The catholic church recants!

[Thinkingstuff]

I taught through Blackby several years ago. In the past year I moved to Ohio and then moved back so I still have his books boxed up somewhere among several other boxes. So if you will do me the kindness of quoting all three points for me I will appreciate it greatly since it is his third point you seem to rest your case upon.

I have quoted it and will again.

(3) God invites you to become involved with Him in His work

However these are the points 1) God is always at work 2) God Persues 3) God invites 4)God speaks 5)Crisis of belief 6) Major adjustments 7)Knowing god.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

By subsequent posts you go on to say that works are necessary to salvation. You have done this over and over again. Thus the emphasis.

I have never said this. I said works were a necissary result of faith. If no faith no works. Therefore, you first sentence here is inaccurate.

I gave you clear examples of people that you would consider not saved, because in your own words (not an exact quote) they had no verifiable works that anyone could see), and therefore would not be saved.

Again I never said that. I said I was doubtful about Lot. Again your next sentence is also inaccurate.

Your view is that salvation is by faith, faith that produces works

Yes this is true! Amen and Hallelujiah! Finally an accurate statement!!!

But what if the works cannot be seen

It doesn't consern me. God sees what is done in private. He is the judge not I.

Then, by your standard, you don't really believe that person is saved, correct?

Nope incorrecte again.

Thus I give you those examples.

as you see irrelevant.

As I read the posts I saw no sustained discussion on eschatology

all you have to do is read the previous post between Dr. Walter and I like post 75, 74,73, 72 etc... How do you define sustained? And How do you define "current context"?

Perhaps you will have to direct me to some links. Post 76 was more like a tirade than any thought out answer.

Not only did I clarify post 76 but post 76 was an answer to you inquiry why I called your post "peachy and sanctimonious". By nature to explain why I found you post to be "preachy and sanctimonioius" I have to detail what it was that you said and why I responded the way I did. If that sounds like a tirade so be it.

I did not preach, I answered

Answered what? I didn't ask you any questions? Nor was I on that topic at that time.

I was not being sanctimonious

If you weren't then that is for you to decide. I on the other hand percieved your post to be that way considering the context of the discussion.

That is a personal attack which should have been edited.

It was a perseption of your post or a critic of it, however you may want to edit it if you view it as a personal attack.

Thanks for trying to do so.

You are welcome.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ok, I remember now. But do you remember his application of this principle? He does NOT make your application. He is simply speaking of sharing in the work of God going on around you NOT IN ORDER TO REMAIN SAVED but in order to be USED by God and to EXPERIENCE God in your life. Blackaby does not believe your doctrine and could not teach your doctrine and I have never read your doctrine in his book because he NEVER once made such an application. Find me just one application of this statement in his book that relates to any kind of cooperative work with God for salvation????

I have quoted it and will again.

However these are the points 1) God is always at work 2) God Persues 3) God invites 4)God speaks 5)Crisis of belief 6) Major adjustments 7)Knowing god.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have never said this. I said works were a necissary result of faith. If no faith no works. Therefore, you first sentence here is inaccurate. - Thinkingstuff

Can faith exist without works or is faith dead without works? Can faith exist at the point of justification without works or is faith dead without works even at the point of justification?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have never said this. I said works were a necissary result of faith. If no faith no works. Therefore, you first sentence here is inaccurate. - Thinkingstuff

Can faith exist without works or is faith dead without works? Can faith exist at the point of justification without works or is faith dead without works even at the point of justification?

DR. Walter answer me these questions short and succinctly 1) Why did God save you? 2) from what did God save you from? 3) and if God save you from those things what is the object of doing such? To remain in your sin? To leave you incapable of living right? Just a get out of Hell free card? Just a luxory apartment in the sky? Which is your soteriology?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Ok, I remember now. But do you remember his application of this principle? He does NOT make your application. He is simply speaking of sharing in the work of God going on around you NOT IN ORDER TO REMAIN SAVED but in order to be USED by God and to EXPERIENCE God in your life.

I never said to remained saved. You keep insisting I've said things I haven't. However one can argue, he is the vine and we are the branches. If we abide in him he will abide in us. If we do not abide then what? What does scripture say? Come on you can quote the passage.

 

[Dr. Walter]

DR. Walter answer me these questions short and succinctly 1) Why did God save you? 2) from what did God save you from? 3) and if God save you from those things what is the object of doing such? To remain in your sin? To leave you incapable of living right? Just a get out of Hell free card? Just a luxory apartment in the sky? Which is your soteriology?

