Friday, April 13, 2018

The spirit of Elijah

Apostate Dale Tuggy responded to my post:

Steve, simplicity a desideratum - of course, not the only one - of theory-making in science, and really, just in common life. All other things being equal, we all prefer a simple explanation to a more complex one, e.g. in solving a crime. 

There are two kinds of simplicity: explanatory and ontological. 

It's a common error to confuse first principles or self-evident truths with truths known a priori (i.e. not on the basis of any experience, but only through conceptual analysis). 

The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy says "self-evident" is generally a synonym for "a priori" (p628). Philosophers like Carl Ginet and David W. Benfield operate with the same equivalence.   

The above truth is not one of those, of course, but is something an unbiased reader simply discerns in the NT texts. It's no harder than understanding that one character in a novel is supposed to be a different person (and so, being) than another character. 

But God is a very different kind of entity than finite human creatures. 

For that matter, reports of biolocation defy common sense appeals to numerical personal identity. 

As another example, Reid would say, when you are looking at apple right in front of you (in a well lit room, and your eyes are working, etc) that it is self-evident to you then that there is an apple right there. Notice the dependence on the visual experience. In my case, there is a dependence on reading, with basic comprehension.

The credibility of the first example (viewing the apple) is used to lend stolen credibility to unitarian hermeneutics, but that doesn't transfer because the two examples are so different.  

Steve, this is convoluted - you're typing too fast or something. Using "the spirit of X" to mean the power that was operative in X - that is wholly consistent with my point that the spirit of X isn't supposed to be someone in addition to X. That's just another usage, in addition to the common one I linked in the Psalms in the post, where you talk about "the spirit of X" meaning just, X himself, or inner part or aspect of him - again, not an additional self. 

That doesn't work in the passages I quoted, since you do have two different "selves": Elijah and Elisha or Elijah and John the Baptist, each of whom embodies "the spirit of Elijah". 

Yes, IF in that instance the "spirit" was meant to be a self. But often, it is a power or aspect of the one whose spirit it is. Admittedly, biblical spirit-talk is confusing to us. 

But now you're equivocating between two different definitions:

i) "spirit of X" synonymous with X himself

ii) "spirit of X" synonymous with "inner part or aspect" of X. 

And even in drawing that distinction, the Spirit is identical with the Father, or identical with the "inner part or aspect of him". On that definition, the Father and the Spirit are one and the same self. But that generates a dilemma when Dale simultaneously rejects adoration of the Spirit. But if the "Spirit of God" is synonymous with God or some aspect of God, then why isn't the Spirit a proper object of worship? 

As  unitarian, Dale wishes to deny that the Spirit of God is someone in addition to the Father/the one God, but in that event, the Spirit of God is a suitable object of worship inasmuch as the Spirit of God is interchangeable with God himself. Dale needs to pick one position and stick with it. 

The solution here is simple: God's spirit is being personified here, being spoken of as if it were a self. As with, e.g. God's wisdom in Pr 8 and elsewhere. If you think this "does make a lick of sense," I wonder why you think personification is so... senseless.

I anticipated that response. As I already pointed out, the problem with that simple solution is that if the Spirit is merely a personification of the Father, then the Father isn't giving/sending the Spirit; rather, he's sending himself. But that's nonsensical since the notion of sending involves a distinction between the sender and the sent. Why use that confusing circumlocution if it really refers to the Father alone? There's an explicit emphasis on "another", in contrast to Jesus. 

Again, to say the Spirit is just a personification for one "self" rather than two "selves," then God didn't reveal these things to us through the Spirit, the Spirit doesn't search the depths of God, since there aren't actually two parties to that transaction. Rather, the Father searches himself. Once again, why the confusing circumlocution? 

It's ironic that unitarians like Dale appeal to simple, face-value readings of Scripture, but then have to rewrite passages that conflict with their position. 

Steve, you throw quite a fit about "the holy spirit" never being an object of worship in the NT. But again, this is simple reading comprehension - and many have pointed this out, whatever their theological commitments. It is just an observable fact about the texts. Sure, you can deduce that the h.s. should be worshiped from his literally being a self, and his being a "fully divine" self - further dubious deductions from the texts. But it is a glaring fact that "he" or it is simply left out of the worship scenes and discussions of worship. What, overall, is the best explanation of that? It seems to us, that it is that early Christians thought this was not a self in addition to God and Jesus. 

