Wednesday, December 31, 2008

All Means All, Except When It Doesn't

Arminians continue to make the kind of claims like we see in the meta here:

*****

Tyler J said:

TUAD,

Refuting Arminianism is quite simple actually. After all, Arminians fail to distinguish between the revealed truth (what the Bible says) and the secret truth (disclosed only to those enlightened by the doctrines of grace). Whenever the Arminian claims that Jesus died for all (revealed truth), point out that it actually means "all of the elect" (secret truth).

*****

And I stumbled across the typical emotional rant here:

*****

Herman: Well, that song was quite obviously written by an Arminian

Calvin: Why do you say that?

Herman: Well, the song says that Jesus loves “all” the little children of the “world”. That is what Arminians believe, that Christ died for all and loves the world in such a way that He truly desires all to believe in Christ and be saved.

Calvin: Oh, well you have just misunderstood the context of the song.

Herman: What do you mean?

Calvin: Well, the context plainly demonstrates that “all” doesn’t mean “every child without exception.”

Herman: It doesn’t?

******

First off, even unregenerate unbelievers aren't so stupid as to think that all always mean all. Philosopher of language William Lycan, speaking on restricted quantification, writes that, "What logicians call the domains over which quantifiers range need not be universal, but are often particular cases roughly presupposed in context" (Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction, p.24).

And it's obvious that many people believe that you can say "whole world" and it not mean "every single person whoever." For example, leftists at the 1968 Democrat National Convention in Chicago chanted, "The whole world is watching." It is fairly obvious that if asked, they would say that, "Of course, they didn't mean 'every single person whoever.'"

But Arminians continue to say things like, "Calvinists deny the plain meaning of the Bible because they don't think all means all or whole world means whole world."

But, it is so obvious that even the Bible doesn't always mean all when it says all, or whole world when it say world.

Just look at a few verses:

1 Kings 10:24 The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.

Romans 16:19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

Colossians 1:23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

All, world, everyone, every, etc., obviously doesn't have universal existential import, Obviously. Period.

If I need to make it plainly obvious, here's an example:

[1] The gospel has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven.

[2] Sammy the 1st century South American sea slug is a creature under heaven.

[3] Therefore, the gospel was proclaimed to Sammy the South American sea slug.

So, it is clear that erudite atheists, pot smoking hippies, and even the Bible, consciously use universal language without giving them universal existential import.

I need to say it again. It is OBVIOUS that the Bible, in many, many, many places uses "all" and "whole world" and "everyone" while not meaning all and whole world and everyone. Again:

I John 5:19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

But John did not mean born again believers. People freed from the control and power of sinful dominion.

I said obvious:

Revelation 22:5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.”

[1] Jesus makes all things new.

[2] My dog's poop, my 15 month old son’s boogers, and Satan are things.

[3] Therefore, Jesus makes my dog's poop, my 15 month old son’s boogers, and Satan, new.

So, I am honestly perplexed by those Arminians who constantly and haughtily say things like, "Oh, you need to go read the Reformed theologians because they'll tell you that all doesn't always mean all, even when it says all."

If Arminians think the above verses really mean all, then all I can say (actually, I could say more; I have to make this qualification for our Arminian readers) is that they've made themselves irrelevant. They are disqualified from rational discussion.

If they agree with me about the above verses, then either they are hypocrites or they need to do some major PR work to show just what the heck they mean why they arrogantly act as if we Calvinists deny the plain reading of Scripture.

I'm sorry, but enough's enough.

23 comments:

  1. In the end does it truly matter which view is the "correct" view on this - really minor - issue of doctrine?

    Both views have the same stance on the importance of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, do they not?

    Arguing over whether it is all people or just all the elect is irrelevant in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jon,

    I am perplexed by your comment.

    First, who says it's "minor?"

    Second, the Arminians obviously don't think it's minor since this is one of their best arguments [sic].

    Third, why think the truth doesn't matter? I didn't know you were so alethically ambivalent.

