Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[Arthur Brain]

Ask Mr. Religion,

Those that came before me are the ones instead.

Confessing faith isn't exactly synonyms with creating statements of what we believe and why. It's progressing Faith in GOD and Christ. There is much tradition I hold dear, and surely you too, but that doesn't change the fact that you used it as a cop out to back away from honest discussion that might refute your stance. I don't know what the wcf is but if it is a confession of faith then why would I need to study it... I have faith and confess it quite often. If it does or doesn't align with what you consider faith then okay, but making that grounds for elimination from conversation only after previously saying that honest scriptural conversations are to be found with Calvinists is sorta dishonest.

Why would I use the wcf for my argument? We already determined the grounds; it was scripture.

I claimed no charge against you except for clinging on to the cord of man made doctrine and circular reasoning. Me saying I believe this or that isn't hypocrisy in any form. I said not to lean on the traditions of man, not to not proclaim your faith.

What? The logic conclusion to my view is that we should read nothing but the bible?! Really? Please show me how you concluded such from my previous statements logically. I will wait.

Never, not once have I personally said that one should refer to the bible alone for direction. I've clearly stated quite the opposite actually and you are quite aware of that I am certain. It must be further attempt to discredit my opinion or views because I'm not orthodox.

I can learn from others and do daily. Today I learned that though you are generally well spoken and honest seeming, that when something you hold dear comes into question, you don't honestly consider it as you insinuated, but rather wall yourself behind a defence mechanism that basically says anyone who disagrees must be wrong and as such isn't worthy of intellectual discussion. Your entire argument is moot. Firstly; I never said only the Bible. Secondly, you simplify your own assumption to make one look ridiculous to no avail.

Self righteous; you don't seem to pay too much attention at times... Me neither, no biggie, but no I'm not self righteous at all... Quite humble generally actually... And regard myself as of no worth what so ever.

That does sound kinda ironic considering your own stance.

So I'm haughty because I freely read core scriptures without preconceptions and bias, and have found them to have very closely related themes, or am I haughty because I dare to speak against the tradition of man?

The guise of piety... Really... You claim I am disingenuous? Under what grounds? What motive would I have to be here other than genuine Faith? Please explain it to me. It surely isn't heedless contention. You should have noticed that all ready.

You don't know where my faith stemmed from but I'll let you know; it wasn't tradition. Scrutinize and consider is much of what I do. You aren't making any sense. Why would I simply disregard things without first testing them? Why would anyone.

So what good tradition flows from scripture that also pertains to orthodox Christianity as opposed to Christianity.

I can see I was fooled into thinking I was dealing with an honest intellectual. Intelligent; yes, honest; outwardly so yet self deceiving and prideful causing exceeding bias when ones own views are brought into actual question.

Duly noted.

Peace

Sincerely

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

The WCF is the 'Westminster Confession of Faith', staple in reformed theology.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Refer to your comments about how witnessing would lead to heaping burning coals on top of the heads of the 'reprobate' as exhibit one.

Yeah, AMR seems to like that idea.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Of course we do. We just do not think "free will" means what you think it means. All men are free to choose according to their greatest inclinations when they so choose. The inclinations of the lost are wholly not inclined to the good (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14), therefore the lost will never freely choose to seek after God's righteousness until and if God first changes these inclinations (Eze. 36:26).

AMR

Did you ever consider that you just might be misinterpreting those Scripture verses because of your Calvinist bias? Calvinists have a myriad of problems with their "belief system."

1) False doctrine
2) False gospel
3) False characterization of the God of the Bible
4) Misinterpretation of Bible verses
5) Belief that one must first be regenerated before receiving saving faith
6) Phony Elect belief
7) Predestination
8) Your worship of John Calvin, who was an evil, wicked, murdering tyrant.
9) Belief that humanity has no free will

Posters on TOL who know the history about Calvin know what I'm talking about.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

There is a simplicity to the Gospel that is missed by those who seek to complicate it. They're way too many commentaries out there and each one of them is coming from a different perspective.

Some folks try to show off their ability to use fancy terms, phrases, and words. Some are able to decipher these "Wordsmiths" artwork and some are not. Therefore, the "Complicated posters" are limiting their audience. Is it better to be understood by the majority of readers or is it more important to play the "Show off?"

