Covenant of Works

[Ladodgers6]

Would you say that Jesus was born under the Law if Moses, or the Law of Adam; or under both?

@Guy Swenson

Both, because the Mosaic Law is a republication of the CoW with Adam. This is the Mosaic Law/CoW that the Last Adam came to fulfill and remove the curse of the Law upon those who believe.

 

[Guy Swenson]

Both, because the Mosaic Law is a republication of the CoW with Adam. This is the Mosaic Law/CoW that the Last Adam came to fulfill and remove the curse of the Law upon those who believe.

I would say Jesus, a Jew, was born under the Mosaic Covenant. (My view is the C.o.W. never existed ...)

 

[Arial]

Speaking of the direct approach, Fesko writes:

Despite some initial similarities between them, Calvin radically departs from Aquinas when he claims: ‘The passage is taken from Lev. 18:5, where the Lord promises eternal life to those who will keep his law.’

Fesko, J. V.. Adam and the Covenant of Works (Divine Covenants Book 1) (p. 62). Christian Focus Publications. Kindle Edition. (This citation by Fesko is from Calvin’s commentary on Romans.)

NOTE: Here Calvin minces no words when he asserts Lev. 18:5 is the definitive text proving perfect obedience earns eternal life. He states that Lev. 18:5 is an explicit promise to the Israelites that their perfect obedience to the law would earn them eternal life.

Just to show that you are accusing someone of proof texting (something only a fool would accuse Calvin of) by proof texting his words I present the following from which only one sentence is taken from in his commentary on Romans 10.





"5. For Moses, etc. To render it evident how much at variance is the righteousness of faith and that of works, he now compares them; for by comparison the opposition between contrary things appears more clear. But he refers not now to the oracles of the Prophets, but to the testimony of Moses, and for this reason, -- that the Jews might understand that the law was not given by Moses in order to detain them in a dependence on works, but, on the contrary, to lead them to Christ. He might have indeed referred to the Prophets as witnesses; but still this doubt must have remained, "How was it that the law prescribed another rule of righteousness?" He then removes this, and in the best manner, when by the teaching of the law itself he confirms the righteousness of faith.



For Moses describes, etc. Paul has graphei writes; which is used for a verb which means to describe, by taking away a part of it [epigraphei.] The passage is taken from Leviticus 18:5, where the Lord promises eternal life to those who would keep his law; for in this sense, as you see, Paul has taken the passage, and not only of temporal life, as some think. Paul indeed thus reasons, -- "Since no man can attain the righteousness prescribed in the law, except he fulfills strictly every part of it, and since of this perfection all men have always come far short, it is in vain for any one to strive in this way for salvation: Israel then were very foolish, who expected to attain the righteousness of the law, from which we are all excluded." See how from the promise itself he proves, that it can avail us nothing, and for this reason, because the condition is impossible. What a futile device it is then to allege legal promises, in order to establish the righteousness of the law! For with these an unavoidable curse comes to us; so far is it, that salvation should thence proceed. The more detestable on this account is the stupidity of the Papists, who think it enough to prove merits by adducing bare promises. "It is not in vain," they say, "that God has promised life to his servants." But at the same time they see not that it has been promised, in order that a consciousness of their own transgressions may strike all with the fear of death, and that being thus constrained by their own deficiency, they may learn to flee to Christ.

This is specifically dealing with Romans 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those things shall live by them. That is the "this passage" that verse 5 refers to and what follows is Calvin's exposition of it.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I would say Jesus, a Jew, was born under the Mosaic Covenant. (My view is the C.o.W. never existed ...)

I have spent a lot of time reading, researching the Classical view of Covenant Theology. That the teaching and concept is taught in Scripture. For example in Hosea 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me. Read Kingdom Prologue by Meredith Kline, or Geerhardus Vos.

Paul makes an excellent juxaposition in Romans 5:12-21 between the two Adams. The book of Hebrews is another demonstration of the Covenant Promise of God. God has always dealt with his creation through Covenant. I'll post something for you later on the Covenant of Works with more Scripture.​

 

[Ladodgers6]

Thank you, and you are of course correct that there are other C.O.W. stipulations, and I appreciate the recommendations. My focus in this material is on the parts of the C.O.W. that relate specifically to salvation. I have had my horizons broadened by comments made here.