Your first question reveals your theological problem. It should not start with "why" but with "how." I will tell why I say this. Because what God saved me for cannot be accomplished fully in this life and so a salvation that is defined by the question "why" will lead to a wrong definition of "how" one is saved and that is exactly your line of thought and conclusion.

However, I will answer your questions:

1. He saved me for HIS GLORY

2. He saved me from the PENALTY of sin but will not save me from sin's presence or power until glorification which will be solely accomplished by his power without my assistance just as my justification is and just as my progressive sanctification is.

3. I live for his glory NOT in order to remain saved or to be saved or to cooperate with Him in saving me as that has already been accomplished (Jn. 5:24; 6:39) but because I LOVE Him.

 

[DHK]

Originally Posted by DHK
By subsequent posts you go on to say that works are necessary to salvation. You have done this over and over again. Thus the emphasis.

I have never said this. I said works were a necissary result of faith. If no faith no works. Therefore, you first sentence here is inaccurate.

Look at the difference:
I said that you said: "Works are necessary to salvation."
You said, "not true," But, "If no faith no works."
The two statements are almost the same. They teach the same. They both teach a works salvation. Works must be part of faith or the person is not saved. Thus I gave you examples, but you wrote them blithely off as "non sequitor," when if fact, they were the very examples that prove this point of yours wrong. What works did the thief on the cross have? You just said: "If no faith no works." Then Jesus lied to the thief, didn't he? That is according to your theology he lied.

I gave you clear examples of people that you would consider not saved, because in your own words (not an exact quote) they had no verifiable works that anyone could see), and therefore would not be saved.

Again I never said that. I said I was doubtful about Lot. Again your next sentence is also inaccurate.

Right, you said you were doubtful about Lot.
My purpose was to show you that there was no reason to be doubtful about what the Scriptures say about Lot. Why are you doubting? Does philosophy trump the Bible?

Your view is that salvation is by faith, faith that produces works

Yes this is true! Amen and Hallelujiah! Finally an accurate statement!!!

However, the faith and works are so inextricably bound to each other (according to you) that one way or another it still ends up to be a works salvation. That is precisely the reason why I pointed to Lot and the thief, and to Nicodemus, all of which you dismissed in "your sanctimonious way."

But what if the works cannot be seen

It doesn't consern me. God sees what is done in private. He is the judge not I.

It does concern you. That is why you are willing to pass judgment on Lot. You were doubtful. But you were willing, at first, to pass judgment on him. You didn't see his works. You saw his progeny and passed judgement on him for that reason. Now your reason above is rather sanctimonious isn't it?

Then, by your standard, you don't really believe that person is saved, correct?

Nope incorrecte again. as you see irrelevant.

It is not incorrect or irrelevant.
As seen in the example of Lot you were originally willing to pass judgment that he wasn't really saved.
As for the thief on the cross I believe you are double minded. If it weren't for the clear words of Jesus, you would probably say that he had to be unsaved. There were no works involved there either. Remember your words: "If no faith, no works" But he had faith, and no works." It doesn't fit your paradigm.

As I read the posts I saw no sustained discussion on eschatology

all you have to do is read the previous post between Dr. Walter and I like post 75, 74,73, 72 etc... How do you define sustained? And How do you define "current context"?

You either gave me the wrong posts or are deliberately deceitful.
I read everything from 71 to 76. Some of those were my own posts. Some dealt with James and justification by faith. And one or two simply dealt with justification. Not one was devoted to eschatology. You have to do better than that!!

Perhaps you will have to direct me to some links. Post 76 was more like a tirade than any thought out answer.

Not only did I clarify post 76 but post 76 was an answer to you inquiry why I called your post "peachy and sanctimonious". By nature to explain why I found you post to be "preachy and sanctimonioius" I have to detail what it was that you said and why I responded the way I did. If that sounds like a tirade so be it.

When a person answers with logical answers concerning people like Lot, and the thief on the cross, and you do not respond to the post, but write it off as "preachy and sanctimonious" you have lost the debate and possibly the privilege to debate. That is what happens when people do this on a sustained basis. It no longer is debate, it is a tirade of personal insult. And so be it is not acceptable either.

I did not preach, I answered

Answered what? I didn't ask you any questions? Nor was I on that topic at that time.

I answered your post. Instead of having the decency to answer it, you went on a tirade of personal insult.

I was not being sanctimonious

If you weren't then that is for you to decide. I on the other hand percieved your post to be that way considering the context of the discussion.

