There’s a Fire in Adam’s House / Doug Sayers

April 28, 2014

Ed’s. note: Doug Sayers is a layman and former Calvinist who has posted two essays at this blog:

1) “SBC and Calvinism: All In? or All out?”, wherein Doug related how God used the near-fatal accident of his toddler son to bring Doug to a biblical understanding of the implications of original sin.
2) “Led Zeppelin, Calvinism and Words with Multiple Meanings.”

Becoming a Calvinist shortly after his 1975 conversion to Christ, Doug ultimately wrestled with Calvin’s tenets and eventually left the system. Doug wrote a book of almost 500 pages about Calvinism titled: “Chosen or Not?: A Layman’s Study of Biblical Election and Assurance.”

Doug is an active member of the Gideons International.
=====================================================================

What must a sinner do to be saved, (that is, to be forgiven of his/her sin)? I’m sure most readers of this blog know the biblical answer to that question. But this question begs a second one, which is not so easy: How can salvation be “all of grace” and yet require a condition, which must be met by the sinner alone?

This is a very important, if not crucial question in understanding the biblical doctrines of salvation. It helps us to identify the differences between the biblical teaching of salvation by grace and the Calvinistic teaching of salvation by irresistible grace. The presence of any voluntary or independent human condition would suggest that salvation might be somehow “merited.” The problem, as most know, is that the word grace means “unmerited favor.” How you answer this second question will help determine whether you are a Calvinist.

I have always felt some sympathy for kids who are told that they can’t do anything to be saved, but they are also told that they must repent of their sin and believe in Jesus, if they want to be saved. This could also confuse an adult.

Calvinists, and those influenced by them, often struggle with this question. Some Calvinistic teachers will scoff at the very notion that we each must meet a human condition in order to be forgiven. This would be, in their minds, salvation by works. It would be the same as paying money or sacrificing animals to be saved. Their system is really simple and easy to illustrate. It goes like this:

Adam’s house is on fire and all of his descendants are to blame for starting the fire. They are all overcome by the fire; in fact, they have already died in the fire. God simply chooses some of Adam’s deceased family to be rescued and brought back to life. Jesus drags them from the inferno and leaves the rest to burn. End of story.

In this brand of Calvinism, it is not about having an opportunity to be saved. It is only about God’s choice of whom to save. This understanding is sometimes called “Hyper (or Extreme) Calvinism.” The chosen sinners played no essential role in their own salvation.

Now, most Calvinistic pastors and teachers are a little more nuanced than that. (Note: The term “nuanced” can sometimes be code word for inconsistent or illogical; as one person’s “mystery” is another’s “contradiction.”) Most Calvinists will also scoff at the notion of a conditional salvation in one sermon, but then in another sermon, they teach that salvation has a necessary human condition. Thus, they implore sinners to repent and trust Christ, but they really don’t like the idea of an independent condition, which must be met by the chosen sinner. Nevertheless, the nuanced Calvinist tends to agree that the “chosen” sinners still must repent and believe the truth or they will not be saved. This would be their story:

Every person is trapped by the fire in Adam’s house, which they helped to start. These Calvinists also assume that everyone has already died in the fire. Jesus rushes in and commands everyone to cry out to Him if they want to be rescued. He promises that if they do, then He will take them to safety. However, no one answers because dead people can’t hear and answer the call. So God resuscitates the chosen souls in such a way that they can now cry out for help. They are no longer capable of silence. Thus, they cry out for help, and Jesus drags them to safety. In this scenario, it appears that the rescued sinners were “voluntarily” asking to be rescued–but not really. That is all they could do once they were resuscitated. God benevolently and irresistibly enabled them to cry out for help and then He “answered” their irresistible prayer. They did not meet the condition independently. They were “graciously enabled” to meet the condition. They could not do otherwise. If you buy into this story as biblical, then you will make a good Calvinist. However, I hope you can see that there isn’t much meaningful difference between this scenario and the first one.

(Personal confession: When I was a Calvinist, I had more trouble fending off hyper-Calvinism than non-Calvinism. I really didn’t want to be a hyper-Calvinist, but I came to see that there wasn’t any real and substantive difference.)

