resurrection. In the meantime, our old man (our sinful body of flesh) who is already considered dead, is still with us and it is still possible for us to sin. However, this is taken care of by our advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous (1John2:1).

So what about Heb.10:26? Lets fast forward to vs.39..." But we are not of those who draw back to perdition but of those who believe to the saving of the soul" .

Make no mistake. It is the old man who is attempting to justify himself. The new man is already justified. The old man is not happy about the news that simple faith is all that is needed. The letter in question was written to Jews. They were being informed that there is a new covenant to replace the old one. They could either draw back in unbelief or go forward in faith.

Unbelief in the sacrifice of Jesus amounts to the equivalent of willfully remaining in a sinful state, because there is now therefore no sacrifices remaining for them. This is the explanation of Heb.10:26, in a nutshell.
AND BTW, NOWHERE IN HEBREWS MAKES MENTION OF A CONTINUAL CONFESSION AND REPENTANCE OF SIN TO CONTINUALLY APPROPRIATE THE SACRIFICE.

Here is the problem with your conclusion. It happens that the old covenant had animal sacrifices offered up for the sins of the people. Their sin was covered. Are you now going to tell us that the blood of bulls and goats were more successful in covering sin than the precious blood of our Savior? In so many words, you are saying that the sacrifice of Jesus is applicable for remission of sin as long as the believer quits sinning! So we are the ones doing the work? This is nothing less than an insult to the spirit of grace...if only you could realize.