The inconsistencies of the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace

[Hammster]

Right. I showed what it doesn't say, but which it seems you are wanting it to say.


And I gave my explanation of why neither verse supports your view.


No, that'd be on you.


OK, no problem. You've been caught, and you know it, so there's nothing left to discuss.

That's what I get every time a poster gets cornered. They cease to discuss. Which is your freedom.

But just remember: you claimed that God orders "whatsoever comes to pass". Sin sin has come to pass, that's a statement that God orders sin.

You can't get around it. So the only avenue left for you is to exit.



I understand.

When you are willing to deal with what it says, I’ll respond further. Otherwise

 

[FreeGrace2]

When you are willing to deal with what it says, I’ll respond further. Otherwise

Odd answer. I did. What, specifically, are you referring to?

I'm willing to deal with anything, as you well know. I don't dodge questions, or put people on 'ignore', or any of those things.

So, tell me "what it says" and I'll deal with it gladly. But, at this point, I don't know what you are referring to.

So, if you enlighten me on the specifics, then I will deal.

 

[His student]

God knows everything He does because He is the One Who has chosen to do it. God does everything He has always known He will do.

.............. Bingo! Thanks for the affirmation of my point. You have just subserved God's omniscience to His sovereignty. What God chooses to do comes from His sovereignty.

"Comes from"? Word games again. (edit)

Is it really your position that God knows things He will do which He hasn't chosen to do?

That would make His sovereignty "subservient" to His knowledge.

But His attributes always work together and are not divisible.

A couple of the definitions of "define" are to limit with established rules or parameters AND to fix or mark the limits of: to demarcate

Like I said, God's attributes "define" each other. That is to say that when you see one in action, as it were, it is not being exercised outside of the parameters of the others.

Concerning His attribute of being a Trinity: E.g. - when you have seen the Son you seen the Father. & In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. & My Word which proceeds from My mouth shall not return to me void but shall accomplish everything I sent Him forth to accomplish. & They seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist. & By Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him.

I've asked you before (edit). Exactly what do you think God is doing while I type these words which God has always known I will type - popping out for a bit of popcorn for when He watches the show of someone who exists in His Word doing things the Word and His Father haven't chosen to do?

If you think the God of the scriptures does things He hasn't decreed done - I've got a religion in Salt Lake you can subscribe to.

 

[FreeGrace2]

"Comes from"? Word games again. You're a piece of work.

Thanks for the unChristian insult.

What do you mean "comes from"? Neither of us used those words in what was quoted.

Is it really your position that God knows things He will do which He hasn't chosen to do?

Of course not. Don't be so silly. And don't twist words just to suit yourself.

The point is clear; you HAVE subserved God's omniscience to His sovereignty.

That would make His sovereignty "subservient" to His knowledge.

Which I do Not agree with.

But His attributes always work together and are not divisible.

Your statement is clear enough. You actually put God's omniscience UNDER His sovereignty by what you posted.

Do you not understand what your post indicates??

Like I said, God's attributes "define" each other.

No they don't. Your claim doesn't make it true.

That is to say that when you see one in action, as it were, it is not being exercised outside of the parameters of the others.

This is just smoke'n mirrors. As if one attribute needs another attribute for action. That isn't true and you can't prove it.

Concerning His attribute of being a Trinity: E.g. - when you have seen the Son you seen the Father. & In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. & My Word which proceeds from My mouth shall not return to me void but shall accomplish everything I sent Him forth to accomplish. & They seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist. & By Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him.

God's Triune nature isn't the discussion.

I've asked you before oh shallow one.

Hey, you're pretty good at unChristian insults. Takes a lot of practice.

Exactly what do you think God is doing while I type these words which God has always known I will type - popping out for a bit of popcorn for when He watches the show of someone who exists in His Word doing things the Word and His Father haven't chosen to do?

Without any offense meant, your question is quite dumb.

If you think the God of the scriptures does things He hasn't decreed done - I've got a religion in Salt Lake you can subscribe to.