A Calvinistic pastor teaches that those who are not chosen (the reprobate) will not receive the ability to have faith; therefore, they cannot meet the “condition” which is attached to salvation and they will be consumed by the fire in Adam’s house. They weren’t chosen for rescue. They won’t enjoy God forever. God never really wanted them to enjoy Him forever. They were created as “vessels of wrath” to be eternally destroyed. They would never have a genuine opportunity to be saved. If God had wanted them to trust Him, then He would have given them the ability to trust Him.

A non-Calvinist pastor, on the other hand, insists that God’s offer of mercy is genuine for every sinner, since it is backed up by the death of Christ for everyone in the whole world. He teaches that God has given everyone the capacity to repent. In his system, everyone is trapped by the guilt of their own actual sin in Adam’s burning house. They didn’t start the fire, but they have thrown gasoline on it and cannot escape on their own. They cannot put the fire out, but they can actually cry out for help. If they do, then Jesus will drag them to safety. This pastor teaches that God has sovereignly decreed that the individual sinner will play a vital, meaningful, and co-operative role in his/her eternal destiny. 

Again, the Calvinistic position is simple:
If God chose you for salvation, then you can’t resist choosing life. If He did not choose you for salvation, then you cannot resist choosing death.

In the Reformed system, it is not about having an “opportunity” to be saved. Either you will be saved by God or you will not. An opportunity suggests there would be a meaningful condition for salvation.

The beauty and brilliance of the biblical gospel is that sinners must meet a condition – one that is impossible to be proud of. The nature of the law of faith assures that “boasting is excluded” (Rom 3:27).

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available

rhutchin

This is a good description of the distinction between Calvinism and non-Calvinism.

The key phrase in the non-Calvinist description is, “…God has given everyone the capacity to repent.” Because it is God who gives people the capacity to repent, then equal treatment by God of all people will result in either all repenting or none repenting which is no more than the Universalist position. If some repent and some do not repent, then these differing decisions can be traced to different treatment of these people by God and the non-Calvinst position is no more than the Calvinist position.

    Doug Sayers

    rh, I’m not entirely clear on your meaning here, but let me offer a couple of remarks based on what I think you mean. Please note also, that I do not pretend to speak for the folks at SBC Today. The following is mine entirely.

    You seem to be confusing the capacity to repent with the capacity to *only* repent. When I say that God gives everyone the capacity to repent I would also believe that He gives the capacity to resist repenting. If God is sovereign, then surely he can delegate the power of contrary choice to those of us born in sin, if He wants to. One question I could never answer as a Calvinist is how could Adam have chosen to sin without a sinful nature inclining him to make the bad choice? If God could give Adam the power of contrary choice, without a sinful nature, then He can give us the same ability even with our sinful natures.

    Also, I would not assume that God treats everyone equally BUT He always treats everyone fairly. God is under no obligation to give everyone identical physical, mental, environmental, and spiritual abilities to judge them fairly. This was Jesus’ lesson with the man born blind in John 9. Some of us are made short, bald, and pudgy and some are tall dark and handsome. Some can hit an 89 mph curve ball and some can’t hit a baseball when it is stationary on a tee! Again, this is the beauty and brilliance of the “law of faith.” Unto whom much is given much will be required. God will make a perfect judgement of every sinner because He alone knows what to expect from us, based on what He has shown us.

    Be careful of looking to the hard sciences to explain spiritual realities. It doesn’t work. Spiritual realities (like love, gratitude, honor, hate, envy, etc) do not operate on the same “cause and effect” principles of the empirical world. I believe this is the mistake of those Calvinists who view “the will” as described by J. Edwards & co.

    Hope this helps. Thanks for your interest.

      Dennis L. Dabney

      Excellent post, not theologically over-cooked, just right.

      Preach!

      Dennis L. Dabney

      Ordered your book today, looking forward to it’s arrival. Standard delivery of course. (smile)

    Robert

    Rhutchin is a Calvinist who used to post here before and has not posted here in a while. In the past he wrote some posts that caused confusion and I believe the latest one exhibits similar confusion. He wrote:

    “The key phrase in the non-Calvinist description is, “…God has given everyone the capacity to repent.” Because it is God who gives people the capacity to repent, then equal treatment by God of all people will result in either all repenting or none repenting which is no more than the Universalist position.”

