Peter Lumpkins Responds... sorta

Peter responded to my post, sort-of.  He seems to shrug-off the fact that the quotes he specifically used were of James White quoting Al Mohler.

I remember White's words specifically during that Dividing Line broadcast, cause I was in #prosapologian typing:

||Micah ||  No, that's not semi-pelagian
||Micah ||  that's fully pelagian.

I do not dispute that James White said Harwood's statements were semi-Pelagian in nature, my point was that from the quote provided by Lumpkins, his main issue appeared to be with Al Mohler.

It's shocking that there are folks in the SBC proposing the same views as the cultic Church of Christ, but given their attitude toward White, Calvinism and anything they cannot seem to wrap their head around, (and I doubt Peter even heard of "Pelagious" [sic] before the podcast.) Original sin, and the idea of Adam's sin imputed to his offspring is foundational to understanding Christ's righteousness imputed to believers.

We are told in Scripture that "many died through one man's trespass", "because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man", "one trespass led to condemnation for all men" and "by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners".  (Rom 5).  Now one may argue that Adam's sin only made men potential sinners, or left them in a state where'd they'd be sinners. But Scripture doesn't stop there: "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." The point Paul is making here is not simply that Adam's sin made us potential sinners, or even made us likely sinners, rather Adam's sin is our sin. We sinned in Adam. This is why Paul stats "even over those whose sinning was not like... Adam".  Paul is setting up the imputation of Christ's righteousness, for he follows with: "much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ."

Now, if Paul's point here is simply that Adam's sin has made us sin-able but not guilty because of it, how can one say that Christ's death has made us righteous without us likewise being righteous in works.  That is, if we're required to sin to be sinners, we must be required to be holy to be reckoned as holy.  The entire basis for our salvation by grace alone through faith alone is lost.

What isn't shocking is that the discussion of someone's doctrine and the rightful identification of it (Harwood's view IS Pelagian, as I showed in my previous post) is declared "verbal-abuse" and "slander" by the likes of drpenn and Craig Delassio's favorite mouthpiece, while their derogatory comments are left on display with little more than a tsk-tsk from Peter. We've come to expect that kind of language and ad hominem from Peter and his krew... one wonders if their behavior is representative of the majority of the SBC . If so, it might explain why their numbers continue to fall precipitously.