Do you agree with this? Washer & Lordship salvation

[Alive in Christ]

Trustiti and HP...

Hmmmm.


Interesting.

I know the discussion you guys are referring to. I read the posts by DHK you are referring to.


Be interesting to see how this plays out.



:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

Now you sound like an adherent to the WOF movement (Word of Faith).
As you are inferring, I don't depend on putting my faith in faith.
My salvation is dependent on Christ. It is not dependent on my faith. It is dependent on Christ in Him alone. He paid the penalty for my sins. I don't put faith in my faith. My trust is in Christ alone.

ok you characters cut the nonsense! :BangHead:

I am simply stating that Web's position "sounds like" what the WOF "adhere to."
That is, they put their faith in faith. Their emphasis is on faith.
If you are saying faith is a condition then you are assuming faith is an actual entity in and of itself, rather like a tangible. But it isn't.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Oh boy......

 

[Alive in Christ]

DHK,

With all due respect, I share this.

Here is what HP said to another poster...

"I hate to be the one to tell you, and call yourself whatever you like, the fact still remains: the dogma of imputed righteousness is pure Calvinism."

Wich drew this reprimand from you...

"HP, this is a warning. There are many of us here that are not Calvinist, myself included. Yet, in previous discussions with you, we are accused of being Calvinists because we don't fit into your theological paradigm. Stop the name-calling. Stop the accusations. It doesn't matter how high of an opinion you may fashion yourself to be as a theologian. When someone tells you that they are not a Calvinist and doesn't want to be labeled as such, then leave it at that.

Further arguments about such name-calling will be taken up with the administration. This is simply a warning."

But then Webdog said this...

" Selective reading. Did you miss that little "depending on" part?"

And YOU then said THIS...

"Now you sound like an adherent to the WOF movement (Word of Faith)."

And you are now trying to say that you DIDNT do the same thing you reprimanded THEM for?

????????????????

I mean, I dont have a dog in this fight, so I am unbiased in this.

My goodness, it seems pretty clear to me.

Nobody will respect you any less if you say "Ok, I blew it" In fact, they will respect you more.


:godisgood:

 

[DHK]

And you are now trying to say that you DIDNT do the same thing you reprimanded THEM for?

????????????????

I mean, I dont have a dog in this fight, so I am unbiased in this.

My goodness, it seems pretty clear to me.

Nobody will respect you any less if you say "Ok, I blew it" In fact, they will respect you more.


:godisgood:

No, I didn't call anyone anything.
I didn't say: "You are a...."
I said your theology, or what you believe in "sounds like this...."

There was no avoidable way to get away from naming terminology since most here are not acquainted with it. Unlike Calvinism where all here are able to recite PILUT backwards, not many know about the WOF movement and I would not have been able to explain my point without the mention of the name. I never said he belonged to the group.