    Fourth, I don't know what you mean by "the same stance" on repentance and faith in Jesus. In some ways, no, we don't.

    Fifth, doesn't James teach us that those who teach God's word will be judged more strictly than others? So, I fail to see how it's "irrelevant,"...besides the vagueness of what you mean by "it's irrelevant."

    Sixth, refuting yourself isn't a particularly memorible way to end '08. Why comment? Does it matter "in the end?" Or, is anything you comment on automatically "relevant?"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, by the way, Jon, Jesus accomplishes his plan. When he dies to save someone, he saves them. The "minor" difference is that one view has a Jesus that is a big ole failure. Ahnold can "save the planet," Sgt. Kyle Reese can, Omama can, but Jesus can't. Apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't understand the need of the sarcastic and belittling attitude your words convey in responding to my comment (I didn't think I was being uncivil in any way - my apologies if it came across that way).

    I'll take my commenting elsewhere to keep from disturbing you.

    Good day and God bless you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jon,

    I don't understand why you need to belittle truth. I don't understand why you can't respond to the substance rather than resorting to the tactics of relativists who stiffle objective truth. "We need to be tolerant, so no saying people are wrong, cause that would belittle them."

    ReplyDelete
  6. So it seems that you're complaining about irrational or emotional arguments against your theology. I can understand that.

    I agree with your main point. It's an elementary point actually, that the words "all," "every," "world," are all used in different ways to mean different things depending on the context that they are used. I doubt anyone would disagree with you. The teasing Arminian who scoffs that Calvinists don't think "all" means "all" are ignoring a simple grammatical fact in order to scoff. But Arminians sometimes need to ignore the occasional fact in order to hold their theology together.

    However, I assume you are referring to arguments about the doctrine of Limited Atonement (something I'm researching on right now - I'll write an article on it soon). The real question is what Scripture do you use to decide when words like "all" and "world" are being used in a general sense, and when they are being used in a exhaustive sense? There are rational arguments from both sides. And both sides have their own assumptions that they bring to the table. A discussion about what exactly those assumptions are would probably be the most profitable here.

    I guess it felt like you were hinting that there aren't any rational arguments against "Limited Atonement", but if that is what you're implying, you're wrong. The use and interpretation of Scripture, the character and attributes of God, and the context of these passages of Scripture all provide reasonable grounds for disbelieving in Limited Atonement. I'll be going into more detail later at least in my article.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Bible as a Universal Language? Good to have a Universal Language, but a spoken one as well!

    Try http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8837438938991452670 or http://www.lernu.net

    ReplyDelete
  8. Persiflage,

    I am responding to the majority of pop internet Arminian apologists - the two comments were representative. I, and other Calvinists, hear these condescending, and stupid, comments ALL (!) the time. Search the web yourself.

    Now, I was not suggesting, Plantiginanian that I am, that there are no rational arguments against limited atonement. There are 'rational' arguments against it as well as for it. So, I wasn't "hinting" at that. Though, it is also true that my post could defeat some unlimited atonement arguments that rested upon the condescending "oh yeah, like all doesn't mean all," type comments. And, I've ran into more than my fair share of them.

    Anyway, none of those arguments are compelling to me, and I feel all have undefeated defeaters for me. So, I'm not at all bothered by 'rational' arguments for unlimited atonement.

    Perhaps you can get the word out to internet Arminians, like "Ben," and "J.C. Thibs," and "Reppert," and "Robert" and "Henry" &c who have used these kinds of ridiculous arguments.

    Tell 'em us Calvinists over at T-blog were right and they were wrong.

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey Paul,

    Just in case I have not been banned here (can't remember if I have or not), I just wanted to say that the post was not "emotional". I wasn't riled up at all when I wrote it.

    The point was to show that Calvinists often try to use "context" in a way that is plainly inappropriate in an attempt to limit universal passages. I fully understand that "all" doesn't always mean "all" in the Bible (I fully agree with Robert's comments in the combox of my post on that). Context is indeed vital, but one can also use context inappropriately, wouldn't you agree?