I highly recommend reading Meredith Kline's Kingdom Prologue, or the Sacred Bond Brown/Keele. Both are excellent reads.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Both, because the Mosaic Law is a republication of the CoW with Adam. This is the Mosaic Law/CoW that the Last Adam came to fulfill and remove the curse of the Law upon those who believe.

If you can brother get this book called the Sacred Bond by Brown/Keele. It's not academic or a hard read. It's layout for the lay person to read, and backed up with Scripture. The orientation and composition of the book starts with the Covenant of Redemption, CoW, CoG, and goes through the other varies Covenants: Abraham Covenant, Davidic Covenant and so forth. I know you love it, check it out.

 

[ReverendRV]

Both, because the Mosaic Law is a republication of the CoW with Adam. This is the Mosaic Law/CoW that the Last Adam came to fulfill and remove the curse of the Law upon those who believe.

Then if you are correct, everything he said in his Four Conclusions at the start are also correct; and therefore his rebuttals are also most likely to be correct...

We speak of Limited Atonement; why can't the Edenic Covenant of Works not be a limited version of the Mosaic Covenant? This is the the way I look at it; the Edenic Covenant of Works is Limited to only a Curse. The Mosaic Covenant has Blessings and Curses. If these two Covenants of Works are a Hypostasis, then God promised Life and Curses to Adam; because the Mosaic Covenant LOANS it's Promises to the Edenic Covenant...

To me, this is the crux of the Debate here; how can it be both since Jesus did not come from Adam? Christ's Covenant of Works was harder to Keep than Adam's Covenant of Works was; Jesus HAD to Die to Keep the Covenant of Works, Adam didn't. They MUST be two different Covenants of Works. Baptists separate the Old Covenant from the New Covenant; Presbyterians don't. Baptists separate the Edenic Covenant from the Mosaic Covenant; Presbyterians don't...

Let's ask; what did Jesus HAVE to do that Adam didn't?

@Guy Swenson @Arial @His clay @Josheb @CrowCross

Remember Seth? He got to a point he would often ignore me, because I said interesting things hard to answer...

 

[Arial]

"Of course they are ..." keep reading ... Calvin's use of Lev. 18:5 to prove eternal life can be earned by perfect obedience is coming up. His treatment of Lev. 18:5 fails because not one of those in the audience, according to the doctrine of Original Sin, could possibly live in perfect obedience. His assertion of perfect obedience earning eternal life fails because:

So I ask again: why do you think Jesus was born under the law and kept the law perfectly and metaphorically did not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Calvin's treatment of Romans 10 using Lev 18:5 as what Paul is quoting in Romans 10:5 is not offered in the attempt to disprove the COV. Only par to his sentence, not to mention his entire exposition is omitted from the argument. Calvin also does a commentary specifically on Lev 18:5. I suggest you read it.

#2: Calvin does a "back shadowing to Adam" (for lack of a better term) of Lev. 18:5, because he needs it to fill in the gap of no Biblical basis for "perfect obedience earning eternal life" at the time of Adam.

What does Lev 18:5 say? You shall therefore keep by statutes and my rules;if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.
Forget "back shadowing to Adam", forget Fesko, Calvin, me. What do you say that means? What was it said in regards to? The Mosaic Law. I am wondering when God will enter into your interpretations. The Bible never says that Adam had to earn eternal life and as far as I know, neither did Calvin. Eternal life was lost. Now it is being earned back by the what? person and work of Jesus. And Jesus is not earning it, He was born with it, just as Adam was created with it. Jesus did not lose His righteousness, He laid it down on the cross as our substitute to die in our place, He purchased us with His blood.

I can only find "foreshadowing" elsewhere - the serpent being lifted up foreshadowing Jesus being lifted up on the cross ... Calvin gets special treatment here to invent or make up this "back shadowing," which is to me the equivalent of back dating a check or contract.

Extremely faulty hermeneutics, exegesis, theology. Back shadowing is a completely made up argument. None was done. What does it even mean? It is as though you said to yourself, "I do not believe in the COW so I will do whatever I need to do, even tarnish the names of those God appointed for a certain time and place and purpose, to do so." The results prove that statement about the Reformers.

