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

To: xzins; OrthodoxPresbyterian
I am not trying to be difficult, but notice my first post about "U" in 302. (Posted prior to reading OPie's comments about the propriety of moving ahead without an understanding of your objections, comments with which I fully agree.)

Note that I had to insert a parenthetical comment about "T" in order to give what I considered a proper definition of "U". It would be extremely helpful, as OPie has pointed out, for us to either have concurrence on "T" or a discussion about your objections, prior to proceeding. I truly believe that this will foster understanding.

344 posted on 02/27/2002 1:44:53 PM PST by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies ]


To: Jerry_M; xzins; OrthodoxPresbyterian
I am not trying to be difficult, but notice my first post about "U" in 302. (Posted prior to reading OPie's comments about the propriety of moving ahead without an understanding of your objections, comments with which I fully agree.)

Actually, I might be willing to let him define all 5 points. But I would expect that he show us that he fully understands our 5 points by rephrasing them and giving them back to us with a few scripture references. I believe he is familiar with this from his family counseling he has done.

351 posted on 02/27/2002 2:11:55 PM PST by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies ]

To: Jerry_M, xzins, CCWoody, the_doc, RnMomof7, Ward Smythe
I am not trying to be difficult, but notice my first post about "U" in 302. (Posted prior to reading OPie's comments about the propriety of moving ahead without an understanding of your objections, comments with which I fully agree.) Note that I had to insert a parenthetical comment about "T" in order to give what I considered a proper definition of "U". It would be extremely helpful, as OPie has pointed out, for us to either have concurrence on "T" or a discussion about your objections, prior to proceeding. I truly believe that this will foster understanding.

Exactly right (sorry I did not get home in time to make this point myself; kudos to Jerry). The proper understanding of the First Point undergirds the definition of all the succeeding points.

If you do agree with the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity, we may have hopeful expectation that you will correctly understand our definition of the succeeding points. If you do not agree with it, not only is it unnecessary to proceed (we have critical grounds for discussion right there!), but we object to proceeding on the grounds that the definitional character of the First Point is absolutely requisite to the definition of succeeding points.

Ergo, before we proceed, we must respectfully but insistently request a summary judgment as to the Biblical rectitude of the Doctrine of Total Depravity. It is absolutely foundational to any further definitions we would offer, and must be addressed before we proceed.

Thank you.

Best,
OP

359 posted on 02/27/2002 5:23:45 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | 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