[xzins]

You weren't part of the decision to do this. The point arose because we Arminians kept being accused of misunderstanding the various points of tulip (not just the T.) This has nothing to do with proving it or disproving it. It has to do with YOUR helping us to understand it correctly so we will be better able to speak to it.

Now, are you gonna be a stick in the mud, or are you gonna help with this project? :-)

[Jerry_M]

" It has to do with YOUR helping us to understand it correctly so we will be better able to speak to it."

And that is exactly what we are doing. How do we know if you fully understand it unless we see your (hopefully succinct) objection?

[xzins]

Jerry, you know the purpose was correct understanding.

There is nothing to prevent my posting my condensations and considering your silence to be a nod that we go ahead and use them. Then you can object to it and we can iron it out amidst discussion.

Why get weird on us at this point? It's a definition, man.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

You weren't part of the decision to do this. The point arose because we Arminians kept being accused of misunderstanding the various points of tulip (not just the T.) This has nothing to do with proving it or disproving it. It has to do with YOUR helping us to understand it correctly so we will be better able to speak to it. Now, are you gonna be a stick in the mud, or are you gonna help with this project? :-)

I am going to be a stick in the mud.

I request a summary judgment as to the rectitude of the Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity before we proceed.

If that doctrine is biblically incorrect, any further definitions will be a waste of time. If, OTOH, that doctrine is correct, then it will inform our consideration of latter points (including the definition thereof).

So, if there is an arminian objection to the doctrine of Total Depravity, let's hear it.
If not, we'll move to the next point.

Thanks,
OP