 

[Arial]

I would offer.

Adam was not born with a righteousness of his own. He was born of the flesh, dying mankind. . in need of salvation.

We are saved by the Righteous One

Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith (His works) of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law,(death) but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:. . . .His working in us

Adam wasn't born at all.

 

[Arial]

Then if you are correct, everything he said in his Four Conclusions at the start are also correct; and therefore his rebuttals are also most likely to be correct...

We speak of Limited Atonement; why can't the Edenic Covenant of Works not be a limited version of the Mosaic Covenant? This is the the way I look at it; the Edenic Covenant of Works is Limited to only a Curse. The Mosaic Covenant has Blessings and Curses. If these two Covenants of Works are a Hypostasis, then God promised Life and Curses to Adam; the Mosaic Covenant LOANS it's Promises to the Edenic Covenant...

To me, this is like the crux of the Debate here; how can it be both since Jesus did not come from Adam? Christ's Covenant of Works was harder to Keep than Adam's Covenant of Works was; Jesus HAD to Die, Adam didn't. They MUST be two different Covenants of Works. Baptists separate the Old Covenant from the New Covenant; Presbyterians don't. Baptists separate the Edenic Covenant from the Mosaic Covenant; Presbyterians don't...

Let's ask; what did Jesus HAVE to do that Adam didn't?

@Guy Swenson @Arial @His clay @Josheb @CrowCross

I do not agree with your summation of what @Ladodger said concluding that the Four Conclusions are correct. Their incorrectness is blaring like a fog horn from the outset. I do not see the connection you are making.

Jesus had to do the same thing that Adam did. Keep His perfect righteousness by full obedience to God, never wavering in His trust as Son of Man. Jesus did what gives eternal life perfect obedience (which is why He could substitute for those in Adam and take their just punishment, why the grave could not hold Him, how He defeated our enemies sin and death.) What must not be lost in all of this discussion is that Jesus is a/the conquerer, the rescuer. He was faithful unto what---death. Adam had no death sentence unless he disobeyed God, which he did do.

 

[ReverendRV]

I do not agree with your summation of what @Ladodger said concluding that the Four Conclusions are correct. Their incorrectness is blaring like a fog horn from the outset. I do not see the connection you are making.

Jesus had to do the same thing that Adam did. Keep His perfect righteousness by full obedience to God, never wavering in His trust as Son of Man. Jesus did what gives eternal life perfect obedience (which is why He could substitute for those in Adam and take their just punishment, why the grave could not hold Him, how He defeated our enemies sin and death.) What must not be lost in all of this discussion is that Jesus is a/the conquerer, the rescuer. He was faithful unto what---death. Adam had no death sentence unless he disobeyed God, which he did do.

I don't agree with @Guy Swenson 's Four conclusions either; and neither does he. He's using the Doctrine of the quoted Theologians, so he can undermine them; like you and I are also undermining his Conclusions. I can't say Guy is building a Strawman, since his Four Conclusions are the Teachings of Covenant Theologians. But I can say, when Mormons have Theologians; it doesn't mean they're right; that Mormonism is True because it has a Doctrine...

Perhaps we can agree that although Gus isn't building a Strawman, he's using someone else's Strawman?

 

[Eleanor]

As I've asked before, why would they Conflate the Promises of the Mosaic Covenant of Works, with the Edenic Covenant of Works?

Saint Paul DID equate Leviticus 18:5 in support of earning Eternal Life; but through the Mosaic Covenant of Works...
I ask you, will you say that this makes sense?

Unless in Ro 10:5, he was thinking of Lev 18:5 in terms of judgment alone, according to the principles of Ro 2:2-16 by which God will judge mankind at the judgment, showing all mankind to be unrighteous:
1) according to truth - (for hypocrites, vv. 1-2)
2) according to deeds - (per Lev 18:5 for those who have the law, vv. 6-11),
3) according to conscience - (for those without the law, vv 12-15),
rather than thinking of Lev 18:5 in terms of eternal life.

