The Kerygma - God's Requirement for Salvation

[GWH]

Strange that you would share Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 then say you don't agree with it.

Why do you say being water bapitzed to get rid of sins was replace with being filled with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues when they are two seperate things? One we do, the other JESUS does?

Why did you share John 3:27-36?

I'm not very bright can you tell me how John 3:5 is obviously being born naturally when JESUS is speaking to an old man who must have been born naturally already?

I said I understood Mark 16 and Acts 2:38 "as teaching about baptism during the transition from emphasizing
the outward work of WB as essential to the inner faith of SB being essential per the epistles by the close of the apostolic era
(cf. John 3:27-36)." I cited John 3:27-36 (esp. v. 30), because that passage is about the transition from the OT/John's WB to the NT/Christ's SB (cf. John 1:15 & 29-33).

GW says WB was replaced with SB because they are two separate things: one is an outward work that may be imitated, while the other is the inward faith in JESUS that is salvific.

In John 3:5 Jesus tells Nick that being born physically is for the purpose of having the opportunity to be reborn spiritually/of the Spirit/SB/saved.

 

[rogerg]

Acts 2:38-39
King James Version
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Act 2:38-39 KJV]
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

First, you focused on two verses in a series of related verses and formed a biblical doctrine only from that. Instead, they should be considered in context. Prior to those verses, we are told:

[Act 2:36-37 KJV]
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?

Notice that in v37, they were "pricked in their heart". To be pricked in the heart means they first had to be given a new heart of flesh from a heart of stone by God - a heart of stone cannot be "pricked". By having a heart of flesh, meant they had ALREADY become saved. Observe:

[Eze 36:26-27 KJV]
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].

In 2:38, the baptism was spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sin, not physical baptism. Peter knew those he was teaching were of God’s chosen and therefore applicable to v39. By Peter telling them "be baptized", he was informing them they were being baptized by the Holy Spirit. Observe:

[1Pe 3:21 KJV] 21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

[Act 13:38 KJV] 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men [and] brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

In 2:38, the command to repent was only satisfied by God first giving them repentance: true repentance, that which results in the forgiveness of sin, is not by the will of man, but by the will of God. So, by being told to repent, they were being informed to cease from their trust in their works unto the trusting in Christ, however, they would have been incapable of doing so unless God had first saved them and only then could they truly trust in Christ, which was also a part of from pricked in the heart. Observe:

[2Ti 2:25 KJV] 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

In 2:39, it is talking about God's promise, not their works - it is only applicable to those whom "the Lord our God shall call", which are the elect, not everyone.

 

[GWH]

[Act 2:38-39 KJV]
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

First, you focused on two verses in a series of related verses and formed a biblical doctrine only from that. Instead, they should be considered in context. Prior to those verses, we are told:

[Act 2:36-37 KJV]
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?

Notice that in v37, they were "pricked in their heart". To be pricked in the heart means they first had to be given a new heart of flesh from a heart of stone by God - a heart of stone cannot be "pricked". By having a heart of flesh, meant they had ALREADY become saved. Observe:

[Eze 36:26-27 KJV]
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].

In 2:38, the baptism was spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sin, not physical baptism. Peter knew those he was teaching were of God’s chosen and therefore applicable to v39. By Peter telling them "be baptized", he was informing them they were being baptized by the Holy Spirit. Observe:

[1Pe 3:21 KJV] 21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

[Act 13:38 KJV] 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men [and] brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

In 2:38, the command to repent was only satisfied by God first giving them repentance: true repentance, that which results in the forgiveness of sin, is not by the will of man, but by the will of God. So, by being told to repent, they were being informed to cease from their trust in their works unto the trusting in Christ, however, they would have been incapable of doing so unless God had first saved them and only then could they truly trust in Christ, which was also a part of from pricked in the heart. Observe:

[2Ti 2:25 KJV] 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

In 2:39, it is talking about God's promise, not their works - it is only applicable to those whom "the Lord our God shall call", which are the elect, not everyone.