Considering the context of the discussion keep your name-calling to yourself. If you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all. Go back and read the posting rules. They are at the bottom of each page if you are unfamiliar with them.

That is a personal attack which should have been edited.

It was a perseption of your post or a critic of it, however you may want to edit it if you view it as a personal attack.

I am well enough acquainted with the English language to know when a person is using derogatory language. It was uncalled for. You can do better.

 

[Alive in Christ]

First of all you keep talking about works and the entire conversation is lost on you. No one says works save.

The Church of Rome does. Clearly. Emphatically.

Its one of the multitudes of blasphemies, idolatries and false teachings of the Catholic church

 

[Dr. Walter]

I never said to remained saved. You keep insisting I've said things I haven't. However one can argue, he is the vine and we are the branches. If we abide in him he will abide in us. If we do not abide then what? What does scripture say? Come on you can quote the passage.

Friend, a person is playing word games when they say IT IS POSSIBLE for truly born again believers to lose their salvation when it can only be possible due to what THEY DO or DON'T DO and then tell me that you never said works are necessary to MAINTAIN salvation! If works are the necessary expression of saving faith and it is possible for such to be lost due to not expressing necessary works then do not tell me that necessary works are not essential to MAINTAIN salvation or else there is NO POSSIBLILTY one who has saving faith can be lost.

Anyone with two grains of common sense in their heads can see either you don't know what you are talking about or you are playing word games.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your first question reveals your theological problem. It should not start with "why" but with "how."

Its a pertanent questions. But I'm still sticking with Why because this issues is key into understanding what I'm talking about and why you keep missing it. How, is irrelevant to my point. Its satisfactory that he does.

I will tell why I say this. Because what God saved me for cannot be accomplished fully in this life and so a salvation

Does God want to accomplish anything in this life (your life)? Whether fully or partially is also irrelevant.

that is defined by the question "why" will lead to a wrong definition of "how" one is saved

Not at all. But it does determine what God wants to accomplish with us.

and that is exactly your line of thought and conclusion.

No. And I've said this before you are combining two things that aren't related.

However, I will answer your questions

Thank you.

1. He saved me for HIS GLORY

Straight of of the Institutes. And I don't have a problem with it save I wonder how you define this in this context. In other words, what do you mean?

2. He saved me from the PENALTY of sin but will not save me from sin's presence or power until glorification which will be solely accomplished by his power without my assistance just as my justification is and just as my progressive sanctification is.

So, in effect you're just waiting to die so that you may be glorified? What about striving against sin? We don't have to always win but there are victories. What about.

3Not only so, but we[c] also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

or how about

1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?

or

12Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. 14For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

or

22But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.

or

Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

and in

26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness

And so he does. In other words we can experience part of the promises right here and now rather than wait until our death.

3. I live for his glory NOT in order to remain saved or to be saved or to cooperate with Him in saving me as that has already been accomplished (Jn. 5:24; 6:39) but because I LOVE Him.

AMEN!

 

[Dr. Walter]

3. I live for his glory NOT in order to remain saved or to be saved or to cooperate with Him in saving me as that has already been accomplished (Jn. 5:24; 6:39) but because I LOVE Him. AMEN!

You give a hearty "Amen" to my third answer but why? All I have said in my third answer is exactly what I said in my previous two answers. My previous two answers are summarized in the first part of my answer before the word "but."

A. I live for his glory NOT
1. "in order to be saved"
2. "in order to....remain saved"
3. "in order to...cooperate with him in saving me as that has already been accomplished"

You deny point three as you claim it has not been accomplished but there is potential for losing that salvation. The two tenses in John 5:24 forbid your intepreation of POTENTIAL or POSSIBILITY as the Perfect tense demands that the question of eternal life or eternal death has been settled completely in the past and continues as a SETTLED or COMPLETED state. The future tense "shall not come into judgement" forbids the future potentiality or possibility.

B. "but because I love him"

I do not dissect the inward man created in true holiness and righteousness from the person being justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone WITHOUT WORKS! I simply distinguish between them as two different aspects of salvation because the Scriptures distinguish between them.

The Scriptues distinguish them as two separate and distinct areas of application - Justification is befoer God IN HEAVEN while regeneration is on earth IN the believer. Justification has to do with our LEGAL POSITION before God in heaven whereas regeneration has to do with our INWARD CONDITION necessary for progressive sanctification in this life.

