A
Because people change definitions and want to maintain we are sound legitimate believers,
here is one simple thrust or approach:
If you approve of Paul Ellis, Wommack, escapetoreality web site you are HG.
If the sermon on the mount is condemnation and not freedom, you are HG.
Now I disagree with this theology.
It is pointless discussing minor points of how works are the fruit, when fundamentally
we hold a different view of salvation and spirituality.
Now believers in churches, may not buy into this school of thought, so they may listen
to these preachers but not be part of the theology. I personally could not.
Now what I am getting at is works or righteous walking have different outcomes depending
on your faith view. For some, some believers are not believers so works are impossible.
For some even pleasing God is not possible except by Jesus's covering.
So the question is actually just a device to say you people are legalists.
I have always walked by faith, and good works are the fruit.
But this does not stop people saying I am a works believer.
What I find amusing is as I express my security in the cross not OSAS I must
be evil. And HG lack of morality is appalling. So much denial and simple cover
up with accusations of others being deceivers is obvious fear of discovery.
A faith with no morality is easy believism, because the follower only has their
own personal view to guide them. They hide behind scripture they disown, behind
tradition and culture they despise.
And the response is abuse because they have nothing else.
here is one simple thrust or approach:
If you approve of Paul Ellis, Wommack, escapetoreality web site you are HG.
If the sermon on the mount is condemnation and not freedom, you are HG.
Now I disagree with this theology.
It is pointless discussing minor points of how works are the fruit, when fundamentally
we hold a different view of salvation and spirituality.
Now believers in churches, may not buy into this school of thought, so they may listen
to these preachers but not be part of the theology. I personally could not.
Now what I am getting at is works or righteous walking have different outcomes depending
on your faith view. For some, some believers are not believers so works are impossible.
For some even pleasing God is not possible except by Jesus's covering.
So the question is actually just a device to say you people are legalists.
I have always walked by faith, and good works are the fruit.
But this does not stop people saying I am a works believer.
What I find amusing is as I express my security in the cross not OSAS I must
be evil. And HG lack of morality is appalling. So much denial and simple cover
up with accusations of others being deceivers is obvious fear of discovery.
A faith with no morality is easy believism, because the follower only has their
own personal view to guide them. They hide behind scripture they disown, behind
tradition and culture they despise.
And the response is abuse because they have nothing else.
1. Only Christ righteousness is good enough to gain entrance into heaven.
2. I have yet to see anyone say good works are impossible, so that is a strawmen of your making. Unless you mean that your good works are impossible to earn salvation then it would be a true statement.
3. What do you have faith in if you reject OSAS? What do you mean that you have security in the cross?
4. Drop the hyper grace attacks. If you want to have at it with G777, you can do it in his thread. Otherwise it just mucks up the issues because I know most aren't supporters of the hyper grace movement.