Scripture for the last opinion?

 

[rogerg]

Now you are talking about whether perseverance is forced, which I was taught but rejected as unscriptural per the following:

I'm not going to go through each of the verses you posted to refute them, although I could; however, I will say that many people believe in Christ for a time, have no root in themselves, and yet fall away. The only belief that endures is the faith given to those whom God saves through the Holy Spirit into the spiritual heart. The others temporarily have a kind of faith but one that is built from their intellect but does not last, not given from God.

 

[rogerg]

Scripture for the last opinion?

Please be specific, which one are you referring to?

 

[rogerg]

Scripture for the last opinion?

Do you mean this "last opinion"?

"In 2:39, it is talking about God's promise, not their works - it is only applicable to those whom "the Lord our God shall call", which are the elect, not everyone. "

Does this scripture work?

[2Ti 1:9 KJV] 9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

 

[GWH]

I'm not going to go through each of the verses you posted to refute them, although I could; however, I will say that many people believe in Christ for a time, have no root in themselves, and yet fall away. The only belief that endures is the faith given to those whom God saves through the Holy Spirit into the spiritual heart. The others temporarily have a kind of faith but one that is built from their intellect but does not last, not given from God.

Why would you want to refute GW?

Re faith that endures, Colossians 2:6-7 says: “Just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord [kerygma], continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught [didache].” There is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that accepts God’s working grace while walking/living (Eph. 2:8-10, 2Cor. 5:7, Rom 1:17), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes–and of course faith remains non-meritorious during the saint’s entire lifetime.

Scripture for your last opinion?

 

[rogerg]

Why would you want to refute GW?

I would not try to refute God's word; I was referring to your interpretation of it.

 

[GWH]

Do you mean this "last opinion"?

"In 2:39, it is talking about God's promise, not their works - it is only applicable to those whom "the Lord our God shall call", which are the elect, not everyone. "

Does this scripture work?

[2Ti 1:9 KJV] 9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

No, it is missing "God does not call everyone to be saved". Instead, you interpret the verse to mean "God has only allowed/caused us to be saved, but not anyone else."

So try again if you still want to refute 1Tim. 2:3-4 and other Scriptural pearls for some perverse reason.

 

[GWH]

I would not try to refute God's word; I was referring to your interpretation of it.

Aah, but why would you prefer your problematic interpretation to the plain language of GW?

 

[rogerg]

Aah, but why would you prefer your problematic interpretation to the plain language of GW?

Your opinion.

 

[rogerg]

No, it is missing "God does not call everyone to be saved". Instead, you interpret the verse to mean "God has only allowed/caused us to be saved, but not anyone else."

Did you actually understand that verse? The "us" are those whom He saves. Since everyone does NOT become saved, then the "us" can't be everyone. Those who do become saved - those chosen from "before the world began" - they, and they alone, comprise the "us".

[2Ti 1:9 KJV] 9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

 

[GWH]

Your opinion.

Yes, but not my opinion from being raised in a Baptist church to believe OSAS;
only after studying Scripture with an open mind and learning its obvious teaching.

And yes, I understand 2Tim. 1:9 and that it is missing "God does not call everyone to be saved", and
that you interpret the verse to mean "God has only allowed/caused us to be saved, but not anyone else",
because of some perverse desire to refute contextual pearls, such as 1Tim. 2:3-4.

 

[rogerg]

Yes, but not my opinion from being raised in a Baptist church to believe OSAS;
only after studying Scripture with an open mind and learning its obvious teaching.

And yes, I understand 2Tim. 1:9 and that it is missing "God does not call everyone to be saved", and
that you interpret the verse to mean "God has only allowed/caused us to be saved, but not anyone else",
because of some perverse desire to refute contextual pearls, such as 1Tim. 2:3-4.