    For more on that see my comments to "jc_freak" in the combox of my post.

    And it is nice to see that you still read my posts sometimes even though you think I am so "irrelevant." The truht is, I still read your posts from time to time as well, even though I have called the material here at T-blog "garbage" (which I want to formally apologize for since you guys do write some excellent stuff at times- what I consider "garbage" is the harsh rhetoric that often accompanies those writings and interactions).

    Anyway, thought I would clear those things up.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paul Manata: Anyway, none of those arguments are compelling to me, and I feel all have undefeated defeaters for me. So, I'm not at all bothered by 'rational' arguments for unlimited atonement.

    For me the most compelling argument for unlimited atonement is made by Paul himself when he depicts the symmetry between Adam's disobedience and Jesus' obedience:

    Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

    The problem for Calvinists is they cannot cry context to negate the word "all" because it occurs twice in this single verse and Paul puts them on both sides of a mirror. If "all" means some for atonement, then it must also mean some for condemnation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Michelle Renee said:
    "The problem for Calvinists is they cannot cry context to negate the word "all" because it occurs twice in this single verse and Paul puts them on both sides of a mirror. If "all" means some for atonement, then it must also mean some for condemnation."

    Me:
    The "all" as it is used in Romans is defined in reference to race: both Jew and Gentile (i.e. all men without distinction, not all men without exception). It has reference to quality, not quantity. The quantity is thus determined by the context, not by the word itself.

    Thus, Romans 5:18 means:

    "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon [both Jew and Gentile] to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon [both Jew and Gentile] unto justification of life."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Saint and Sinner: Romans 5:18 means:

    "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon [both Jew and Gentile] to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon [both Jew and Gentile] unto justification of life."


    This interpretation cannot be true, because at the time of the Fall of Adam, and for thousands of years afterward, there was no distinction between Jew and Gentile. All men were Gentiles, in fact, until Abraham was called out of Ur by God. The condemnation fell on Cain and Abel and Seth and all of their children, including who later became known as the Jews, and the Jews inherited the fallen condition of man along with the rest of humanity. For Paul to make the effort to include the Jews with the rest of fallen humanity is to commit a redundancy, which is not something you expect to see in the infallible Word of God. Occam's razor reduces the meaning of the verse to its simplest interpretation. Redemption is for all men, but sanctification is for some.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Great! Universalism, the logical conclusion of the Arminian hermeneutic.

    I may respond to this later.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Great! Universalism, the logical conclusion of the Arminian hermeneutic.

    Nice attempt at a strawman but I know what you mean.

    Romans 5:10 illustrates that salvation is a two-part process. The first part is the reconciliation of all humanity to God, while still in a fallen state, by the sacrifice of his Son at Calvary:

    (a) For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,

    The second part is the infusion of the free gift of sanctifying grace, which is literally the "life" of our Risen lord co-existing with us, unless we reject Him and "fail of the grace of God":

    (b) much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ben,

    These kinds of statements seem emotive to me:

    "That is why God gave us Reformed theologians to explain these things to us."

    "Context is indeed vital, but one can also use context inappropriately, wouldn't you agree?"

    Of course, and us Reformed think that the context bears out our reading. So, I'd appreciate the arrogant claims that you and your buds have made numerous times about us denying the Jesus death being for all because it says all to stop.

    "And it is nice to see that you still read my posts sometimes"

    I haven't seen your site for months. I ran across it while reading something from "Dan" aka "God is my judge."

    "what I consider "garbage" is the harsh rhetoric that often accompanies those writings and interactions"

    Yawn.

    plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose

    Back to high school stuff when the Arminians enter the combox.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "For me the most compelling argument for unlimited atonement is made by Paul himself when he depicts the symmetry between Adam's disobedience and Jesus' obedience:"

    Right, preface your comment by claiming that Paul made an argument for unlimited atonement. You are open for honest dialogue.