Yep. Just keep on practicing.

If you think God has ordered "whatsoever comes to pass", which means "ordered" to Calvinists, then you're beyond help in understanding Scripture.

Because that would directly lead to the conclusion that God ordered sin.

Do you believe that He did?

If not, then QUIT claiming that "whatsoever comes to pass" hasn't been ordered or decreed.

Or, let's try this. Provide any verse that tells us that God has decreed "whatsoever comes to pass".

 

[His student]

Without any offense meant, your question is quite dumb.

Actually it's quite pertinent. (edit.)

What do you mean "comes from"? Neither of us used those words in what was quoted.

Bingo! Thanks for the affirmation of my point. You have just subserved God's omniscience to His sovereignty. What God chooses to do comes from His sovereignty.

Are you OK?
I'm going to go back to ignoring you. (edit)

 

[FreeGrace2]

Actually it's quite pertinent. But you're beyond understand how it is.


Are you OK?

I'm going to go back to ignoring you. You were always irritating because of the games you like to play but now you seem to have lost contact with reality as well.

You just keep up all that practice on unChristian insulting. You're getting rather good at it.

Regarding game playing, it's quite obvious why you don't debate. You have no answers.

 

[His student]

You just keep up all that practice on unChristian insulting. You're getting rather good at it.

I really should have known better than to engage you in conversation again after ignoring you for so long.

Unfortunately you bring out the worst in people. But then I think that's your intention.

But - you're right. I really should exercise more self control. I promised one of the moderators that I'd do my best not to resort to these kinds of things when talking with people like yourself.

For that reason alone I'm self editing my last posts to you - for what it's worth.

I'm hoping to hear from Jack on a more positive note. We'll see how it goes.

If he and I were to begin a productive dialog, you could read along and perhaps grow from it even though you will be ignored by me if and when you chime in.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Interesting that you should stipulate "without considering anything else" since the statement so obviously contains a great deal more than that.

Do you cherry pick the scriptures and purposefully take them out of context without bringing others to bear on them as well when establish your doctrine?

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves."

"Now without considering anything else; what does the above statement mean?"

I can hardly wait to ask him about it. I’m pretty sure He’ll explain His purpose to all to us.

“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.” 1 Corinthians 13:12

1) The WCF isn't Scripture (just in case you weren't aware).
2) Here is the issue; what the WCF is trying to do is justify unScriptural beliefs.
3) The reason I said to not consider anything else, was to get you to focus on what was actually written in that text.
4) The text states that God decreed "whatsoever comes to pass". There is NO ESCAPE from those words! You can't stand up in court and say, I planned the whole thing, gave the order to have it done, but since I didn't actually commit the crime, I'm not culpable! God decreed the sin of Adam, prior to Adam being created, and Adam had no power to override the decree of God.

That is the point!

 

[His student]

The WCF isn't Scripture (just in case you weren't aware).

The principle of it not being right to quote a partial statement by someone in order to misrepresent what they are saying holds true for common material as well as inspired.

Here is the issue; what the WCF is trying to do is justify unScriptural beliefs.

The issue is that the WCF made a comprehensive statement that tells us that God ordains that your actions will come to pass. It does not say - as you so dishonestly say it does - that God decides what you will do and then makes you do it or holds you responsible for what He Himself did.

That's a dishonest representation of what the WCF clearly tells us.

The reason I said to not consider anything else, was to get you to focus on what was actually written in that text.

The reason you said to not consider anything else was to get people to focus on part of the statement and thus come to a misunderstanding of the statement in it's totality. Most of us here see right through your duplicity.

The text states that God decreed "whatsoever comes to pass". There is NO ESCAPE from those words! ........

The text states that God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

There is NO ESCAPE from those words unless you can get some gullible new believer to look at part of them out of their complete context.

And that's the shame of what you and what's his name have been doing. You are looking to mislead gullible new believers concerning what Reformed theologians believe and teach in order to turn one part of the Body of Christ against another.

Shame on you both - and you an ordained Baptist minister.