The misunderstanding is yours. You read 1 Tim 2:3-4 as though they were intended to be understood in isolation from the other verses.
However, when read as they should be, we can see that in verse 3, by the "our Savior", it is informing that those who actually are in view are only they whose Savior is God ("our Saviour")- with God obviously not the Savior of the those who will not become saved - by which, we can know that only those who will become are those included.
So, the "our", of the "our Saviour", equals the "all" of v4 (and the other "all(s)" in proximity to it), and therefore, those who will not become saved were never intended to be part of the "all", as God is not, nor will ever be their Savior. Hence, impossible for the "all" to mean everyone, instead, the "all" represents all of the elect - or all those who are to become saved - all those of whom God becomes their Savior. V5 continues this with the "for", as it is speaking about Christ being a "mediator between God and men", but a mediator is a mediator only for the saved, not one for everyone: the unsaved have no mediator with God.


[1Ti 2:3-5 KJV]
3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

 

[GWH]

The misunderstanding is yours. You read 1 Tim 2:3-4 as though they were intended to be understood in isolation from the other verses.
However, when read as they should be, we can see that in verse 3, by the "our Savior", it is informing that those who actually are in view are only they whose Savior is God ("our Saviour")- with God obviously not the Savior of the those who will not become saved - by which, we can know that only those who will become are those included.
So, the "our", of the "our Saviour", equals the "all" of v4 (and the other "all(s)" in proximity to it), and therefore, those who will not become saved were never intended to be part of the "all", as God is not, nor will ever be their Savior. Hence, impossible for the "all" to mean everyone, instead, the "all" represents all of the elect - or all those who are to become saved - all those of whom God becomes their Savior. V5 continues this with the "for", as it is speaking about Christ being a "mediator between God and men", but a mediator is a mediator only for the saved, not one for everyone: the unsaved have no mediator with God.


[1Ti 2:3-5 KJV]
3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Well, it seems perverse to believe God hates humanity except for a few elect. I prefer to believe the following:

A biblical hermeneutic or parameters for interpreting the Bible might well begin with the instruction of Paul (1Thes. 5:21) to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” A truthseeker is guided by the question: What is most true or closest to the truth, especially the Truth of God’s Word? The method for discerning truth employs subjective logic that is made as objective as possible by learning from Scriptural and other truthseekers. As a result of seeking ultimate truth, I have come to value two NT teachings as key points from which to triangulate or use to guide an interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements.

First, God loves and wants to save everyone. Seven Scriptures teaching divine omnilove include: 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6 &14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2 and 1Tim. 2:3-4, which might be deemed the “7 pearls”. Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (Rom. 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ, heretics).

Second, God is just (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (Joel 2:13, John 3:16). This parameter is affirmed in the OT (Psa. 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.”

Even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice. The writer of Hebrews (12:4-11) indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will (such as JSH 6:17-24, 8:2&24 & 10:28-40, 11:6-23), then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.

This hermeneutic seeks to harmonize disparate Scriptures as taught by Paul (in 1Thes. 5:21), exemplified by Jesus (in MT 4:6-7) and illustrated by the transparent overlays of bodily systems found in some books on anatomy. Considering both sides of an issue or doctrine is called dialectical theology. An interpreter should want to include all true assertions in the picture of reality without making a “Procrustean Body” by cutting off or ignoring parts that do not seem to fit, because the correct understanding must be self-consistent or else God would be tricky. The whole truth combines parts without sawing!

The Bible says God’s Spirit is love and truth (1JN 4:8 & 5:6), which means all love (agape, RM 6:5-8) in all people is God’s operation, and all truth in all cultures is God’s revelation. Thus, becoming a Christian theist does not mean rejecting what is good and true in one’s pre-Christian experience or culture. When considering two different understandings (thesis A versus antithesis B), the truth may not be either one or the other but rather the proper harmonization of the two. (Both A and B = synthesis C.) For example, the Bible teaches (GN 1:3, JN 1:1-3) that both the world and inspired words are expressions of God’s Word/Logos, and thus scientific and spiritual truths must be compatible or else God would be tricky. So, while belief that God is love and Jesus is Lord is based upon the biblical revelation, some knowledge also is gleaned from the natural sciences and common sense. This interpretation of reality is influenced by the Bible and utilizes God-given logical thinking where the Bible seems silent, hoping to be guided by the Spirit of Truth (JN 14:17).