Justification obstain entrance into heaven based solely upon the faithfulness of Christ whereas regeneration/sanctification obtains present blessings, usefulness, joy, peach, growth, eternal rewards and to confuse them is to teach justification by works.

Simply because I distinguish between them does not mean I dissect and separate the justified man from the regenerate man. If you do not make this distinction you end up with a false salvation theory that mixes them rather than distinguishes them.

Furthermore, I teach sanctified living as the visible evidence of justification by faith and the only way to have assurance of salvation yourself and by others. I teach it is necessary to experience the blessings of salvation now and for spiritual growth and victory now.

In addition, I teach that any real true child of God that lives like Lot will SUFFER LOSS of joy, peace, reward, usefulness, assurance of salvation in his own eyes and the eyes of others and that such disobedient children are miserable because they are promised chastening (Heb. 12:5-10) and therefore cannot get away with sin. Their MISERABLE condition is PROOF of their salvation and PROOF that God loves them enough to not allow them to get away with sin and they don't get away with it here or in heaven because they SUFFER loss - but not of salvation (I Cor. 3:11-15; Psa. 89:29-33).

Sure, only the disobedient child of God like Lot whose soul "vexed" by sin knows their vexed condition besides God and all men will judge them by their fruits as lost but that does not mean they are because they are saved by "grace" not by performance as Christ provided all the performance essential to enter heaven and your works are NEVER good enough to obtain, maintain, or absolute proof of salvation.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Look at the difference:
I said that you said: "Works are necessary to salvation."
You said, "not true," But, "If no faith no works."
The two statements are almost the same. They teach the same.

No. They don't one has to do with a saved person the other has to do with getting saved.

Thus I gave you examples, but you wrote them blithely off as "non sequitor,"

Because it didn't follow.

when if fact, they were the very examples that prove this point of yours wrong

Not at all

What works did the thief on the cross have? You just said: "If no faith no works." Then Jesus lied to the thief, didn't he?

he stood up for Jesus did he not. He proclaimed his faith did he not?

That is according to your theology he lied

According to the theology you keep attempting to put on me not my actual theology. You are wrong.

Right, you said you were doubtful about Lot.

Can't I be?

My purpose was to show you that there was no reason to be doubtful about what the Scriptures say about Lot. Why are you doubting? Does philosophy trump the Bible?

Thank you I'm no longer doubtful about Lot. I'll be high fiving him in heaven.

However, the faith and works are so inextricably bound to each other (according to you) that one way or another it still ends up to be a works salvation

Not at all that is your interpretation.

That is precisely the reason why I pointed to Lot and the thief, and to Nicodemus, all of which you dismissed in "your sanctimonious way."

You're still wrong. Faith saves and in fact let me go back even further. The grace of God saves and when his grace is at work I have faith. Thus faith is an indicator of my salvation.

It does concern you

Not really. I said I was doubtful. I hadn't passed judgement. You already have that he was saved.

Now your reason above is rather sanctimonious isn't it?

If you say so.

It is not incorrect or irrelevant

I showed you it was.

As for the thief on the cross I believe you are double minded.

Nope your wrong I was clear on him too.

If it weren't for the clear words of Jesus, you would probably say that he had to be unsaved

You know what happens when you assume don't you?

There were no works involved there either. Remember your words: "If no faith, no works" But he had faith, and no works." It doesn't fit your paradigm.

Again I just above in this post showed you differently.

You either gave me the wrong posts or are deliberately deceitful.

Oh now I'm a liar. See how this goes?

I read everything from 71 to 76. Some of those were my own posts. Some dealt with James and justification by faith. And one or two simply dealt with justification. Not one was devoted to eschatology. You have to do better than that!!

Remember you called me a liar. So, let me show you. I forgot post 76 was a response to your inquiry about why I said what I did in Post 47 so the context of the conversation is previous to post 47 here and here and here So I actually didn't lie. Go figure but you're quick to call me liar. Hmmmm. talk about personal attacks. Will you edit that too? Consistency dear DHK. So, I wondered you knew full well that the original post you were inquiring about was post 47 but yo didn't say anything about it even though My reply was to your inquiry in post 76. Who is the disciever now I wonder? Is that the best you can do at redirection?

When a person answers with logical answers concerning people like Lot, and the thief on the cross, and you do not respond to the post, but write it off as "preachy and sanctimonious" you have lost the debate and possibly the privilege to debate. That is what happens when people do this on a sustained basis. It no longer is debate, it is a tirade of personal insult. And so be it is not acceptable either.
I answered your post. Instead of having the decency to answer it, you went on a tirade of personal insult.