The best explanation is that the Spirit empowers worship. Is the source of piety. 

So, it becomes evident upon simply reading the NT, with basic comprehension. Where does the h.s. speak to them... 

i) For one thing, Jesus speaks to the Father because Jesus is an embodied agent who uses speech to communicate with the Father (e.g. prayer). There's silent prayer and spoken prayer. Jesus prays aloud or addresses the Father in public for the benefit of onlookers. And sometimes the Father responds with an audible voice, for the benefit of onlookers. That's recorded in the Gospels for the benefit of readers. It illustrates communion and confirmation between Father and Son. 

But why would the Spirit use the spoken word to communicate to the Father and the Son? A discarnate agent would typically communicate telepathically. 

ii) In addition, the Spirit has a manward rather than Godward role to play in the economic of salvation. He speaks to and through humans. Works in humans.  

obey them?

From a Trinitarian perspective, why would the Holy Spirit be in a position to obey the Father or the Son? 

Why does it lack a proper name? 

Like what? "Joe"? "Hey, I'm the Holy Spirit. Just call me Joe". 

Where in Scripture does God have a proper name? Even "God" is a categorical designation rather than a proper name. God usually has titles that symbolize his attributes, actions, economic roles. One of the things that sets God apart from humans is the lack of a proper name like "Fred" or "Herb" or "Walt". God isn't that kind of entity. A being who is replicable.  

Where is it portrayed as literally cooperating with God and Jesus, in the way they are taught, e.g. in John, to be working as one?

Of course, Dale already has a tactic for discounting evidence by dismissing such portrayals are mere personifications. 

I think those passages you cite are about the closest anyone can come to challenging #19. If the spirit is literally an intermediary, he's got to be a literal self - only a self can do that. 

Notice, once again, how unitarians like Dale appeal to a simple, face-value reading of the text until it conflicts with unitarianism. So even though Rom 8:26-27 explicitly depicts the Spirit who mediates between the Father and Christians in prayer, Dale says we shouldn't take that literally. So where's the consistency in unitarian hermeneutics? 

1 Cor 2 passage compares God's spirit to ours - but clearly, "the spirit of Steve" is not someone in addition to Steve! It's just Steve, or an aspect or part of him, which is not literally a self.

Paul's analogy, like analogies generally, has limitations, but it's irreducibly personal. That's the immediate point. 

It is important, I think, not to cherry pick just these vivid personifying passages. 

If I present counterevidence or counterexamples to Dale's claim, that's cherry-picking passages. 

We must look at all the talk of God's "spirit" or "Spirit" in the NT, and much of it seems impersonal. 

What about impersonal depictions of God, as a rock, light, fire, tower, shield?

I explain this in the episode. It strikes me that we always, in all practical affairs, and basically in any context whatever outside of extreme sci-fi and trinitarian speculations, refuse to consider selves as combining. I don't claim to know this as a necessary truth, because I don't see that its falsehood is obviously impossible. But, I am claiming that we do (absent defeaters acquired by speculation or tradition) know this.

Now, I had in mind only parts-at-a-time. But yes, I think that as stated, this is contradicted by theories of personal identity on which, e.g. Steve is really composed of Steve-stages - thought of as selves existing each at a single moment on the timeline. This, in my view, is wrongheaded for so many reasons. But yes, some metaphysicians are willing to take such views seriously. But, and this is important, you should know going in that many philosophers will run roughshod over the truths of common sense - just look at Reid's list, various elements of which were contradicted by the speculations of people like Berkeley, Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza.

Actually, I happen to agree with representational theories of perception. To that extent I disagree with Reid. 

Spinoza may well have been a closet atheist masquerading as a pantheist to maintain pious appearances, because it was politically hazardous to be an outspoken atheist back then. I don't know what in particular Dale objects to regarding Decsartes. Sure, I disagree with Berkley on idealism (and Leibniz on monadology). However, Berkeley was riffing off of Locke's distinction between primary and secondary qualities, which is a legitimate distinction that's a part of modern science up to our own day. 

