Certain reformed doctrines are still intensely debated - and given the number of locked threads concerning these, I hope we could focus our discussion on simply the roots of the issues. For eg: instead of discussing Unconditional Election as such, we could try more specifically discussing if God is indeed partial or not, as the doctrine seemingly implies - and instead of discussing Total Depravity as a whole, we could discuss if God commands the impossible of man and still holds him responsible for failure or not. For it's not the reformed doctrines themselves that are problematic but rather the character of God that these paint - we could try discussing if and where we differ on the very attributes of God to clear up possible misconceptions on either side. If I may, I'd like to start with the attributes of God as seen in reference to Gal 3. Gal 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. This is referring to God's promise to Abraham - "In you shall all the nations be blessed" (Gen 12:3, Gal 3:8). And the law is said to annul this promised blessing because of the curse it effects on all (Gal 3:10). And Christ upholds the promise by redeeming us from the curse (Gal 3:13-14). Neither can the blessing to the children of Abraham come by means of the law since that would then violate the promise (Gal 3:18) - which we know the law does not and cannot do, since the law was never meant to give life (Gal 3:21). The first point I'd like to discuss over is - Is God fair or unfair in holding people to the curse of a law that was never meant to be a provision of life? Is it acceptable to command man to obey the law and judge him for not doing so, while knowing fully the inevitable intended outcome is that of disobedience?