Although perfect interpretation and unity may not be attainable by fallible souls, systematic study of Scripture can broaden understanding such as the doctrine of salvation as follows:

God saves sinners who repent (1Tim. 2:3-4, Matt. 4:17). Repentance means accepting Jesus as Messiah and Lord (Acts 16:30-31, Col. 2:6). God enables all sinners to repent, seek salvation and find the LJC (1Tim. 2:3-5, Heb. 11:6). God’s enabling is resistible so souls may choose instead to serve Satan (Matt. 13:14-15, John 8:42-44). God’s enabling of volition (Deut. 30:19) may be called seeking grace (Eph. 2:8). Souls who choose to reject God/Christ are justly condemned (Rom. 1:20, 2:5-11). Accepting God’s grace by faith is not a meritorious work (Rom. 3:21-28, Eph. 2:8-9). Even loving works motivated by God’s HS manifest faith rather than merit (Eph. 2:10), because there is no qualitative difference between faith that accepts God’s saving grace at conversion and faith that accepts God’s working grace while walking/living (John 6:29, 2Cor. 5:7, Rom. 1:17), but only a quantitative difference as each additional moment passes. The only contradiction comes from those who are spiritually blind (Matt. 13:15, 2Cor. 4:4, John 9:41).

The quest for greater Christian unity prompts me to identify the Scripture from which interpretations of GW spring,
and a Top Ten list of foundational Scriptures in logical order might well be these:

1. Formerly/at first I was without hope of salvation from meaninglessness and death. (Eph. 3:12b)

2. So I sought salvation and found God. (Matt. 7:7, Heb. 11:6b)

3. The loving God who wants all souls to learn the truth about how to be saved. (1Tim. 2:3-4, John 3:16)

4. Which is to believe that Jesus is Christ, whose death atoned for humanity’s sins. (1Tim. 2:5-6)

5. As taught in all inspired Scripture interpreted in light of this Gospel of salvation. (2Tim. 3:15)

6. Such interpretation of GW also teaches how to be godly after being saved. (2Tim. 3:16-17)

7. Which doctrine Jesus summarized as loving God, oneself and everyone else. (Matt. 22:37-40)

8. And which moral maturity Paul termed as the fruit of the Holy Spirit. (Gal. 5:13-23)

9. That requires persevering in saving faith and learning God’s Word. (Matt. 4:4, 10:22)

10. So that we will grant the prayer of Jesus for us to be one in our witness. (John 17:20-23)

 

[Ouch]

[Act 2:38-39 KJV]
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

First, you focused on two verses in a series of related verses and formed a biblical doctrine only from that. Instead, they should be considered in context. Prior to those verses, we are told:

[Act 2:36-37 KJV]
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37 Now when they heard [this], they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men [and] brethren, what shall we do?

Notice that in v37, they were "pricked in their heart". To be pricked in the heart means they first had to be given a new heart of flesh from a heart of stone by God - a heart of stone cannot be "pricked". By having a heart of flesh, meant they had ALREADY become saved. Observe:

[Eze 36:26-27 KJV]
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].

In 2:38, the baptism was spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sin, not physical baptism. Peter knew those he was teaching were of God’s chosen and therefore applicable to v39. By Peter telling them "be baptized", he was informing them they were being baptized by the Holy Spirit. Observe:

[1Pe 3:21 KJV] 21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

[Act 13:38 KJV] 38 Be it known unto you therefore, men [and] brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

In 2:38, the command to repent was only satisfied by God first giving them repentance: true repentance, that which results in the forgiveness of sin, is not by the will of man, but by the will of God. So, by being told to repent, they were being informed to cease from their trust in their works unto the trusting in Christ, however, they would have been incapable of doing so unless God had first saved them and only then could they truly trust in Christ, which was also a part of from pricked in the heart. Observe:

[2Ti 2:25 KJV] 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

In 2:39, it is talking about God's promise, not their works - it is only applicable to those whom "the Lord our God shall call", which are the elect, not everyone.