In general, "But some philosopher disagrees!" is not a good reason to reject what, otherwise, you have reason to think is a principle of common sense. Basically, for any seemingly obvious truth whatever, you can find, if you dig hard enough, some very smart and creative philosopher whose pet theories require that claim to be false. 

It exposes the fallacy of facile appeals to self-evidence. 

Steve, honestly, you don't have a developed, coherent position on the sameness of human selves through time. 

i) I wasn't attempting to make a full-blown case for my own position. Rather, I was skewering simplistic appeals to a particular view of personal identity. And I presented an argument–for which you offer no counterargument. Indeed, further up you conceded that some metaphysicians do distinguish between you-yesterday, you-today, you-tomorrow. And these are asymmetrical. My 50-year-old self is aware of my 5-year-old self, but not vice versa. 

ii) IMO, personal identity requires continuity from the same starting-point. All stages trace back to the same point of origin. A different person isn't in the same stream, but a different stream. 


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Quite a lot of point-missing and flailing here. :-/

    Because I'm pointing out various sorts of spirit-talk in the Bible, you ought not infer that I am inconsistent on what I think God's spirit is. My view is that God's spirit is his unseen power, which empowered prophets, and even Jesus, and in these last days is given to believers. But "the holy spirit" or "God's spirit" can in various places refer to God, his power, or even to Jesus once or twice. Biblical spirit-talk is messy; it does make it harder to get clear on this issue. I recommend the non-polemical, careful investigation by pastor Sean Finnegan.

    "Where in Scripture does God have a proper name?"
    "YHWH." Not than an obvious self in a text has to have one a proper name. Personal pronouns are plenty, as are titles which virtually function like names, e.g. adonai, elohim, el, ho theos, ho kurios (when this is not Jesus), as are portrayals of doing things only selves can do.

    "So where's the consistency in unitarian hermeneutics?"
    In trying to understand what this "S/spirit" is supposed to be, both sides have to take some passages in ways other than their prima facie senses. When the holy spirit is poured out, or when it is described as a power, the trinitarian decides that *really* a self is being talked about there as if it were not a self (the opposite of personification). The other side just does this for the self-like passages. No inconsistency either way, Steve - just trying to a consistent theology out of the texts. Stop trying to go for the cheap shots, and get serious on this topic. The question is, which hypothesis is the best explanation of all the textual and experiential evidence.

    This was still a living debate in 381, when the post-Nicea debates were shut down. The latter-day Nicenes thought they could show the spirit to a divine hypostasis like the Logos, but their catholic opponents were unimpressed. It is not hard to see why! In a forthcoming paper, Richard Swinburne argues that the Trinity is not deducible from the Bible precisely because readings on which God's "spirit" is not an additional divine self are more plausible - this, from a determined defender of social trinitarianism! So much for trying to paint this as a wacky claim of cultists and rascally biblical unitarians. Many, many serious exegetes have read the NT this way.

    "It exposes the fallacy of facile appeals to self-evidence."

    Stevie, you just need to devote some actual thought to epistemology, specifically Plantinga and Reid. If you think such appeals are facile, you just don't understand that approach to human knowledge and justification. You may disagree, which is fine, but taunting it all as facile - sorry, you're just not getting the methodology here. But I don't have the patience to explain it to you now. Not going to engage your confused free-wheeling on time and personal identity either, sorry.

    In the interest of moving the discussion forward, let us honestly consider this: In the OT, is God's "spirit/Spirit" supposed to be a self in addition to God? Why or why not? And, since all NT authors were avid readers of the OT, how should this affect how we understand their spirit-talk?