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

@popsthebuilder

Why would I use the wcf for my argument? We already determined the grounds; it was scripture.

Persons like yourself constructing straw men of the Calvinist's views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about our beliefs what they believe about our beliefs leaves no hope for honest discussion.

Indeed, we all have confessions of what we believe, written and unwritten. Per Scripture, some of us belong to churches that are confessionally based to define the bounds of unity, for instruction, and for discipline.

If persons would avail themselves of a Scripturally accurate summary of our beliefs, e.g., WCF, with a nice exposition of the same here, and use these materials when claiming to understand Calvinism, much clarity would ensue. Unfortunately some prefer to just parrot others in discussion forums or rely upon inaccurate internet sites and not dig deeper using original sources.

To argue that you see no need to inform yourself of what the Calvinist or Reformed believer actually believes, speaks to the deficiencies noted above.

Each and every question you (and others) have raised or caviled about concerning the Reformed faith is adequately treated in the WCF and more thoroughly exposited in the WCFe. Had you taken the time to read and study this ancient confession, leveraging it for your questions or complaints, we would not be at this impasse.

Rather than implying your reliance upon Scripture alone is somehow lacking in my own case just because I point you to my confession of faith, you would do well to study it and repent of your charges laid at my feet.

The next time you want to ask me or another Calvinist about what we believe, try this template...

"I read in the WCF, which states {citation here} that {your topic here}. My {complaint/issue/question} with this teaching is that from Scripture I see the following taught because these verses teach us {your exegesis here}."

Such is how actual discussion about one's beliefs versus another's proceeds effectively versus being overly laden with the usual canards, vitriol or mis-characterizations.

Unfortunately, the anti-Calvinist has no long-lived and time-tested confessional basis from which they operate and form presuppositions. The Calvinist is therefore required to tease out from their many proclamations of this or that matter of doctrine and then respond. Of course, we are then met with the "this is not what we believe" complaints, despite their public statements to the contrary.

To demonstrate that I take my own advice about seeking to understand the views of others, I have actually composed an Arminian confession of faith that could serve as a useful template for any needed revisions and inclusion of their favorite Scripture proof texts. Would that these folks devise something along these lines...

Spoiler

An Arminian Confession of Faith - Remarks

The Arminians have no historical confessions to point to for catechesis, so confessing what they believe resorts to a hodge podge of localized views, written and unwritten. They are better off taking the talking points from the Canons of Dordt, to which the Remonstrants were responding, and claiming them as their confession as a starting point. I have done the heavy lifting for them along these lines as shown below.

Unfortunately, the Arminian's systematic theology of doctrine is but one of apophaticism and accompanying cavils against those that have come before them.


The Thirty-Four Articles of the Arminian Confession of Faith
(As Adopted From The Canons of Dordt)

1. It is the will of God to save those who would believe and persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith is the whole and entire decision of election to salvation, and that nothing else concerning this decision has been revealed in God's Word.

2. God's election to eternal life is of many kinds: one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and the latter in turn either incomplete, revocable, non-peremptory (or conditional), or else complete, irrevocable, and peremptory (or absolute). Likewise, who teach that there is one election to faith and another to salvation, so that there can be an election to justifying faith apart from a peremptory election to salvation.

3. God's good pleasure and purpose, which Scripture mentions in its teaching of election, does not involve God's choosing certain particular people rather than others, but involves God's choosing, out of all possible conditions (including the works of the law) or out of the whole order of things, the intrinsically unworthy act of faith, as well as the imperfect obedience of faith, to be a condition of salvation; and it involves his graciously wishing to count this as perfect obedience and to look upon it as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

4. In election to faith a prerequisite condition is that man should rightly use the light of nature, be upright, unassuming, humble, and disposed to eternal life, as though election depended to some extent on these factors.

5. The incomplete and non-peremptory election of particular persons to salvation occurred on the basis of a foreseen faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness, which has just begun or continued for some time; but that complete and peremptory election occurred on the basis of a foreseen perseverance to the end in faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness. And that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, on account of which the one who is chosen is more worthy than the one who is not chosen. And therefore that faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits or effects of an unchangeable election to glory, but indispensable conditions and causes, which are prerequisite in those who are to be chosen in the complete election, and which are foreseen as achieved in them.

