Pronomian Zoomer

@BelteshazzarAD @nathancoxey I asked Grok to tell me the history of your interactions with @nathancoxey and it gave me nothing I didn't already know. How long ago was this?

@TorahRight @nathancoxey I believe this all started because he rebuked me when I was disagreeing with a Catholics false doctrines? Perhaps I’m wrong. I don’t understand his refuting me to begin with.

Who’s lying? Someone that says they love God but do NOT keep His commandments. or Someone that says they love God and they DO keep His commandments. ???

@BelteshazzarAD @nathancoxey This may be guilt by association. You can agree with a particular person's statement without having to agree with everything else he/she says.

@nathancoxey @TorahRight I guess I’m wrong? I see you restack people that have specifically said I’m not saved because I don’t belong to their Church.

@BelteshazzarAD @nathancoxey Where does @nathancoxey write that "certain works are required for salvation"?

So this all started because you don’t realize Nathan does believe certain works are required for salvation which is why he restacks the posts of Catholics talking about this stuff. This all started because you said I was straw manning his argument. I was. You don’t have the context of his past posts. They claim they don’t believe in works based salvation. I debate these people all the time. Keep asking questions, pull some teeth, and they then expose their true beliefs. You don’t understand that they play word games.

@BelteshazzarAD @nathancoxey No, I'm Protestant.

@TorahRight @nathancoxey And you’re Catholic?

“Rather than critiquing the sacrificial system, the author [of Hebrews] presents an argument regarding its design and its scope. The Levitical offerings are a part of an earthly system that addresses earthly matters, though put in place by God; the offering of Jesus is a part of a heavenly system that addresses ‘heavenly’ matters. Thus, while the author of Hebrews may present the offering of Jesus as ‘better’ in the sense that the scope and effects are more expansive, this is not a critique in itself. After enacting the first covenant maintained by the people, God both enacts and maintains the second covenant on their behalf but in the heavens—his own dwelling place ... I suspect the author writes to help the people conceive of how they might reconcile the work of Christ in conjunction with, not in opposition to, the work of the Levites.” —Maddison N. Pierce, “Relapsing, Reverting, or Rejecting? The Purpose of Hebrews and Early Jewish Religion,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament (2026): 22–23.

@BelteshazzarAD @nathancoxey Yes.

@TorahRight @nathancoxey So the two things needed for justification surround believe in Jesus, who He is, and what He did. Am I understanding your response correctly?

@BelteshazzarAD @nathancoxey I'm not a Catholic and I don't believe what you have described.

Let me put it this way and ask you a question. I appreciate your being honest so far with your beliefs, thank you. So if someone in the 3rd world is given a Bible (happens) and reads it, studies it, and truly believes Jesus is who He says He is, died and rose again… But wasn’t able to get physically baptized by your church because there wasn’t one around, and doesn’t take your Eucharist… God is sending them to Hell despite their true faith because they didn’t complete certain ritual actions. Do you believe that? Because every Catholic except for one I’ve spoken with believes this. This is what the Catholic Church teaches.

@BelteshazzarAD @nathancoxey Here is the list. There are really only two things needed for justification. The rest is sanctification, which while necessary for the Christian life is not required for salvation itself.

I know what you believe i debate you people all the time. You believe you need faith AND certain actions to attain salvation/grace. You believe it’s a process. If I’m wrong, correct me, and list EVERYTHING one must do in their life to be saved. (Same question I ask you all. You all lie. I dig deeper and eventually all the little details of what you believe is required come out. Have the courage of your convictions and just listen them all so we can discuss it)

@JoshuaEnsley x.com/DavidWilberBlo…

Let the pronomian understand.

@JoshuaEnsley Source of screenshot: learnreligions.com/five-point-cal…

Quote mining people for your argument who fundamentally disagree with your conclusion is not good scholarship. Actually, it's dishonest. This is the issue with much Pronomian scholarship. Pronomian authors provide a quote from someone like John MacArthur or Craig Keener that seems to align with the pronomian conclusion, but they actually do not. Otherwise, they would be pronomians!

@JoshuaEnsley @BBJames_ Technically, I was asking about Bahnsen himself, not "the divines."

@BBJames_ @TorahRight @DavidWilberBlog Just anything that might show that the divines would see restoration of the temple sacrifices as unorthodox or even heretical.

@JoshuaEnsley I thought you were a pronomian Reformed Baptist in the same way that I'm a pronomian General Baptist - generally agreeing with most of the denomination's tenets.

@TorahRight @DavidWilberBlog I was a Calvinist even when you thought I was a pronomian. Do you see how your redefining of Bahnsen's spectrum has caused yet another mischaracterization?

@JoshuaEnsley @Beginningwisdom @DavidWilberBlog x.com/DavidWilberBlo…

Right. I remember this video. Averbeck clearly is being taken out of context and his conclusions ignored by those who use his work to support Pronomian theology. That's like me as a reformed Baptist using a quote from Calvin when he is discussing recipients of baptism that in a vacuum sounds like we agree and then conveniently not explaining that his conclusion is entirely contrary to mine.

"[T]he apostle Paul even performed purification procedures and sacrificial procedures in the temple. He saw no conflict between this and his acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for his eternal salvation. The Old Testament sacrifices and that of Yeshua never stood in conflict with each other. Both were efficacious, but on different levels. Paul knew this. The writer of Hebrews knew this. The people in the Jerusalem church knew this. Everyone who understood the Law knew this." —Richard Averbeck, The Old Testament Law for the Life of the Church: Reading the Torah in the Light of Christ (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2022), 338.

@JoshuaEnsley @DavidWilberBlog I apologize for saying you ate unclean meats. Every Calvinist I've read/heard says the dietary laws were "ceremonial," so I assumed you believed that too.

1) You make assumptions about me without warrant. I've not intentionally eaten unclean meats since about 2009. 2) Janzen is not a pronomian in any sense because he is not a Christian. To truly be an obedient person to God's Law is to obey the first commandment of loving God with ones mind, but Jenzen teaches that Jesus is not God, instead refusing to love God with his mind by submitting in mind to the fact that he's God!

@JoshuaEnsley @DavidWilberBlog I got this video on my recommendation feed a couple months ago, and I was studying the subject of Gentile circumcision at the time so I watched it out of curiosity. It's been at least a month since I've watched anything from either of these YouTubers.

@TorahRight @DavidWilberBlog You've got to stop listening to these heretics like Sean and Matthew, dude.

@JoshuaEnsley @DavidWilberBlog ...myself since he does some offerings on his homestead, but that wouldn't automatically make him correct and mean that I'm an antinomian. 2/2 youtube.com/live/FSxhUaxtY…

@JoshuaEnsley @DavidWilberBlog I personally think you are disobeying God's law by, for example, eating unclean meats and not keeping the Sabbath on Saturday. Again, I am addressing "pronomian" and "antinomian" as a spectrum. It could theoretically be argued that Matthew Janzen is more "pronomian" than... 1/2

@JoshuaEnsley @DavidWilberBlog ...mainstream Reformed view of the Torah, and I have read Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics which speaks similarly (though with the "civil law" added to the "applicable today" part). 2/2

@JoshuaEnsley @DavidWilberBlog I was not claiming you to "say we don't obey God's law." You obey God's law as you view it to be as such today, as do I. The two of us differ on what exactly it is. I understand the Principle & Expression Framework of R.L. Solberg's which goes off the... 1/2