  3. Berkeley rejects commons sense... 🙄

  4. Notice that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit isn't equivalent to blasphemy against the Father. That would seem to undermine one of Dale's points. Blasphemy is normally in reference to God. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is recorded in all three Synoptics (Matt. 12, Mark 3, Luke 12; cf. Heb. 10:29c). It would suggest that the Holy Spirit is God since it makes no sense blaspheming an impersonal force. Notice too that Jesus clusters criticisms against Himself in conjunction with blasphemy against the Father and the Holy Spirit. It may be claimed that a word against Jesus doesn't necessarily imply that it's blasphemy since it can be forgiven; therefore Jesus isn't necessarily God. However, using that logic, the Father isn't God either since blasphemy against the Father can be forgiven as well. Moreover, the fact that blasphemy against the Father and the Son can be forgiven while the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit can't, strongly suggests the full deity of the Holy Spirit since it makes no sense for it to be more severe to blaspheme the Holy Spirit above God the Father if the Holy Spirit isn't God. Analogously, that would be like saying insulting the electricity and gasoline of your father's prized Porsche is worse than insulting your father directly.

    Here's a good article on worshipping the Holy Spirit:

    Is the Holy Spirit Worthy of Worship? by Wayne Jackson

    In summary, Wayne Jackson points out that 2 Cor. 13:14 is a benediction, and argues for why it's also a prayer. He quotes various theologians and commentators to that effect. If it is both a benediction and prayer [and invocation], then that implies prayer to and worship of the Holy Spirit along with the Father and Son. The same could be said about baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19, cf. the Aaronic Blessing in Num. 6:22ff.).

    See also my blogpost on the topic Here.

    "YHWH." Not than an obvious self in a text has to have one a proper name.

    And that Name likely is what is referenced when Jesus says to baptize in the singular Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If Unitarianism were true, I would expect it to say, In the Name of the Father, the name of the Son and the [power of the] holy spirit. In other words, I'd expect the Father and Son to have two distinct names. Rather, both the Son and Spirit seem to be included in the name of YHVH. It isn't surprising for Trinitarians that the triadic (triple) formula of the Aaronic Blessing seems to correspond to the activity of each person of the Holy Trinity [as I've argued HERE]. Even the Shema has a triple reference to God: "Sh'ma Yisra'eil YHVH [1] Eloheinu [2] YHVH [3] echad."

    1. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive. O Lord, pay attention and act. Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name."- Dan. 9:19

      For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; he will save us.- Isa. 33:22

      4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the SAME Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the SAME Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the SAME God who empowers them all in everyone.- 1 Cor. 12:4-6

      //The question is, which hypothesis is the best explanation of all the textual and experiential evidence. //

      I'd definitely say that the evidence sides with the genuine distinct personality of the Holy Spirit as I've argued in my blogpost Here. Being a former anti-Trinitarian, I too once thought the Holy Spirit was God's impersonal power or force. But I've come to realize that the relevant passages can't all be explained via personification.

      In the interest of moving the discussion forward, let us honestly consider this: In the OT, is God's "spirit/Spirit" supposed to be a self in addition to God? Why or why not? And, since all NT authors were avid readers of the OT, how should this affect how we understand their spirit-talk?

      That doesn't do justice to the concept of Progressive Revelation. The OT isn't clear about the nature of the Messiah. Limiting ourselves to Dale's suggested methodology would lead us to conclude with non-Messianic Jews that Jesus isn't the Messiah. Also, there's indicators in the NT that Christ was understood to be the incarnation of the Word of YHVH as well as the special Angel/Malak/Messenger of YHVH. Yet, if we read those OT passages in Hebrew, the Aramaic paraphrases of the Targumim and the Greek LXX, we wouldn't get a full-orbed NT Christology. The same is true of Pneumatology. As the saying goes about the OT and NT, "The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed." Yes, the OT informs our reading of the NT, the other way is true too. With the NT taking precedence. As B.B. Warfield wrote, "The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before."

  5. Typo correction/rephrasing:
    Yes, the OT informs our reading of the NT, the other way is true too. With the NT taking precedence.

    Yes, the OT informs our reading of the NT, but the other way around is true too. We must also read the OT in light of the NT, with the NT taking precedence.

    Yet, if we read those OT passages in Hebrew, the Aramaic paraphrases of the Targumim and the Greek LXX, we wouldn't get a full-orbed NT Christology. The same is true of Pneumatology.

    The OT hints at the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit, but doesn't do so in as clear a way as the NT.