6. Not every election to salvation is unchangeable, but that some of the chosen can perish and do in fact perish eternally, with no decision of God to prevent it.

7. In this life there is no fruit, no awareness, and no assurance of one's unchangeable election to glory, except as conditional upon something changeable and contingent.

8. It was not on the basis of his just will alone that God decided to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state of sin and condemnation or to pass anyone by in the imparting of grace necessary for faith and conversion.

9. The cause for God's sending the gospel to one people rather than to another is not merely and solely God's good pleasure, but rather that one people is better and worthier than the other to whom the gospel is not communicated.

10. God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ's death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual.

11. The purpose of Christ's death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with men, whether of grace or of works.

12. Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose, and that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the free choice of man; consequently, that it was possible that either all or none would fulfill them.

13. What is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with men through the intervening of Christ's death is not that we are justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts Christ's merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

14. All people have been received into the state of reconciliation and into the grace of the covenant, so that no one on account of original sin is liable to condemnation, or is to be condemned, but that all are free from the guilt of this sin.

15. We make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves.

16. Christ neither could die, nor had to die, nor did die for those whom God so dearly loved and chose to eternal life, since such people do not need the death of Christ.

17. Properly speaking, it cannot be said that original sin in itself is enough to condemn the whole human race or to warrant temporal and eternal punishments.

18. The spiritual gifts or the good dispositions and virtues such as goodness, holiness, and righteousness could not have resided in man's will when he was first created, and therefore could not have been separated from the will at the fall.

19. In spiritual death the spiritual gifts have not been separated from man's will, since the will in itself has never been corrupted but only hindered by the darkness of the mind and the unruliness of the emotions, and since the will is able to exercise its innate free capacity once these hindrances are removed, which is to say, it is able of itself to will or choose whatever good is set before it--or else not to will or choose it.

20. Unregenerate man is not strictly or totally dead in his sins or deprived of all capacity for spiritual good but is able to hunger and thirst for righteousness or life and to offer the sacrifice of a broken and contrite spirit which is pleasing to God.

21. Corrupt and natural man can make such good use of common grace(by which they mean the light of nature)or of the gifts remaining after the fall that he is able thereby gradually to obtain a greater grace-- evangelical or saving grace--as well as salvation itself; and that in this way God, for his part, shows himself ready to reveal Christ to all people, since he provides to all, to a sufficient extent and in an effective manner, the means necessary for the revealing of Christ, for faith, and for repentance.

22. In the true conversion of man new qualities, dispositions, or gifts cannot be infused or poured into his will by God, and indeed that the faith [or believing] by which we first come to conversion and from which we receive the name "believers" is not a quality or gift infused by God, but only an act of man, and that it cannot be called a gift except in respect to the power of attaining faith.

23. The grace by which we are converted to God is nothing but a gentle persuasion, or (as others explain it) that the way of God's acting in man's conversion that is most noble and suited to human nature is that which happens by persuasion, and that nothing prevents this grace of moral suasion even by itself from making natural men spiritual; indeed, that God does not produce the assent of the will except in this manner of moral suasion, and that the effectiveness of God's work by which it surpasses the work of Satan consists in the fact that God promises eternal benefits while Satan promises temporal ones.

24. God in regenerating man does not bring to bear that power of his omnipotence whereby he may powerfully and unfailingly bend man's will to faith and conversion, but that even when God has accomplished all the works of grace which he uses for man's conversion, man nevertheless can, and in actual fact often does, so resist God and the Spirit in their intent and will to regenerate him, that man completely thwarts his own rebirth; and, indeed, that it remains in his own power whether or not to be reborn.

25. Grace and free choice are concurrent partial causes which cooperate to initiate conversion, and that grace does not precede--in the order of causality--the effective influence of the will; that is to say,that God does not effectively help man's will to come to conversion before man's will itself motivates and determines itself.

26. The perseverance of true believers is not an effect of election or a gift of God produced by Christ's death, but a condition of the new covenant which man, before what they call his "peremptory" election and justification, must fulfill by his free will.