That is not entirely true. I explained why I said what I did. It was an explanation of why I said what I said because you asked about it. Capice? I just said if you took it as a tirade then so be it but you obviously needed detailed analysis of it.

Considering the context of the discussion keep your name-calling to yourself. If you have nothing nice to say don't say anything at all. Go back and read the posting rules. They are at the bottom of each page if you are unfamiliar with them.

Thank you for the referrence. Does this apply to everyone or just me?

I am well enough acquainted with the English language to know when a person is using derogatory language. It was uncalled for. You can do better

D'accord Monsieur. Excusez-moi, je suis désolé. Mais, ce n'est pas une insulte. However, I'm glad you have a high regard for me. I will endevour to maintain it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You give a hearty "Amen" to my third answer but why? All I have said in my third answer is exactly what I said in my previous two answers. My previous two answers are summarized in the first part of my answer before the word "but."

Actually, you are right I didn't read the whole point I gave a hearty amen to

live for his glory NOT in order to remain saved or to be saved, but because I LOVE Him. AMEN!

However, For his glory is inclusive of the other point. But you haven't really defined Glory yet. But as I take the words for his Glory I agree with it. But your right I should have read point 3 more closely. I take the Amen back save for what I cut and pasted here.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Actually, you are right I didn't read the whole point I gave a hearty amen to However, For his glory is inclusive of the other point. But you haven't really defined Glory yet. But as I take the words for his Glory I agree with it. But your right I should have read point 3 more closely. I take the Amen back save for what I cut and pasted here.

Can't you see that the term "saved" is meaningless when you say to DKH:

They don't, one has to do with a saved person the other has to do with getting saved

Anyone who can be UNSAVED has not ever really been "saved" from anything at all but is only placed in a position of POTENTIAL salvation. Your position and definitions require that you only believe in POTENTIAL justification and POTENTIAL salvation whereas our position means "saved" without the potential of coming into "judgement" (Jn. 4:24) as the issue between "life" and "death" has been completely settled (Jn. 5:24).

You are talking about some other kind of salvation that really can't use or mean "saved" in any kind of conclusive way. Your position can use "save" or "saving" or "shall be saved" but not "saved" as it has no application to your soteriology which denies any conclusive salvation obtained at all because your kind of salvation can be LOST!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Friend, a person is playing word games when they say IT IS POSSIBLE for truly born again believers to lose their salvation when it can only be possible due to what THEY DO or DON'T DO and then tell me that you never said works are necessary to MAINTAIN salvation! If works are the necessary expression of saving faith and it is possible for such to be lost due to not expressing necessary works then do not tell me that necessary works are not essential to MAINTAIN salvation or else there is NO POSSIBLILTY one who has saving faith can be lost.

Anyone with two grains of common sense in their heads can see either you don't know what you are talking about or you are playing word games.

As Michael Corleone once said

Everytime I try to get out they just keep dragging me back in

I'm done with your witch hunt. Its enough to say. Your wrong. I know what it is I believe. You're still back at point of salvation and I'm talking about those who are saved. We aren't talking about the same thing. You refuse to listen. I refuse to continue.

 

[Dr. Walter]

As Michael Corleone once said I'm done with your witch hunt. Its enough to say. Your wrong. I know what it is I believe. You're still back at point of salvation and I'm talking about those who are saved. We aren't talking about the same thing. You refuse to listen. I refuse to continue.

Anyone reading our discussions can easily tell that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth at once.

You cannot tell me or any rational minded person who is reading your explanation that you believe that a person is justified by faith alone without works and then turn around and deny that faith can exist without works.

You canot tell me or any rational minded person who is reading your explanation that you believe that a person gets saved without works but can get lost by failing to express works and still deny a person is saved by works when the only element in this loss of salvation is due to works.

Jesus said "OF ALL which the Father hath given me I SHALL LOSE NOTHING" but you are saying "OF ALL that the Father giveth me SOME MAY BECOME LOST" -

There is no possible way your doctrine can harmonize with that denial by Christ. You have to either change "OF ALL" as this is TOTAL INCLUSIVITY given or change "LOSE NOTHING" as that is total denial of those in that defined inclusivity.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

 

[DHK]

We aren't talking about the same thing. You refuse to listen. I refuse to continue.

As long as you refuse to believe in eternal security you will always be talking about different things. In reality the denial of eternal security ends up to be a works salvation. If it is a "believer" that loses his salvation, for whatever reason, then he must "work" to gain it back again. Since justification is viewed as a one-time act, then any subsequent act is not viewed as justification, but as a work. Therefore it is a works salvation. I believe that is where the confusion lies.