For in Gal 3:12, Paul specifically excludes the law as a means of righteousness to eternal life:
"Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because 'The righteous will live by faith.' (Hab 2:4), and the law is not based on faith; on the contrary, 'The man who does these things will live by them.' (Lev 18:5)"

In Paul, righteousness comes only from God (Ro 10:3, 1:17, 3:21, Php 3:9), never from law-keeping, and not because it is impossible to do so, but because, as stated in the above, the law was never given for righteousness., it was given to
1) reveal sin (Ro 3:20) and
2) be our custodian until Christ who justifies us by faith alone (Gal 3:24, Ro 3:28).

If you won't, there isn't much reason for us to critique your work as you asked. If you agree, but want to deal with it later on in other responses; just say it's coming. I have already supported you in your Premise that the Theologians you mention teach the Covenant of Works as you present it. Support me in return, by agreeing what I say here is sensible; and if it's not part of your rebuttal, it should be added...

Again, you are not showing that Calvin or others mean this of the Edenic Covenant of Works. Can you show any of your Theologians using Post Edenic references to refer to Adam?

No, not within the Edenic Covenant of Works...

Why? Because of Categories and Category Mistakes. Can you show that a Covenant with two Federal Heads has to be the same Covenant regarding its application in Time? The application of the Mosaic Covenant of Works is different in our Time, right?

 

[Eleanor]

Hi Eleanor,

You said:

From Hermann Witsius (1636 - 1708), a Dutch theologian, pastor and professor of divinity at the University of Franeker in 1675, the University of Utrecht in 1680 and the University of Leiden 1698. As a 17th Is this what theologians teach about what is due to the person who perfectly obeys?

theologian, Witsius is often cited by modern theologians as an authority on Reform Theology in general, and the Covenant of Works in particular.
From what I have read, the answer to your question "Is this what theologians teach about what is due to the person who perfectly obeys?"
The literature is full of Reformed theologians, including Calvin, saying that perfect, personal and perpetual obedience would earn eternal life. As I cover in my rebuttal to Conclusion #4, this perfect obedience is how, in their writings, Jesus earned His eternal life and merited eternal life that could be imputed to others.

This is not what I believe to be true, but this is how Reformed theologians have taught it.

As some have summarized it, Salvation is by works.. Jesus earned eternal life by His works of perfect obedience. The question is whether you rely on your personal works or on the works of Jesus who earned eternal life by His perfect obedience.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I am referring only to a typographical error in the text.

 

[Eleanor]

I have spent a lot of time reading, researching the Classical view of Covenant Theology. That the teaching and concept is taught in Scripture. For example in Hosea 6:7 But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me. Read Kingdom Prologue by Meredith Kline, or Geerhardus Vos.

Paul makes an excellent juxaposition in Romans 5:12-21 between the two Adams.​

Which are contrasting juxtaposiitons of imputation of disobedience/condemnation and obedience/justification-eternal life.

The book of Hebrews is another demonstration of the Covenant Promise of God. God has always dealt with his creation through Covenant. I'll post something for you later on the Covenant of Works with more Scripture.​

 

[Guy Swenson]

Just to show that you are accusing someone of proof texting (something only a fool would accuse Calvin of) by proof texting his words I present the following from which only one sentence is taken from in his commentary on Romans 10.

"5. For Moses, etc. To render it evident how much at variance is the righteousness of faith and that of works, he now compares them; for by comparison the opposition between contrary things appears more clear. But he refers not now to the oracles of the Prophets, but to the testimony of Moses, and for this reason, -- that the Jews might understand that the law was not given by Moses in order to detain them in a dependence on works, but, on the contrary, to lead them to Christ. He might have indeed referred to the Prophets as witnesses; but still this doubt must have remained, "How was it that the law prescribed another rule of righteousness?" He then removes this, and in the best manner, when by the teaching of the law itself he confirms the righteousness of faith.

