Hello, all my theology geek friends.

We are going to be talking about the differences between Armenianism and

provisionism.

And we are going to get into the nitty-gritty.

Now, some of this we've gone over before.

I just recently was brought to my attention this particular video by Nicholas.

And you can see there on the screen that he is trying to help the people there at the society

of evangelical Armenians understand the difference between provisionism,

as taught by Sociology 101 by myself,

and that which Brana Bichano and those of the Society of Evangelical Armenians

and how they would typically teach the doctrine of total depravity with regard to humanity's fall, the result of that fall, and the need for grace.

We all believe that there's a need for grace, obviously.

But what is the means of grace?

What does God do in order to allow for people to respond to his

truth? Is the gospel sufficient? Is the proclamation of the gospel sufficient? Or must the gospel

proclamation be preceded by or accompanied with some kind of inner illuminating supernatural grace, which either one ontologically changes the nature of humanity from a fallen condition to a less fallen condition or from a enslaved condition to a less enslaved condition, whether it's partial regeneration, which I don't believe Nicholas holds to or

Brian Nabashano holds to, but maybe Roger Olson does. It gets into a lot of the nuance. This is one of

the reasons I put in the show notes there. There's some nitty gritty here, and you may be saying

we're slicing it pretty thin here as far as our disagreements. I get that. But I wanted to reply

directly to this particular video and the

article that he's quoting from Famaika that we've addressed before because I really do think

it answers some major points of contention and one of the reasons that I think, and I'll love

...