I think that may be a little strong,but I can not get a handle on their error.
Osas seems to be a requirement for them,but if challenged they meld it into hyperbolic criticism of offense that anyone would dare question their "foundation".
It seems like a 3 tiered modern day deception."(I will have to look into it further)
1osas
2 extend grace,leave out the "dying" of Paul,over react to a perceived negative,and march their doctrine down everyone's throat.
3 a question birthed out of the first 2. Did universalism use this for a foundation?
Osas seems to be a requirement for them,but if challenged they meld it into hyperbolic criticism of offense that anyone would dare question their "foundation".
It seems like a 3 tiered modern day deception."(I will have to look into it further)
1osas
2 extend grace,leave out the "dying" of Paul,over react to a perceived negative,and march their doctrine down everyone's throat.
3 a question birthed out of the first 2. Did universalism use this for a foundation?
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck it is a duck.
The problem is praise and tongues. The songs appear the same and some of the language but the actual doctrines, the words that come out of them and their deeds are not.
Now I did not choose this battle, I just shared what was on my heart. It is obviously a different spirit to the ones expressed by others, so I have to draw simple conclusions. We talk of spiritual kingdoms and authorities, that the Holy Spirit witnesses to our hearts as a seal of His covenant with us. At what point do you say enough is enough. I have done that in myself, and come to definitive conclusions.
I encourage you to look further and ask the Lord. That is all.