 

[His student]

I’m amazed that the Johnny-come-latelies who attack this statement on internet forums really think they are adding some new insight to what the 150+ Westminster Divines considered for over 5 years when dealing with these concepts.

The WCF isn’t infallible nor does it claim to be. I have some issues with a few of the conclusions the WCF myself.

But these are some of the weightier sections of the WCF and I’m quite sure they spent a great percentage of their time kicking these very things around in order to cover all the bases and leave no stone unturned. I doubt there will be a single “insight” by a critic here that wasn’t thoroughly aired during their deliberations.

I would like to have been a fly on the wall as they bantered these ideas back and forth.

“But – what about????” “But -- that would mean” “Doesn’t that statement make God???” “How can God decree all things without it making Him???” “If we say that, it might leave people thinking???”

Argument and counter argument went on for a solid 5 years until they had finally hammered out statements which covered all the bases and which, it turns out, have stood the test of time for some 400 years and served as the primary confessions of some of the most evangelically prolific groups of believer ever to cover the globe with the gospel of Jesus Christ..

What they came up with in this case was an extremely useful statement which honored the concepts of God’s sovereignty, His omniscience, His omnipresence, and all of the other things which came to mind as they poured over the scriptures day and night for year after year. What they came up with was an extremely useful statement which honored the concepts of the free will and the culpability of men while affirming the non-culpability of God Himself regarding any free choices made by men – particularly sinful ones.

To tear their carefully crafted statements apart and take certain sentences out of context in order to attack and misrepresent the teachings of some of the most Godly men who ever graced the halls of Christendom is unconscionable and I’m not sure how much more I’ll take before I vomit this thread out of my mind..

A certain player here has long ago and forum wide shown himself to be a player of word games and a person who purposefully misrepresents the beliefs of others and argues for the sake of arguing.

But I have tried hard to give others the benefit of the doubt and provide for them insights they had not likely considered because of their animosity toward so called Calvinism.

It has now become apparent that any further patience on my part would amount to casting my pearls. Not only that – but my continued participation here would give those who really shouldn’t be teaching about these things the platform to sin. Also – so long as this thread is in play – weaker brothers and sisters may be led astray and either misunderstand what is firm doctrine and or stumble in some other way by becoming one who rails against what they think people like myself believe..

The time has come, from my viewpoint, when I will try to let this thread die a well deserved death.

It’s a shame really. These discussions could have been so much more productive had some not continued to misrepresent others after they were corrected time after time.

 

[Dr. Jack]

The principle of it not being right to quote a partial statement by someone in order to misrepresent what they are saying holds true for common material as well as inspired.
The issue is that the WCF made a comprehensive statement that tells us that God ordains that your actions will come to pass. It does not say - as you so dishonestly say it does - that God decides what you will do and then makes you do it or holds you responsible for what He Himself did.

That's a dishonest representation of what the WCF clearly tells us.

The reason you said to not consider anything else was to get people to focus on part of the statement and thus come to a misunderstanding of the statement in it's totality. Most of us here see right through your duplicity.
The text states that God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

There is NO ESCAPE from those words unless you can get some gullible new believer to look at part of them out of their complete context.

And that's the shame of what you and what's his name have been doing. You are looking to mislead gullible new believers concerning what Reformed theologians believe and teach in order to turn one part of the Body of Christ against another.

Shame on you both.

Again, the WCF is NOT Scripture. The WCF is a Reformed Theology Commentary, just as the Talmud is a Jewish Commentary. I once wrote a series of lessons about the Bible. One of the lessons had a major point titled: "When Talmud becomes Canon". The Canon of Scripture is in a class by itself, no commentary, including the Talmud, or in this case the WCF, is on the same level as Scripture.

I have often referred to old Confessions and such to state WHAT people believed; but never as the final authority as what to believe.

The portion of the Confession in question represents the Reformed position concerning the Scriptures, but it does not carry with it the authority of Scripture.

The wording we have been discussing makes a contradictory statement.