27. God does provide the believer with sufficient strength to persevere and is ready to preserve this strength in him if he performs his duty, but that even with all those things in place which are necessary to persevere in faith and which God is pleased to use to preserve faith, it still always depends on the choice of man's will whether or not he perseveres.

28. Those who truly believe and have been born again not only can forfeit justifying faith as well as grace and salvation totally and to the end, but also in actual fact do often forfeit them and are lost forever.

29. Those who truly believe and have been born again can commit the sin that leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit).

30. Apart from a special revelation no one can have the assurance of future perseverance in this life.

31. The teaching of the assurance of perseverance and of salvation is by its very nature and character an opiate of the flesh and is harmful to godliness, good morals, prayer, and other holy exercises, but that, on the contrary, to have doubt about this is praiseworthy.

32. The faith of those who believe only temporarily does not differ from justifying and saving faith except in duration alone.

33. It is not absurd that a person, after losing his former regeneration, should once again, indeed quite often, be reborn.

34. Christ nowhere prayed for an unfailing perseverance of believers in faith.

In so adopting these Arminian confessional points, the Reformed pray that the Arminian grant thanks to the Reformed for their (1) cogent understanding of these points, (2) clear Scriptural responses to all so contained therein, and (3) that the Arminian understand the Reformed view as well as do the Reformed of the Arminian view.

After reviewing the Arminian Confession of Faith above, some will no doubt complain that this is not an accurate summary of what he or she believes. The above is actually taken from the complaints lodged by the followers of Arminius in 1618 against what would later be called Calvinism. Unfortunately, today's Arminian does not understand nor bears actual resemblance to the classic Arminians of yesteryear. Most moderns have not even taken the time to study the developments of the church in history such that they can determine for themselves what and why they think they believe what they believe.

AMR

 

[popsthebuilder]

Persons like yourself constructing straw men of the Calvinist's views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about our beliefs what they believe about our beliefs leaves no hope for honest discussion.

If persons would avail themselves of a Scripturally accurate summary of our beliefs, e.g., WCF, with a nice exposition of the same here, much clarity would ensue. Unfortunately some prefer to just parrot others in discussion forums and not dig deeper.

AMR

More assumption on your part it seems. I have looked into tulip multiple times, understand it and agree with it. I've stayed the reasons why profitable discussion can't continue, and it isn't because I won't research your creed of faith.

It is a pity that we can't get past this.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Ktoyou]

I hope nowhere is the answer. It is mine. Such a person has arrived at a place where faith, belief, thought, or rationale are heterogeneous.

AMR

So, it would be be a bad place to be, if one were really old, huh?

Jesus said, 'be innocent like children'; sooner, or later, if one lives long enough, this gets easy, par for the course of life.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

More assumption on your part it seems. I have looked into tulip multiple times, understand it and agree with it. I've stayed the reasons why profitable discussion can't continue, and it isn't because I won't research your creed of faith.

It is a pity that we can't get past this.

TULIP is but the doctrines of grace, an acrostic created by a pastor in the early 1900s for memory aid. TULIP is not what makes a Reformed person, but merely makes one a Calvinist.

All Reformed are Calvinists.
All Calvinists are not Reformed.

The WCF is not a confession of TULIP. You would know this if you have studied the Confession. While the WCF includes summaries of the doctrines of grace, it also includes the full corpus of what the Reformed believe on the major points of doctrine taught in Scripture.

Further, if you agree with and understand TULIP then you would not be mounting arguments supporting universal reconciliation or flirting with annihilationism.

AMR

 

[popsthebuilder]

TULIP is but the doctrines of grace, an acrostic created by a pastor in the early 1900s for memory aid. TULIP is not what makes a Reformed person, but merely makes one a Calvinist.

All Reformed are Calvinists.
All Calvinists are not Reformed.

The WCF is not a confession of TULIP. You would know this if you have studied the Confession. While the WCF includes summaries of the doctrines of grace, it also includes the full corpus of what the Reformed believe on the major points of doctrine taught in Scripture.

Further, if you agree with and understand TULIP then you would not be mounting arguments supporting universal reconciliation or flirting with annihilationism.

AMR

All three are supported by scripture.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Thank God not all have been mesmerized by the false doctrines of Calvinism.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Calvinism is for those who are too intellectually inclined to accept the simplicity of the Gospel of Grace.

