I thought that doctrine was reformational and Pauline. Simul justus et
peccator.  Finney was a pelagian heretic.  Simul justus et peccator is not
in that category.
Stan


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Chad R. Bresson [SMTP:breusswane@...]
> Sent:	Friday, October 15, 2004 10:01 AM
> To:	soundofgrace@...
> Subject:	RE: [soundofgrace] Romans 7 - Terry to Moe
> 
> --- "Brown, Stanley" <SPBrown@...> wrote:
> > The reason we still sin is because we still have a sin nature, without
> which
> > we will not be able to sin as will be the case in the resurrection.  
> 
> We already have the resurrection as our nature in union with Christ's
> resurrection,
> the firstfruits of our regeneration.  Regeneration *means* what was once
> dead (sin
> nature) is now alive (new nature).
> 
> Nowhere does the scripture state that the regenerated New Creation has a
> sin nature.
>  That doctrine is a manufactured fiction of Finneyism... the outgrowth of
> second
> blessing/Keswickian's "I surrender All" interpretation of Romans 7.
> 
> Chad Bresson
> Xenia, OH
> 
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
> 
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
> 
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
> 
>