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

Prior to the semicolon ( the sentence makes a definitive statement that is then contradicted after the semicolon.

For example ...

"I am ordering by my authority that all the red apples be thrown away by Adam; yet, if they are thrown away by Adam, he is solely responsible, for the thought of throwing away the apples did not originate from me."

I just made a statement that says I gave the order for Adam to throw away the red apples; but then I provided a 'disclaimer' to say that it wasn't my idea. The second part of my sentence contradicts the first part of the sentence. That is what happens repeatedly in the WCF regarding God's decree in relation to sin that occurs.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I’m amazed that the Johnny-come-latelies who attack this statement on internet forums really think they are adding some new insight to what the 150+ Westminster Divines considered for over 5 years when dealing with these concepts.

The WCF isn’t infallible nor does it claim to be. I have some issues with a few of the conclusions the WCF myself.

But these are some of the weightier sections of the WCF and I’m quite sure they spent a great percentage of their time kicking these very things around in order to cover all the bases and leave no stone unturned. I doubt there will be a single “insight” by a critic here that wasn’t thoroughly aired during their deliberations.

I would like to have been a fly on the wall as they bantered these ideas back and forth.

“But – what about????” “But -- that would mean” “Doesn’t that statement make God???” “How can God decree all things without it making Him???” “If we say that, it might leave people thinking???”

Argument and counter argument went on for a solid 5 years until they had finally hammered out statements which covered all the bases and which, it turns out, have stood the test of time for some 400 years and served as the primary confessions of some of the most evangelically prolific groups of believer ever to cover the globe with the gospel of Jesus Christ..

What they came up with in this case was an extremely useful statement which honored the concepts of God’s sovereignty, His omniscience, His omnipresence, and all of the other things which came to mind as they poured over the scriptures day and night for year after year. What they came up with was an extremely useful statement which honored the concepts of the free will and the culpability of men while affirming the non-culpability of God Himself regarding any free choices made by men – particularly sinful ones.

To tear their carefully crafted statements apart and take certain sentences out of context in order to attack and misrepresent the teachings of some of the most Godly men who ever graced the halls of Christendom is unconscionable and I’m not sure how much more I’ll take before I vomit this thread out of my mind..

A certain player here has long ago and forum wide shown himself to be a player of word games and a person who purposefully misrepresents the beliefs of others and argues for the sake of arguing.

But I have tried hard to give others the benefit of the doubt and provide for them insights they had not likely considered because of their animosity toward so called Calvinism.

It has now become apparent that any further patience on my part would amount to casting my pearls. Not only that – but my continued participation here would give those who really shouldn’t be teaching about these things the platform to sin. Also – so long as this thread is in play – weaker brothers and sisters may be led astray and either misunderstand what is firm doctrine and or stumble in some other way by becoming one who rails against what they think people like myself believe..

The time has come, from my viewpoint, when I will try to let this thread die a well deserved death.

It’s a shame really. These discussions could have been so much more productive had some not continued to misrepresent others after they were corrected time after time.

1) Calling people you disagree with names such as "Johnny-come-latelies" is very unprofessional.
2) The debate concerning "Determinism" (the Reformed Theology position) is hardly a new one.
3) I am quite certain there was indeed much discussion in the preparation of the WCF.
4) Claiming they are simply correct without addressing the actual wording of the document, doesn't make it correct.
5) Claiming you have corrected someone, and actually doing so, are two different things.

The fact remains that, if one asserts that God is sovereign, and has ordained, or decreed "whatsoever shall come to pass", and that is "immutable and infallible", it is hard to then say that we all act according to our own uncoerced will.

When Ceaser decreed that the world should be taxed; the people didn't joyfully pack up and willingly move ... they did so because that was the decree of Ceaser. Disobedience meant death.

In the "Calvinist" or Calvinism section of this forum I am addressing the fact that the WCF actually states that God decreed sin ... all sin. (Of course they threw in a disclaimer for God there as well.)