For Moses describes, etc. Paul has graphei writes; which is used for a verb which means to describe, by taking away a part of it [epigraphei.] The passage is taken from Leviticus 18:5, where the Lord promises eternal life to those who would keep his law; for in this sense, as you see, Paul has taken the passage, and not only of temporal life, as some think. Paul indeed thus reasons, -- "Since no man can attain the righteousness prescribed in the law, except he fulfills strictly every part of it, and since of this perfection all men have always come far short, it is in vain for any one to strive in this way for salvation: Israel then were very foolish, who expected to attain the righteousness of the law, from which we are all excluded." See how from the promise itself he proves, that it can avail us nothing, and for this reason, because the condition is impossible. What a futile device it is then to allege legal promises, in order to establish the righteousness of the law! For with these an unavoidable curse comes to us; so far is it, that salvation should thence proceed. The more detestable on this account is the stupidity of the Papists, who think it enough to prove merits by adducing bare promises. "It is not in vain," they say, "that God has promised life to his servants." But at the same time they see not that it has been promised, in order that a consciousness of their own transgressions may strike all with the fear of death, and that being thus constrained by their own deficiency, they may learn to flee to Christ.

This is specifically dealing with Romans 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those things shall live by them. That is the "this passage" that verse 5 refers to and what follows is Calvin's exposition of it.

I have a detailed rebuttal - it was 1,300+ words, so I have to cut it down. I do quote from Calvin's commentary on Lev. 18:5. Will post it later.

So I ask again: why do you think Jesus was born under the law and kept the law perfectly and metaphorically did not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? Calvin's treatment of Romans 10 using Lev 18:5 as what Paul is quoting in Romans 10:5 is not offered in the attempt to disprove the COV. Only par to his sentence, not to mention his entire exposition is omitted from the argument. Calvin also does a commentary specifically on Lev 18:5. I suggest you read it.

To me, your question presupposes the C.o.W. is true. I also am using the conclusions of the C.o.W. arguments. Would you not agree that if the conclusions of an argument are falsifiable by explicit Scripture, it doesn't matter how the argument was constructed?

Jesus was the Son of God, the Logos made flesh. He never needed obedience to earn eternal life. John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

The C.o.W. teaches that Jesus had to do what Adam did not do - live a perfect life without sin so He could earn eternal life and impute that eternal life to those He chose. Jesus fulfilled the C.o.W. The apostle John says otherwise. But this is covered in Rebuttal #4.

What does Lev 18:5 say? You shall therefore keep by statutes and my rules;if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the Lord.
Forget "back shadowing to Adam", forget Fesko, Calvin, me. What do you say that means? What was it said in regards to? The Mosaic Law. I am wondering when God will enter into your interpretations. The Bible never says that Adam had to earn eternal life and as far as I know, neither did Calvin. Eternal life was lost. Now it is being earned back by the what? person and work of Jesus. And Jesus is not earning it, He was born with it, just as Adam was created with it. Jesus did not lose His righteousness, He laid it down on the cross as our substitute to die in our place, He purchased us with His blood.

Belief in Jesus and the atonement by way of His death and shed blood is the only way of being given the gift of eternal life.

So, Adam never had to earn eternal life by perfect obedience. I actually agree with that, but then it must follow that Jesus never had to earn eternal life by perfect obedience. So Jesus never had to fulfill the C.o.W. I agree with that as well. (I get into this in Rebuttal #4 - it comes from the treatment of Romans 5 and equivalencies drawn between Adam's disobedience and what is meant by the obedience of Jesus.

Extremely faulty hermeneutics, exegesis, theology. Back shadowing is a completely made up argument. None was done. What does it even mean? It is as though you said to yourself, "I do not believe in the COW so I will do whatever I need to do, even tarnish the names of those God appointed for a certain time and place and purpose, to do so." The results prove that statement about the Reformers.

I am sorry that you feel disagreeing or disputing the teachings of theologians is tarnishing their names. It seems to me then that all doctrinal disagreements become attacks on persons. That certainly limits discussion and debate on matters of theology and doctrine. As to "back shadowing" - it is a completely made up term by me to describe something that I could not find a historical precedent among theologians. Maybe it exists - but I never heard of someone taking an event thousands of years later an applying it in that manner.

 

[ReverendRV]

I have a detailed rebuttal - it was 1,300+ words, so I have to cut it down. I do quote from Calvin's commentary on Lev. 18:5. Will post it later.

To me, your question presupposes the C.o.W. is true. I also am using the conclusions of the C.o.W. arguments. Would you not agree that if the conclusions of an argument are falsifiable by explicit Scripture, it doesn't matter how the argument was constructed?