    I seriously can't see how the following evidence could be chalked up to only personification:

    The Holy Spirit:
    -Has a Mind: Rom. 8:27
    -Has a Will: He chooses and makes decisions 1 Cor. 12:11; Acts 13:2 [possibly Heb. 2:4]
    -The Holy Spirit can approve of things: Acts 15:28; and disapprove of things by being grieved Eph. 4:30
    -The Holy Spirit speaks: Acts 8:29; 10:19-20; 11:12; 13:2; 21:11; John 16:13; Matt. 10:20; Mark 13:11; Acts 28:25; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:7; 10:15; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 14:13; 22:17; 2 Sam. 23:2-3; Gal. 4:6; [Possibly also Ezek. 11:5 NET]
    -The Holy Spirit, like other persons, hears and listens: John 16:13; Acts 5:3; 2 Cor. 13:14
    -You can fellowship with the Holy Spirit: 2 Cor. 13:14; [Possibly also Phil. 2:1 NASB; Phil. 2:1 NET; Phil. 2:1 NKJV]
    -The Holy Spirit prays and intercedes according to the will of God: Rom. 8:26-27 [possibly Zech 12:10]
    -The Holy Spirit helps us to pray: Zech. 12:10; Rom. 8:15; Jude 1:20; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 6:18; 2:18; Phil. 1:19 [Possibly also Rom. 8:26; Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12; Mark 13:11]
    -The Holy Spirit teaches and guides: John 14:26; Luke 12:12; 1 Cor. 2:12-13, Heb. 9:8; Job 32:8
    -Reminds: John 14:26
    -Reveals: John 16:14, Luke 2:26
    -The Holy Spirit teaches is the Source of Wisdom/Understanding/Knowledge/Counsel (Isa. 11:2; 1 Cor. 2:13; 12:8; Eph. 1:17; Acts 6:3, 10; Exo. 28:3; 31:3; 35:31; Deut. 34:9; Dan. 4:8-9, 18; 5:11-12, 14; Job. 32:8; Col. 1:9)
    -The Holy Spirit leads and directs: Rom. 8:14; Gal. 5:18; Ps. 143:10; Luke 2:27 (Geneva and NET [cf. footnote 80] translations); Matt. 4:1//Mark 1:12//Luke 4:1
    -The Holy Spirit comforts: Acts 9:31; John 16:7 (depending on translation)
    -The Holy Spirit commissions and sends people out: Acts 13:4; Isa. 48:16
    -The Holy Spirit Appoints and Calls Ministers by consecrating/separating them and setting them up: Acts 20:28; 13:2,4
    -The Holy Spirit refers to Himself with the pronouns "I" and "Me" in Acts 13:2
    -The Holy Spirit forbids things as God sovereignly would and does: Acts 16:6, 7 [compare with James 4:15; Acts 18:21; Rom. 1:10; Rom 15:32; 1 Cor. 4:19; 1 Cor 16:7; Heb. 6:3]

    1. -One can lie to the Holy Spirit: Acts 5:3; and by so doing one is lying to God: Acts 5:4
      Hence the Holy Spirit is God. The Holy Spirit must also be a person since you can't lie to non-persons. It makes no sense to lie to a television or to the electricity that powers it. So, the Holy Spirit cannot be an impersonal force.

      -One can Tempt/Test the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:9) in violation of the command not to test YHWH (Deut. 6:16; Exo. 17:2, 7; Num. 14:22; Ps. 78:18, 41, 56; 95:9; 106:14; Mal. 3:15.)

      -One can disobey, resist or rebel against the Holy Spirit: Ps. 106:33 NASB; Isa. 63:10; Acts 7:51; Heb. 10:29d

      -The Holy Spirit, like any other person, can be sinned against: Matt. 12:31. You can't sin against an inanimate object (e.g. a TV) or impersonal force (e.g. electricity).

      -The Holy Spirit, like any other person, can be insulted and outraged: Heb. 10:29

      -The Holy Spirit, as a person (even a divine person) convicts of sin, righteousness and judgment: John 16:8

      -The Holy Spirit glorifies Christ: John 16:14

      -The Holy Spirit is "another" parakletos (allon parakleton) according to John 14:16. The word has been variously translated into English as "advocate," "comforter," "counselor," "helper," "encourager."