 

[His student]

I'm amazed that people who read the WCF statement cannot see that it is saying that God has seen to it that whatever choice a person makes will occur in history.

In fact - I am so amazed that I consider people who say that the statement says otherwise are out and out liars.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I'm amazed that people who read the WCF statement cannot see that it is saying that God has seen to it that whatever choice a person makes will occur in history.

In fact - I am so amazed that I consider people who say that the statement says otherwise are out and out liars.

His student, it has been said by many famous debaters, and other public speakers ... When your opponent stops addressing the issue, and starts attacking the character of his opponent, 1) he has lost the debate; and 2) he has no legitimate argument to present.

I have not directed a single disrespectful word toward you; yet you have called me a "Johnny come lately", and now an "out and out liar". By your own admission you have been warned by the moderators, and have shown that you cannot exercise any self discipline.

I have done nothing but present my analysis of particular portions of the WCF. You of course are entitled to disagree, and present your evidence to show why you think that I am in error.

I only ask that you act like a professional.

 

[His student]

(EDIT)

 

[His student]

I'm gonna give this one last shot.

The wording we have been discussing makes a contradictory statement.

"God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

It doesn't seem contradictory to me or to the millions who have subscribed to it over the centuries. But since it apparently does to some others - so be it.

I have asked many times for you and what's his name to please reword the statement in any words you wish, substituting something for the word "ordain" for instance if you like.

All I have asked is that you cover in your rewording the concepts covered not only in the part I have highlighted in the above statement but in the part I have not highlighted as well. Not half of the statement, taking it out of context - all of the statement.

You have consistently resisted my challenge. Instead you have constantly and purposefully referred only to the first part of the statement and left out the second - except to say that you find it contradictory. To which I say - "obviously". Please reword it any way you want including all concepts addressed by the WCF statement.

Instead of doing that - you have made a conscious effort to say, things like "God decreed Adam to sin" and things like in your example below as well.

For example ...

"I am ordering by my authority that all the red apples be thrown away by Adam; yet, if they are thrown away by Adam, he is solely responsible, for the thought of throwing away the apples did not originate from me."

I just made a statement that says I gave the order for Adam to throw away the red apples; but then I provided a 'disclaimer' to say that it wasn't my idea. The second part of my sentence contradicts the first part of the sentence. That is what happens repeatedly in the WCF regarding God's decree in relation to sin that occurs.

You should have said what the WCF obviously said in the words you find so objectionable.

For example:

"I am ordering by my authority that Adam be in charge of My apples. That event will assuredly come to pass in history including any actions Adam chooses to do while in that charge. I have told him how I feel about My apples and if he throws any of them away it will be sin. If he were to do that it will be his sin only, for which he will be held responsible, since he has the liberty to make choices and I will not curtail that liberty in any way."

That wasn't that hard to come up with. Yet you purposefully chose to misrepresent what I and many of my brothers and sisters in the Lord believe and teach - and that after being patiently schooled in detail post after post as to what the meaning of the WCF statement is according to Reformed theologians.

After a few dozen posts by you and what's his name doing this kind of thing and it becomes apparent that what you guys are doing is not just inadvertent misrepresentation of the teaching of your bothers and sisters in Christ. Instead it is out and out and very purposeful lying about us.

 

[His student]

I only ask that you act like a professional.

I'm not a professional.

I don't believe I have lost a debate.

I have not been warned by the moderators. I have only communicated with those who, like me, know full well that the likes of FG2 purposefully try to stir up the Body of Christ.

You have lied about what I believe and teach and misrepresented your Reformed brothers in Christ.

It is not longer a debate. It has become personal by your own doing.

If you say that you don't see that the WCF is saying that God has seen to it that whatever choice a person makes will occur in history and say that it teaches that God is the author of sin you are lying.

I have no regrets for saying it like it is.

I sincerely hope that the moderators will close this thread so that you no longer have this venue to propagate your misrepresentation of Reformed doctrine.

I'll try to let it go at that.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I'm not a professional.