    "The problem for Calvinists is they cannot cry context to negate the word "all" because it occurs twice in this single verse and Paul puts them on both sides of a mirror. If "all" means some for atonement, then it must also mean some for condemnation."

    i) The intent isn't to speak on the "extent of the atonement."

    ii) Calvinists can, just like Arminians, appeal to all of Scripture. The analogy of faith.

    iii) Context, ultimately, is Genesis 1 --> Revelation 22. So, we can cry "context." It would help you to bone up on these hermeneutical and exegetical basics.

    iv) We do read of a "many."

    v) Universalism

    a) The analogy is torn if you assume a real death that is imputed to all men but not a real life imputed to all men.

    So, Adam brought death, Christ brought life.

    b) Condemenation is juxtaposed with justification. Do some justified men end up in hell? And, is not justification by faith alone? If Jesus brought justification, and justification is instramentally taken by the hand of faith, and not all men have faith, then not all men were justified, thus the all wouldn't mean all. In other words, how were all people made righteous if justification is by faith alone and not all people express faith? QED?

    c) v. 17 provides the anit-unlimited atonement context:

    17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

    d) You have to assume prevenient grace for there to even be something close to want you want. But I deny this and Rom. 5 doesn't teach such a thing.

    e) Given the concept of federalism, the context, for the Calvinist, does show that Christ's "all" is not universal since Paul is speaking of two federal heads.

    Since Adam is the first federal head, Christ is the second. Now, if one understood the Bible's conception of federalism, it is foreign to call Christ the federal head of all men.

    Christ is the second Adam. Adam's work is contrasted to Christ's.

    Adam didn't bring a potential reality by his work. Therefore, christ did not bring a potential reality by his work.

    f) v. 18 demonstrates the reductio ad absurdem rather clearly:

    18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

    If the "alls" are the same, then all died and so all will be made alive.

    vi) You cite 5:10

    For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,

    Were do you get the idea that the "we" is "all men whoever?" It isn't. So, you can't use this passage to rebut the universalist conclusion your hermeneutic leads to.

    vii) Sorry, your verse isn't persuasive to me, not in the least.

    viii) The presuppositional context for the atonement is the OT day of atonement. Atonement was never, ever, not at any time, ever, nope, never, made for non Israelites.

    Jesus death was, as Hebrews and other places teach us, the sacrifice by a high priest of an innocent lamb for the sin and guilt of his people.

    Furthermore, all those he made sacrifice for he intercedes for.

    All those he intercedes for will go to heaven.

    Not all go to heaven.

    Not all are interceded for.

    Not all were sacrificed for.

    QED.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The intent isn't to speak on the "extent of the atonement."

    We know the extent of the atonement was universal because in Rom. 5:6 Paul says "in due time Christ died for the ungodly". To limit the atonement to an elect, Paul would need to say Christ died for the godly.

    The analogy is torn if you assume a real death that is imputed to all men but not a real life imputed to all men.

    Since Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden before they could eat the tree of life, and indeed to prevent them from doing so, they were not created with immortality. Thus it is not physical death which was imputed to all men with the Fall, but a spiritual death which consists of alienation from God. The life which is imputed to Christians by sanctifying grace is a restoration to a close relationship with the Father.

    If Jesus brought justification, and justification is instramentally taken by the hand of faith, and not all men have faith, then not all men were justified

    Redemption is equated to atonement, it is not the equivalent of justification, which comes by faith. 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." Does this mean all men are saved? No, it means all men have a Savior who made superabundant satisfaction for the sins of the world. The sufficiency of the atonement is unlimited, but its efficiency is limited. If the atonement was perfectly efficacious, then all men would be justified before birth and no one would fail to attain to eternal life.

    Since Adam is the first federal head, Christ is the second. Now, if one understood the Bible's conception of federalism, it is foreign to call Christ the federal head of all men.

