You argree with their soteriology? You know that they do not subscribe to Sola Fide nor to "Once saved always saved", right?
Not exactly. Besides, that wasn't what I was saying. What I meant was that their understanding of the nature of Christ was correct enough to allow for basically a right understanding of His incarnation and any application His nature, person, or work should have on their soteriology. For instance, because they believe Jesus is fully man, fully God, and was bodily raised from the dead they consequently believe he lived a sinless life, is a worthy vicarious substitute, and the only means of atonement or reconciliation with the Father.
If they got stuff like that wrong, the basics, then any professed belief in Christ or claim to salvation would be manifestly false. You see what I mean? I hope that more clearly explains what I was trying to say at least.
As for their soteriology itself -- I don't completely agree with them, no. However, I would argue they do believe in Sola Fide
, the same as I do, just not with the same extreme emphasize that Luther and Calvin did, or at least that that some of their followers do (permitting antinomian errors to eventually be embraced
As for OSAS, well I don't believe that either.
I'm sure that I actually have more in common with Oneness Pentecostal soteriology (and related themes
) than I do Calvinism's. After all I am more or less a modified pentecostal myself, having been raised and brought to faith in the holiness/pentecostal "Church of God" movement.
What may be of interest to you, and something with which I do not agree, is that they believe in baptismal regeneration. Just a tidbit there for ya.
BTW, Even though you are not Orthodox I am interested in your input on this matter. I still see you as a Christian and brother in Christ.
Thank you, both for the audience and the estimation.