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

To: JerryM, OrthodoxPresbyterian
Both of you, ref 853.

I answered Ortho's "T" question last night as I said I would once I completed the basic posting. (We still disagree....there's a surprise.) You 2 should live up to your word and edit the remaining TULIP definitions. I'm sincere in my desire to have them be accurate. You can look at it as a continual process of editing until you finally work them into the shape you want. I'll do the same with the Arminian stuff.

854 posted on 03/01/2002 5:43:05 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies ]


To: xzins, Jerry_M, CCWoody, RnMomof7
I answered Ortho's "T" question last night as I said I would once I completed the basic posting. (We still disagree....there's a surprise.)

No you haven't.

We requested an OBJECTION to the Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity.

As we saw in my #769 (to which there have been *no* replies), your "objection", when rationalized with Proverbs 21:1, in fact requires Calvinism.



So you have not fulfilled your end of the bargain. If Proverbs 21:1 is true (and it is), then your "Objection" only reinforces Calvinism:

But we didn't ask you to reinforce our views, but to offer an objection thereto. So far, you have not done so.

Have you any objections to the Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity?

881 posted on 03/01/2002 7:39:54 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | 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