    If one understands scripture, God does not lay the sin of the father on the soul of the son. So it is unfortunate that the lack of sanctifying grace, the gift of God which Adam lost and did not pass down to us as our inheritance is called "sin" because it leads to a distorted soteriology. By his transgression, Adam created a situation where sanctifying grace was not available to any man. By his perfect obedience, Christ created a situation where sanctifying grace was available to every man. But it remained for God to call men to the Church by justification through faith, and faith is solely the gift of a sovereign God who calls who he wills, and hardens others.

    Atonement was never, ever, not at any time, ever, nope, never, made for non Israelites.

    On the contrary, Lev. 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. The annual OT atonement, limited to the Hebrews and the strangers who lived as guests in their land was the anti-type of the perfect single atonement at Calvary, and the reason that atonement is not to be repeated is that it is universal in time and space, and applies to every human who was alive, is alive, now, and ever shall be alive.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Michelle,

    Below relates to each specific rejoinder of yours:

    1. The elect were not godly when Christ died for them. Try again.

    2. Despite some questionable assumption, I said nothing of "physical" death. You must think I meant "physical" by used of the word "real." Sorry to hear you think spiritual death isn't "real." Try again.

    3. Romans 5 speaks of justification. That's what we were speaking on. Pay attention and try again.

    4. Despite your assertions, that we all die - spiritually and physically - is our suffering the consequences of the "sins of the father", i.e., Adam. Read Block on this issue in his comm. on Eze. Oh, and try again.

    5. Lev 19 isn't talking about the day of atonement. Don't be dishonest. And, *if* a sojounrer wanted to partake of these things he needed to become circumcised. Thus a Israelite. Here's a relevant passgae: Lev. 16:"This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites." My limited argument goes through. You have not refuted it. QED. Oh, btw, try again.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hey Paul,

    I am sorry you found my post both emotive, arrogant, and irrelevant. Of course I am not surprised. And no, I will not "stop" proclaiming the gospel truth that Christ died for all and desires all to be saved, even if it bothers Calvinists like yourself. Sorry.

    I noticed you didn't answer my second question regarding sock puppets (in fact, you deleted it) so I will ask it again,

    Have you ever used sock puppets at my site?

    Yes?

    or

    No?

    It is really a simple question with a simple answer so I can't understand why you keep avoiding it. If you ignore or delete this comment then I will just post it, along with the other one you deleted, at my site and draw attention to your avoidance. Again, I trust that you will answer honestly as a follower of Jesus Christ.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete
  20. Even though Manata may not deem it worthy of his response or his time, I've finished my article on Limited Atonement here -

    http://persiflagethis.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-i-am-not-reformed-part-three.html

    It includes an in depth look at most of the "all" and "every" verses, including how Christians have argued about them since the days of Augustine and Aquinas.

    So basically it's the denial of the doctrine of Limited Atonement by a number of Christians who are not Arminian.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ben,

    Quite acting like a high school girl smaking her gum and twirling her hair.

    And, I never said you had to "stop proclaiming your glawspel." Arminians and their marty complexes.

    You falsey accused 3 people of being me and wouldn't take their denials even when they begged you. You had to be invited to go to another state so someone could prove it. Sorry, not interested in playing your game of paranoia. Anyways, what really matters is the objecvtive debate we had. On that score you were shown that your Arminianism and dogmatism about it was unfounded. Why don't you worry about responding to *those* arguments rather than your little playground games. Or, you could just take your marbles and go home.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Persiflage,

    The high priest argument undercuts your unlimited atonement arguments. You didn't deal with it, and I didn't see you deal with any serious reformed exegesis of the passages you looked at. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Paul,

    you wrote:

    You falsely accused 3 people of being me and wouldn't take their denials even when they begged you. You had to be invited to go to another state so someone could prove it.

    It is really very simple. Yes or No? There is no need for all the insults and the comments about other commenters is inaccurate and irrelevant. Only one person protested to me concerning not being a sock puppet (and he also spoke for another who never spoke for himself) and I was suspicious at first for obvious reasons (as well as the fact that some of the things he was saying seemed inconsistent). But when he persisted I gave him the benefit of the doubt and apologized. Here is how that conversation ended:

    Hey Ben,

    I don’t know if you will come back but I wanted to apologize since you seem to think I have been rude to you. I am fully aware that I can be a real jerk and I need to constantly guard myself against that. That is why I do not want to dialogue with the Triablogue guys because I can easily get sucked into that kind of inappropriate behavior.