 

[adisciplinedlearner]

Salvation is always by a kind of faith that works by love. This is the only kind of faith that is acceptable to God (Gal. 5:6).

 

[DHK]

No. They don't one has to do with a saved person the other has to do with getting saved.

Not in your eyes. As long as you believe one can lose their salvation then they are both lost. If Thinkingstuff, as a believer now, in the future loses his salvation, then he too is among the unsaved. So your point is moot.
Previously quoted:

Look at the difference:
I said that you said: "Works are necessary to salvation."
You said, "not true," But, "If no faith no works."
The two statements are almost the same. They teach the same.

There is no difference. How can you say there is. One of the statements is a direct quote from you. The other is a summary of your belief. If works are a necessary product of faith, and the person loses that faith, then what must he do to regain it. He must have works of some kind, because justification can only happen once, as is true of the new birth. One cannot be born again and again and again.

Because it didn't follow. Not at all he stood up for Jesus did he not. He proclaimed his faith did he not?

He didn't do much more than anyone else. He called upon the name of the Lord, that is, he put his faith in Christ. We don't call that a "work" per se, for salvation is not of works. The one "work" that he did do was before he called on the name of the Lord, and that was to rebuke the other thief. His last act was in salvation--calling on the name of the Lord. That is not a work.

According to the theology you keep attempting to put on me not my actual theology. You are wrong.

If I am right about my assessment in my understanding of Scripture concerning the thief--and I believe I am, then I am not wrong. Having faith in the Savior is not a work.

Can't I be?

If you are doubtful of Lot then you are doubtful of the Scriptures. Is there a reason to doubt what the Scriptures say about Lot?

Not at all that is your interpretation.

Not just mine, but Dr. Walter's interpretation of what you have been saying as well. We both can't be wrong in understanding what you have been posting. You have been posting what essentially adds up to a works salvation. You keep on tying works to faith. It is one or the other, not both. You say salvation is by faith. Now convince us that that is what you believe. If that is truly what you believe, then you would believe in OSAS.

You're still wrong. Faith saves and in fact let me go back even further. The grace of God saves and when his grace is at work I have faith. Thus faith is an indicator of my salvation.

And would this same paradigm hold true of Lot's life? Was faith an indicator of his salvation?

Not really. I said I was doubtful. I hadn't passed judgement. You already have that he was saved.

True, and at that time you were not convinced.

Again I just above in this post showed you differently.
Oh now I'm a liar. See how this goes?

This should be interesting.

Remember you called me a liar.

Not really.

So, let me show you. I forgot post 76 was a response to your inquiry about why I said what I did in Post 47 so the context of the conversation is previous to post 47 here and here and here So I actually didn't lie.

Are you dyslexic? Go back and read what I said. I said I read every post between 71 and 76 and found nothing that pertained to eschatology. I believe it was post 74 you wanted me to look at. But 74 is a far cry from 47. What did I tell you:

So, I wondered you knew full well that the original post you were inquiring about was post 47 but yo didn't say anything about it even though My reply was to your inquiry in post 76. Who is the disciever now I wonder? Is that the best you can do at redirection?

You said nothing about post 47 to me. Here is what you said:

all you have to do is read the previous post between Dr. Walter and I like post 75, 74,73, 72 etc... How do you define sustained? And How do you define "current context"?

I don't see anything about a post #47 in there. Do you?

Go figure but you're quick to call me liar. Hmmmm. talk about personal attacks. Will you edit that too? Consistency dear DHK. So, I wondered you knew full well that the original post you were inquiring about was post 47 but yo didn't say anything about it even though My reply was to your inquiry in post 76. Who is the disciever now I wonder? Is that the best you can do at redirection?

I didn't call you a liar, but it does look like you unintentionally were mistaken. Perhaps an apology would be due for all the name calling that was just uttered.

That is not entirely true. I explained why I said what I did. It was an explanation of why I said what I said because you asked about it. Capice? I just said if you took it as a tirade then so be it but you obviously needed detailed analysis of it.

It was a tirade, just like the above was a tirade--the need to call me a liar when it is obvious that you are the one that is mistaken.

Thank you for the referrence. Does this apply to everyone or just me?

It applies to all. That is why I spent time yesterday going through a good part of this thread and editing, not just yours, but many others posts. Keep the conversation civil please.