      -Just as the Father sent the Son (John 3:16-17), so the Father and Son (John 14:26; 15:26) send the Holy Spirit when Jesus returns to the Father (John 14:16, 26).

      -Being a temple of the Holy Spirit is being a temple of God (hence the Holy Spirit is God): 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:22; cf. Rom. 8:9-10.

      -The Holy Spirit bears witness/testimony even though only persons can testify: John 15:26; Acts 5:32; 20:23; Rom. 8:16; Heb. 10:15; 1 Pet. 1:11; 1 John 5:6-8.

    2. The Holy Spirit has the attributes of God like:

      Eternality (Heb. 9:14);

      Foreknowledge (John 16:13);

      Power to Create (Job 33:4; Ps. 33:6; 104:30);

      Sanctifies (1 Pet. 1:2; Rom. 15:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Thess. 2:13);

      Renews and Regenerates (Titus 3:5);

      Resurrection of believers will be by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:11; Rev. 11:11; Ezek. 37:5-6, 9-10, 14; Rom. 8:2)

      Resurrection of Christ was by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 1:4; 8:11; 1 Pet. 3:18-19)

      Omnipresence (Ps. 139:7); This is also suggested by the fact that the Holy Spirit can dwell within millions of Christians in diverse locations simultaneously. Just like the Father and the Son (John 14:23 compare with John 14:17). Therefore, an indication of full deity.

      Omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10-11). The Holy Spirit is said to search the deep things of God. This isn't discursive "searching."
      Sovereignty and Freedom/Liberty (John 3:8; 1 Cor. 12:11; 2 Cor. 3:17);

      Inspires Revelation (2 Pet. 1:21; Acts 28:25; 2 Sam. 23:2; Luke 2:26);

      Holiness (He is named the HOLY Spirit. He is Holy, and produces holiness in believers), cf. Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:10; Rom. 1:4 etc.)

      Goodness (Jesus said only God is Good [Matt. 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19], yet there are passages that teach God's Spirit as being Good. Therefore the Holy Spirit is God. See Neh. 9:20; Ps. 143:10 cf. Gal. 5:22 where part of the fruit of the Spirit is goodness)

      Source of Grace (Heb. 10:29; Zech. 12:10 [Possibly Rev. 1:4; see my comments below HERE] compare with 1 Pet. 5:10 where God is said to be the source of "all grace");

      Source of Truth (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13 [possibly 1 John 4:6] compare with Isa. 65:16 which states God is the "God of Truth" [cf. Ps. 31:5 "God of Truth" in the NKJV, ASV, NASB, YLT or "faithful" in the ESV, NET] and John 14:6 where Jesus says He is "the Truth");

      Source of Life (John 6:63; Rom. 8:2, 6, 10, 11; 2 Cor. 3:6; Job 33:4; John 3:5-8; Gal. 4:29; 5:25; 6:8; 1 Pet. 3:18 [assuming the "water of life" refers to the Holy Spirit then the following verses also apply John 4:10-14; 7:37-38; Rev. 7:17; 21:6; 22:1, 17])



  7. Annoyed, you should realize that no one actually reads your big cut and paste dumps.

    1. Oh really? Why then should anybody read your own comments?

    2. Actually, I suspect some people do. As a Calvinist I believe God sovereignty gives some people eyes to see and ears to hear the truth and therefore also prompts some to read my comments and perceive whatever truths are in them.

    3. Tuggy's assumption here is astounding.

      1. I read Annoyed's posts, because a) as a Calvinist I believe nothing occurs for no reason, and it would be foolish to dismiss what someone has to say without even *reading* them, and b) because, given (a), and given Annoyed's Calvinistic credentials, I believe he has some good insights.

      2. By Tuggy's reasoning, no one actually reads his long-drawn-out garbage. Yet, as a good Reformed sort of bloke, I read his posts.

      You see, the Reformed and Calvinistic actually like to read the other side. Archaic, I know!