You flatter yourself. In your original post you said:
Brock comes from the Campbellite tradition (which denies original sin altogether); Parker comes from the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition (which claims that the depravity inherent in original sin is neutralized by universal prevenient grace); and Crossan comes from the Romanist position which assumes that, whatever original sin is, it is easily washed away by holy water.
The implication following your statement about Brock is that the Wesleyan-Armenian tradition says sin is neutralized by prevenient grace. That is not true, whether you meant to imply it or not.
I'm inclined to agree with Shadow that this discussion is better served on the other thread. I don't think any of us have a problem with the fact that the "ministers" in this article aren't anywhere close to the truth.
I maintain from 1 Corinthians 2:14 and numerous other Scriptures that regeneration (the new birth) necessarily precedes repentance unto life. In other words, I maintain that fallen man's spiritual depravity is so profound that an unregenerate sinner will NEVER embrace saving truth.
Notice that if this position is correct, then all of the other tenets of the predestinarian position follow from it.
Taking your lead from your denominational leader (Wesley), who professed to hate the God of predestination, you have evaded the implications of 1 Corinthians 2:14 and other such verses by postulating a universal prevenient grace which overrules the obvious sense of the verse. You maintain that a natural man (non-born-again sinner) can savingly receive the things of God. You maintain that God uses prevenient grace to make sure this is the case.
The problem is, your "helpful" qualification of 1 Corinthians 2:14 makes that verse completely trite. So, I say that 1 Corinthians 2:14 stands with me against your Wesleyan-Arminian position. You are being too shallow. You are, in fact, violating 1 Corinthians 3. You are refusing the teachings of apostle Paul, preferring Wesley's theories instead.
If you will go back and look at my argument in an openminded way, you will see that I was on target when I said that you have postulated a universal prevenient grace as neutralizing total depravity. Your claim that an unregenerate sinner can savingly embrace the gospel renders the doctrine of total depravity meaningless. It also renders the doctrine of election meaningless. It also renders Romans 9 meaningless. It also renders John 3:5 meaningless. It also renders John 6:44 meaningless. It also renders 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 meaningless.
All of these verses will start making sense to you for the first time in your life if you will forsake your party spirit.