So pricked in the heart means they got a new heart!!!

And at that point their sins were goon and they received the Holy Ghost becuase you sayed they got saved.

You refer to there heart was made of stone how do you know that?

Since they are the ones who was responsible for putting JESUS on the cross I would feel very comfortable saying GOD may have hardened there heart to achieve HIS goal BUT now soften their heart so they could be an example to ALL that no matter what you do JESUS will still forgive you.

Lets look at some more of that verse, WHAT SHALL WE DO???

So with a soften heart their were sad and said WHAT SHALL WE DO???

Then Peter tells them what to do.

Acts 2:38 Peter says, NOTING you are fine, you have a good heart JESUS forgives you and your Heaven bound.

NOPE, Peter KNOWS that we are born in sin and what we need to do to get rid of it, AND WE need the Holy Ghost to be reborn.

This is what HIS WORD says Peter said, Acts 2,
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

As I said, I don't debate HIS word but sure will debate YOURS.

Show me where pricking your heart gets rid of your sins and fills you with the Holy Ghost.

Show me were we TRULY repent and that gets rid of our sins.

Acts 2:39 says what it says the PROMISE is for ALL, since JESUS knows your heart he may fill you with the Holy Ghost before your baptized in JESUS name or after. That's up to HIM.

 

[Ouch]

I said I understood Mark 16 and Acts 2:38 "as teaching about baptism during the transition from emphasizing
the outward work of WB as essential to the inner faith of SB being essential per the epistles by the close of the apostolic era
(cf. John 3:27-36)." I cited John 3:27-36 (esp. v. 30), because that passage is about the transition from the OT/John's WB to the NT/Christ's SB (cf. John 1:15 & 29-33).

GW says WB was replaced with SB because they are two separate things: one is an outward work that may be imitated, while the other is the inward faith in JESUS that is salvific.

In John 3:5 Jesus tells Nick that being born physically is for the purpose of having the opportunity to be reborn spiritually/of the Spirit/SB/saved.

PROVE THIS IN HIS WORD.

GW says WB was replaced with SB because they are two separate things: one is an outward work that may be imitated, while the other is the inward faith in JESUS that is salvific.

MAKE IT VERY CLEAR BECAUSE HIS WORD IS NOT CONFUSING AND YOU ARE.

 

[GWH]

PROVE THIS IN HIS WORD.

GW says WB was replaced with SB because they are two separate things: one is an outward work that may be imitated, while the other is the inward faith in JESUS that is salvific.

MAKE IT VERY CLEAR BECAUSE HIS WORD IS NOT CONFUSING AND YOU ARE.

You disprove this in His Word, because it is clear to me.

 

[Ouch]

You disprove this in His Word, because it is clear to me.

Why would you say I disapprove of HIS word?

The ONLY thing clear to me is YOU DO NOT KNOW HIS WORD and say things that are NOT TRUE.

Do you have ANY IDEA of the danger your in????

REPENT, GET BAPTIZED IN JESUS NAME to GET RID OF YOUR SINS and if I know JESUS he LOVES you just as much as anyone else HE WILL FILL YOU WITH HIS SPIRIT.

 

[rogerg]

ou refer to there heart was made of stone how do you know that?

Did you read the verses I included in my prior post to you?

I excerpted this part to answer your question. Do you see below that God first takes away the stony heart - the heart of the unsaved that was founded upon law and written in stone - replacing it with a new heart of flesh, founded upon mercy, grace, and Christ?

[Eze 36:26-27 KJV]
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

At this point I think we're pretty much just going back and forth to no real benefit except to debate. So, I'll just leave what
I've posted with you as a take it or leave it proposition - your choice which - and will not be continuing this particular discussion further.