 

[Rosenritter]

There is absolutely no scripture you can provide to claim that any corrupted human being has the ability, capacity, "free" will, or virtue inherent to his being, to stop sinning and believe in God. None.

Eze 3:18-19 KJV
(18) When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
(19) Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Eze 18:21-23 KJV
(21) But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
(22) All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.
(23) Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?


There's actually quite a few passages Nang. The problem is that the spirit of Calvinism is diametrically opposed to the will of God as expressed in scripture.

 

[Rosenritter]

"When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, raise yourself to life so that you can come to me.”

- John 11:43 (Arminian translation)*

Mat 25:31-46 TulipBee Calvinists Perversion (TCP)
(31) When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
(32) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
(33) And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
(34) Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
(35) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
(36) Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
(37) Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
(38) When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
(39) Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
(40) And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Insomuch as you were chosen by me from the beginning of the world before you existed, you may enter into eternal life.
(41) Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
(42) For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
(43) I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
(44) Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
(45) Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye were hated of me from the beginning of the world before you existed, ye shall go away into everlasting punishment.
(46) And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

That's an example of how you would have to rewrite Christ's very words to accommodate your sick twisted doctrine. Whereas Christ in reality said that the sheep and goats were determined by their actions, even their actions towards the very least of mankind, you would insist that ones heart and actions have nothing to do with God's selection but that it was some capricious whim that created men permanently damned.

 

[Rosenritter]

Your answer above means that you believe that God predestinates people to hell before they are born.

How you can claim that you have faith in a God that would do such a thing is a mystery.

If someone is destined for one of two fates, and the specific fate is not yet determined but dependent on another factor, one could say that they were predestined for both fate A and fate B. I was just thinking about this realizing that I could say both that man was predestined for eternal life as well as fated to die. Both destinies were set out and determined ahead of time in that sense.

* Man would be predestined for eternal life, he was created for eternal life and God wills that man come to that knowledge of love and truth,
* Man is predestined for death, being fated to perish since the curse, and without the gift of eternal life he shall perish.
* Man would not be predestined to "become an angel" or "live in a state of neither life nor death" as these are not biblical (and provided for contrast.)

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So, it would be be a bad place to be, if one were really old, huh?

Jesus said, 'be innocent like children'; sooner, or later, if one lives long enough, this gets easy, par for the course of life.

The children analogy speaks to the wholesome trust of children. I certainly see how as we age this trait becomes more jaded as we operate in the world around us. But I do not think the Lord meant we are to disconnect faith, belief, thought, or rationale from one another as we grow in our faith.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

All three are supported by scripture.

If you have studied as recommended you would not be able to claim universalism and annihilationism have any Scriptural warrant. Carry on as you wish. I am not going to address these two topics any further with you.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thank God not all have been mesmerized by the false doctrines of Calvinism.

I would rather a man not claim to embrace TULIP while also embracing annihilationism and universalism. Such a man embracing these two errors is quite double-minded and confused by chasing every shiny object that comes their way.

AMR

 

[Ktoyou]

The children analogy speaks to the wholesome trust of children. I certainly see how as we age this trait becomes more jaded as we operate in the world around us. But I do not think the Lord meant we are to disconnect faith, belief, thought, or rationale from one another as we grow in our faith.

AMR

Agree, not to lose faith, yet faith comes to replace reason and that aspect recedes, and faith remains, even seems stronger.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You're a very erudite man AMR with an obviously keen intellect and propensity for academia. But I don't see any empathy from you, or compassion. Refer to your comments about how witnessing would lead to heaping burning coals on top of the heads of the 'reprobate' as exhibit one.

You obviously do not know me well enough to form such an opinion. Those that do, know better. I just believe we ought to make the distinction between different kinds of persons in error, as made in Jude 22-23. Some persons require compassion, and some require fear. Given the number of errors you hold, you are in the latter category. :AMR:

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Did you ever consider that you just might be misinterpreting those Scripture verses because of your Calvinist bias?

Indeed I have. Unlike yourself, however, I have taken the time and effort to dig deeper, performing the required exegetical analysis in support of my view of these verses and more. When you can point me to your own efforts doing the same, perhaps a discussion will take place and we will both learn from one another. When can I expect to see this from you?

AMR