Search results

I agree that there is no salvation of humans without the existence of humans.

Again, I've not heard what you're espousing. You seem to be saying it's widespread. Yet it's rejected by catholics and all mainline protestants and evangelicals influenced by the reformation. That's a wide net and seems to leave us with few alternatives, but who are they? Can you name a...

I agree. I would say even our faith must be laid at God's feet with gratitude. But the word for counted, reckoned, etc. (logizomai) is where I put the emphasis regarding our salvation. There is essentially no difference between believers and unbelievers, apart from God's choice to count one...

As one without a specific label for my view, I agree.

I'm not sure what you believe I'm saying about your view. I'm merely repeating what you're telling me, and agreeing you're not a pelagian. I don't believe semipelagians are pelagian either. If you want to expand on your disagreement with the catholic (and protestant) view of original sin feel...

I would say the view you describe above, is actually a works based security, which is problematic. We all sin and John says. If we can sin our way out of salvation, we're in trouble.

No question your view differs from Pelagius. I wouldn't say, however, that you are nowhere near him. Your view is unique to say the least. In common, you both deny a sin nature, and both see no significant change in Adam pre and post fall. But I'm not saying you're a pelagian. You're...

I've always been a bit unique on this, but based on Romans 4, I'm a Monergist and believe it's compatible with some Arminian thinking. The key is the term accounted, or reckoned, which is 100% of God. IOWs, it's not about the faith or where it comes from, but accounting of that faith. Only...

Oh, and I wanted to address this as well. This is a primary sentiment of the gnostic movement, where they emphasized this distinction. Flesh was bad, spirit was good. For this reason, they denied Jesus had any fleshly component. The problem, of course, was that he was flesh, in fact 100%...

The view you express is consistent with one I've seen among some calvinists, particularly those subscribing to supralapsarianism, with the exception of the denial of the sin nature. I haven't head that, in fact, they vehemently affirm Adam's fall and postlapsarian sin nature. John Calvin...

Let's hope this pattern holds. CDC Confirms 12th Straight Week of Declining Coronavirus Deaths

I highly doubt the men in that video stomping out the life of the woman were doing it for Marxism. There are violent marxists out there to be sure, but they're simply piggybacking on a manifesting racial movement. This is the lie that drives these acts. Keep telling this lie, and you'll see...

Experts: Children Rarely Transmit Coronavirus

My God.

It's been a while since I hashed in this out in depth. But the pelagian position, in essence, denies the fall, positing that Adam really didn't undergo any type of change in his nature. This would seem to be contradicted by the knowledge Adam immediately received after partaking—knowing he was...

I just realized too, this may be a full hijack of this tread. May be best to pursue elsewhere.

That would be a full pelagian position. I would have figured you leaned semipelagian, but not full. Semis believe in a sin nature, a change after the fall, making obedience and faith difficult but not impossible. Arminians and Calvinists believe it's impossible apart from God's intervention...

Which would imply Adam was created with a sin nature. If everything is exactly the same, there's no way around it. But this is error, similar to the pelagian error. The truth is, Adam was created "very good" along with everything else at the completion of creation on day six. He had not yet...

Yes, I think so. Just as in Hebrews 6 who are enlightened, but not yet embracing the gospel and exercising saving faith. But then he goes on to say that he believed otherwise about his audience. Heb. 10:39 But we do not belong to those who shrink back and are destroyed, but to those who have...

Paul was speaking to Romans, and he was speaking of both jews and gentiles.