    I hope you will understand that it is a little difficult for me to fully trust you based some of the issues I have had with Paul. That may be unfair for you but I hope you can at least see where I am coming from and that Paul, if he has used sock puppets on this blog, is just as much to blame for the uneasiness I sometimes feel while dialoguing with you.

    I know you have invited me for coffee but I live in PA so such a meeting will almost certainly never happen [he lives in TN]. It is no proof to me that you are who you say you are because you offered to have me over to your home. However, I should still take you at your word because I have no solid reason to doubt you, only some suspicions which could be wrong. I would rather err on the side of caution because I realize how frustrating it would be to be accused of being someone you are not, so again I apologize for that.

    You have made a declaration that you are not Paul and not any of the Triabloguers and I should have left it there. However, some of the things you were saying seemed inconsistent and so I began to wonder and wondered out loud. I should have just kept it to myself.

    Let me ask you something since you are obviously a fan of Triablogue. If Paul posed as a sock puppet on this blog in order to try to make his arguments look strong, or to try to make me look bad, what would you have to say about that kind of behavior? Wouldn’t you find that very frustrating? If you were in my shoes, wouldn’t you find it hard to trust people you are not very sure about? Would you call Paul out as dishonest if he was indeed using sock puppets in such a way?

    If Paul refuses to deny using sock puppets on my blog will you still maintain that Triablogue is operating in a Christian manner and that I am just a hypocrite for being frustrated by their conduct? I am just wondering what your thoughts are on that.

    I want you to feel the freedom to post comments without being attacked here at AP. I hope you will accept my apology and feel like you can continue to post here if any topic interests you and you want to get some insight on it or give your opinion on it.

    Please understand that you may be challenged in the same manner that you challenge. I reserve the right to give my opinion of what you write as well even if it is “futile” in your opinion, but I will strive to not be insulting in the way that I disagree with you, and I personally promise not to question your identity.

    God Bless,

    Ben


    But again, all of this is irrelevant. Ben was just one of several who we thought might be Paul Manata sock puppets. None of the others came forward as Ben did. But all you need to do is deny that you posed as a sock puppet on my site and none of this nonsense would be necessary. That one person came forward and denied being one of your sock puppets does nothing to prove your innocence. You are a pretty smart guy when it comes to logic and logical fallacies so I shouldn't even need to point that out.

    Anyways, what really matters is the objective debate we had. On that score you were shown that your Arminianism and dogmatism about it was unfounded. Why don't you worry about responding to *those* arguments rather than your little playground games. Or, you could just take your marbles and go home.

    It matters to me because it is an issue of honesty and I should think it would matter to you for the same reasons. I want to know if you left comments at my site pretending to be someone else. If you tell me you did not then I will make it public and apologize for wrongly suspecting you of such deceptive behavior. If you did indeed post deceptively at my blog then I am very much concerned for your integrity and witness as a follower of Jesus Christ. I would hope you would use this as an opportunity to clear the air and repent of such behavior.

    As far as responding to your further posts I hardly think it necessary since I don't think you made a persuasive case and I think that other commenters both here and at your blog demonstrated that quite nicely as JCT documented at his web-site.

    However, I would be willing to do a wrap up post and explain why I think your posts fell short if you will treat me with a little respect and honesty. Otherwise, I cannot see how further dialogue with you would be productive.

    So I await your reply. Again, I freely submit that I have never used sock puppets at anytime. Can you say the same? I am not even asking you to deny that you ever used them, just to give me an answer concerning using them at my site. I trust that as a follower of Jesus Christ you will answer honestly and stop avoiding the issue, for the sake of your witness and the great Name you so passionately defend.

    God Bless,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete