Recently a discussion has advanced concerning the Reformed doctrine of
sola scriptura. In part, this precipitated out of my reference to yet
another Reformed doctrine, that of total depravity. The reason for
that was that all doctrines, in the final analysis, rest on one's view
of just where man stands in relation to God. This was the logical
foundation from which Paul wrote his great treatise in Romans.

My dilemma now is how to approach the issue of TD (total depravity).
It is really totally useless to discuss the doctrine of sola scriptura
without first visiting the doctrine of TD. The dilemma stems from the
fact that within Christian theism, there are two schools of thought,
that of the so called Calvinist and that of the so called Arminianist.
How do I do justice to both while yet distinguishes one from the other?
Do I list the fundamental principles of Arminianism and then
Calvinism, each treated separately or do I list the principles and from
within that list discuss **briefly** the relations of each camp to it?
For the moment I am at a loss for I do not know which would best serve
the readership and more importantly, lead to discussions, not rock
hurling.

I guess first it must be stated that there is no avenue by which either
of these schools of thought may be synthesized or commingled except
that each agrees on principle that there is a gospel of salvation
(sinners may be regenerated and sanctified) and that the influence of
regeneration and sanctification are best understood when each is
thought of in pure and simple terms. With that as an introduction,
then why not just list the basic principles involved.

1) Man cannot at once and the same time be both totally and partially
depraved.
2) Election cannot at once be both unconditional and conditional.
3) Regenerating grace cannot at once be both irresistible and
resistible.
4) Redemption cannot at once be both limited and unlimited.
5) Perseverance of the saint cannot at once be both certain and
uncertain.

Now it is asked of the reader to understand that all these doctrines
are correlative. All these doctrines rest on one's presuppositional
view of the true nature of man after the "fall." This is obvious
because there would be no need to even broach the doctrine of
regeneration or the necessity of redemption if man had not in true
space-time-history, fallen from grace. Now let me see if I can fairly
represent each camp.

Arminianism holds that election is subsequent to faith and preterition
is subsequent to perseverance in unbelief. Of late there have been
postings which declare this school of thinking. God elects an
individual because his faith is said to be foreseen. In contrast, God
omits to bestow regenerating grace upon an individual because of the
individuals persistence in sin and un