Jesus was the Son of God, the Logos made flesh. He never needed obedience to earn eternal life. John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

The C.o.W. teaches that Jesus had to do what Adam did not do - live a perfect life without sin so He could earn eternal life and impute that eternal life to those He chose. Jesus fulfilled the C.o.W. The apostle John says otherwise. But this is covered in Rebuttal #4.

Belief in Jesus and the atonement by way of His death and shed blood is the only way of being given the gift of eternal life.

So, Adam never had to earn eternal life by perfect obedience. I actually agree with that, but then it must follow that Jesus never had to earn eternal life by perfect obedience. So Jesus never had to fulfill the C.o.W. I agree with that as well. (I get into this in Rebuttal #4 - it comes from the treatment of Romans 5 and equivalencies drawn between Adam's disobedience and what is meant by the obedience of Jesus.


I am sorry that you feel disagreeing or disputing the teachings of theologians is tarnishing their names. It seems to me then that all doctrinal disagreements become attacks on persons. That certainly limits discussion and debate on matters of theology and doctrine. As to "back shadowing" - it is a completely made up term by me to describe something that I could not find a historical precedent among theologians. Maybe it exists - but I never heard of someone taking an event thousands of years later an applying it in that manner.

Guy, you skipped a Post I tagged you in, to reply to this Post...

 

[Guy Swenson]

I don't agree with @Guy Swenson 's Four conclusions either; and neither does he. He's using the Doctrine of the quoted Theologians, so he can undermine them; like you and I are also undermining his Conclusions. I can't say Guy is building a Strawman, since his Four Conclusions are the Teachings of Covenant Theologians. But I can say, when Mormons have Theologians; it doesn't mean they're right; that Mormonism is True because it has a Doctrine...

Perhaps we can agree that although Gus isn't building a Strawman, he's using someone else's Strawman?

As it is winter, can we call it a "snow man" instead of "strawman" argument?

If the four conclusions do not represent standard/acceptable/correct Covenant Theology, then show me evidence. The authors I cite include professors at recognized Reformed universities & colleges, have written well-accepted books used in those institutions, or Calvin himself.

While I agree with many of the disagreements over what is included in the four conclusions - especially the disagreements using explicit Bible texts, the opinions of individuals - certainly mine included - have not been used to define doctrine.

If, for example, Grudem were to be considered a poor representative of Reformed Theology and the author of "strawman" (or snow man) arguments, then I have to ask myself, what qualifications does the person making such a judgment of Grudem have and why should their opinion be considered valid or worthy?

Again, I am on the outside looking in - but this idea that leading professors, theologians, writers of Systematic Theology books used in Reformed higher education are creating "strawman" arguments that I am using boggles my mind.

Should I limit myself to just Calvin and what he wrote?

 

[ReverendRV]

As it is winter, can we call it a "snow man" instead of "strawman" argument?

If the four conclusions do not represent standard/acceptable/correct Covenant Theology, then show me evidence. The authors I cite include professors at recognized Reformed universities & colleges, have written well-accepted books used in those institutions, or Calvin himself.

While I agree with many of the disagreements over what is included in the four conclusions - especially the disagreements using explicit Bible texts, the opinions of individuals - certainly mine included - have not been used to define doctrine.

If, for example, Grudem were to be considered a poor representative of Reformed Theology and the author of "strawman" (or snow man) arguments, then I have to ask myself, what qualifications does the person making such a judgment of Grudem have and why should their opinion be considered valid or worthy?

Again, I am on the outside looking in - but this idea that leading professors, theologians, writers of Systematic Theology books used in Reformed higher education are creating "strawman" arguments that I am using boggles my mind.

Should I limit myself to just Calvin and what he wrote?

No, carry on. I'm used to speaking to other Posters and Lurkers through my discussions with people who ignore my points. Have fun...

 

[Guy Swenson]

Guy, you skipped a Post I tagged you in, to reply to this Post...

Did I reply to the right post? I have switched to my laptop from my IPad to try and keep better track ...

 

[ReverendRV]

As it is winter, can we call it a "snow man" instead of "strawman" argument?

Snow it is!