Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; xzins
Speaking on behalf of the Calvinists, we will respectfully refuse to consider further points of the Remonstration (the 5-point debate) until our definition of the T is either disproven as Biblical, or accepted as Biblical.

Otherwise what? You'll take your Institutes and go home?

Respectfully, you forgot to say "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo."

303 posted on 02/27/2002 12:54:42 PM PST by Ward Smythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies ]


To: Ward Smythe, xzins, the_doc, Jerry_M, CCWoody, RnMomof7
Otherwise what? You'll take your Institutes and go home? Respectfully, you forgot to say "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo."

Respectfully, my point stands, whether or not I should care to annex a "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo" to my statement of the point.

If our definition of Total Depravity is Biblically incorrect, then there is no need to procede to the next point of the Remonstration; our position would be groundless.

On The Other Hand, if our definition of Total Depravity is Biblically correct, we may then examine the next point to determine the rectitude thereof.

Ergo, we request the arminian objection (if any) to the doctrine of Total Depravity, summed in one sentence, or your agreement that the doctrine of Total Depravity, as stated, is Biblically Correct.

After that point is addressed, we shall be delighted to proceed.

So, naturally, I expect that you will kindly either address our definition, or agree thereto, before we proceed. Thanks.

Best,
Op

320 posted on 02/27/2002 1:07:48 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson