[xzins]

You probably posted it while I was in a rush to leave for church last night. I don't recall reading it. What definition would you prefer? Go ahead and spell it out and I'll replace what I have.

[Jerry_M]

Well, my first draft take on "U" was in 302, and that was posted before we decided not to go any further, so I know that you had opportunity to read it.

However, you have told us that you disagree with our "T", so why go on? You would believe that our basis is incorrect, thus why any more effort?

I do note that you dismissed our "T" out of hand, but didn't bother to tell us why. That doesn't do anything in promoting understanding.

Here is where we stand: The Calvinist says that "Natural Man is totally sinful and does not ever WANT in his own spirit to know Christ". The non-Calvinist says, "No he isn't!". The Calvinist then says, "Without understanding the true state of sinful man it is meaningless to discuss how that sinful man obtains salvation". Stalemate.