Back in the day, people acted differently. Arnold Palmer is one of the greatest golfers that ever lived, He also acted with dignity, and professionalism. I didn't say you had to be a professional, but you could "act" like one.

I don't believe I have lost a debate.

You also never addressed the fact that the WCF specifically states that ""God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

The part that you refuse to address are the words "unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass".

When the first cause (the primary and sovereign cause) "unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass", the secondary cause cannot override the first cause.

Aristotle wrote on the matter of first and second causes, and how that relates to physics. The man that moves the hand, that moves the stick, that moves the stone.

The first (primary) cause is the man which determines that the stone must be moved. The man by the power of his mind, moves his hand to pick up the stick, which will then move the stone.

Now we can say that the reason the stone moved was because of the stick. However, the stick only moved the stone, because it (the stick) was moved by the hand. Now we can say that the stick moved the stone because the hand moved the stick; but again, this only occurred because the mind caused the hand to move the stick, which moved the stone.

This is the nature of first, and second causes. Neither the stick, nor the hand can be culpable for moving the stone, because the greater power, the mind, in fact was controlling the hand, which controlled the stick, which controlled the stone.

Primary (first) causes are always culpable for secondary causes, because secondary causes are subservient to first causes ... that is the nature of causes.

So, since (according to Calvinism) God the primary, or first cause, "unchangeably ordain[ed] whatsoever comes to pass"; culpability cannot be transferred to secondary causes, because the second cause cannot override the power of the first cause.

According to Calvinism, in the Garden of Eden, Adam was the "second cause", which was nothing but an extension of the first cause.

The WCF tried to further explain this away with the following:

"II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

III. God, in his ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.

- Westminster Confession: Chapter 5, Section 2-4"

I have no idea why I picked up this line out. I'll try to repost.


I have not been warned by the moderators. I have only communicated with those who, like me, know full well that the likes of FG2 purposefully try to stir up the Body of Christ.

You have lied about what I believe and teach and misrepresented your Reformed brothers in Christ.

It is not longer a debate. It has become personal by your own doing.

If you say that you don't see that the WCF is saying that God has seen to it that whatever choice a person makes will occur in history and say that it teaches that God is the author of sin you are lying.

I have no regrets for saying it like it is.

I sincerely hope that the moderators will close this thread so that you no longer have this venue to propagate your misrepresentation of Reformed doctrine.

I'll try to let it go at that.[/QUOTE]

 

[His student]

The part that you refuse to address are the words "unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass".

Jack - a last thought.

I did some recent editing and reshuffling of what I intended to be my final posts. As a result - some of my thoughts may have gotten lost in the shuffle.

If you have not read my post number 160 - please do so as it is my last attempt to get things straight between us.

It's very straight forward and I know you'll see the point of it.

I run into red herrings all the time when debating anti-Calvinists. They usually take the form of talk about Calvinist human robots and puppets under the control of God and the like.

But I'm quite sure that you can see that there is a world of differences between them saying something like, "It seems to me that the WCF leaves one with the impression that it is saying that ............." and them saying, "The WCF teaches ............"

If you choose to play games with my illustration in post 160 - we will have nothing more to talk about.

If you refuse to discuss the things we have been visiting in this thread in a fair manner without misrepresenting me and the WCF - we will call it a day.

If you will admit what you have been doing and that it has been misrepresenting me and the WCF statement - I will take your word for it if you tell me that it was inadvertent and I will apologize for my very strong charges against you.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I really should have known better than to engage you in conversation again after ignoring you for so long.

Forgot how difficult it is to defend your views, huh.

Unfortunately you bring out the worst in people. But then I think that's your intention.

Judging one's intentions is a very dangerous thing. That job belongs to God alone. Please don't get in His way.

If he and I were to begin a productive dialog, you could read along and perhaps grow from it even though you will be ignored by me if and when you chime in.

If and when I comment on another poster, I have no problem being ignored.

Because it only shows that the other poster has no answers or defense for their own views.

Sometimes, silence can be deafening. If you know what I mean.