    In the past he claimed that the Traditionalist position leads to universalism (a false claim that was refuted repeatedly here at this blog) He makes this same claim once again:

    “then equal treatment by God of all people will result in either all repenting or none repenting which is no more than the Universalist position.”

    This “reasoning” by Rhutchin here makes no sense at all.

    Universalism maintains that at the end all people will end up believers.

    Both Calvinists and Traditionalists in the SBC believe that some people will end up eternally separated from God (this is actually a point of agreement in the thinking of both sides). Furthermore, neither Calvinists nor Traditionalists here hold to universalism. So again Rhutchin is making a false charge: a misrepresentation of the non-Calvinist position.

    Rhutchin then goes on to make yet another false claim:

    “If some repent and some do not repent, then these differing decisions can be traced to different treatment of these people by God and the non-Calvinst position is no more than the Calvinist position.”

    A couple of problems with this statement. First, non-Calvinists believe that while God enables people to trust in Christ for salvation (this enablement is via the preconversion work of the Spirit, it is the Spirit who convicts a person of sin, shows them their need for forgiveness of their sins, shows them the identity of Jesus, shows them that faith in Jesus is the way of salvation, etc. etc. etc.): once enabled the individual either decides to trust in Christ or they do not. This is very different from the Calvinist position where a person is regenerated first and this regeneration produces faith in them. The Calvinistic position involves determinism (i.e. effectual grace causes the person to believe, they cannot resist this grace which is why it is sometimes called “irresistible grace”, it is deterministic because whoever receives effectual grace has to become a believer they have no choice in the matter).

    Second, the non-Calvinistic position involves libertarian free will which is the opposite of determinism. While grace is given to people they can choose to resist the grace of God. For Rhutchin to claim that “the non-Calvinist position is no more than the Calvinist position” is to completely ignore these differences and gloss over them completely. It is because Rhutchin makes these kinds of false claims and misrepresentations that his posts cause unnecessary confusion. I note that others responding to his post also seem confused. And this is not surprising as Rhutchin keeps writing these posts that are full of inaccuracies and mistakes and misrepresentations.

    Anyone who claims that Traditionalists believe in universalism is making a false claim, a misrepresentation.

    Anyone who claims that the non-Calvinist and Calvinist positions amount to the same thing is again making a false claim, a misrepresentation.

    Robert

Rick Patrick

Doug,
Thank you for the clarity you bring to the discussion through these *fiery* illustrations. It is a blessing to know that the true, biblical picture of a salvation offered to all but conditioned upon man’s free response of faith is still alive and well. Contrary to the opinion of some, the gospel, and the manner by which man embraces it, has not been lost in our day.

Dennis L. Dabney

My question to my Calvinist brethren over the years has been along these same lines. Adam, the first formed son of God, “elected” by God the federal head of all mankind. Made a choice after his wife stepped in the transgression chose not to involve himself with her deliverance but rather listened to her in her condition and sinned with his eyes wide “shut” plunging all into a world of sin. Now how can the “first” Adam plunge all mankind into sin, even bring judgment upon the entire earth and the Second Man, the Lord from glory is limited to reaching only the elect without regard for “all” lost. In Matt.9:13 He distinguished who He came to call, not the righteous but the sinner to repentance. In another place He said “The Son of man has come to seek and save that which was lost. I believe that covers all, yes the world of humanity. The common theme in original sin is the word “all” not some or part. All limitation are self inflicted by man due to unbelief counting themselves unworthy of eternal life, punishable by the “second” death. Emphasis on “second” by the way! For it is appointed unto man once to die not twice. All who die twice do so by going headlong beyond the will of God by failure on their part not repent and believe the gospel.

Preach!

Lydia

“Personal confession: When I was a Calvinist, I had more trouble fending off hyper-Calvinism than non-Calvinism. I really didn’t want to be a hyper-Calvinist, but I came to see that there wasn’t any real and substantive difference”

Bingo. Not without a ton of mental gymnastics that take us down into a circular big black hole, that is. :o)

This was awesome. Thanks so much for the illustrations that keep us on point. And they say we just don’t understand. I have come to think they don’t understand their own ST and we need to explain it to them. Perhaps it also dies out and resurges historically because people become mentally exhausted trying to explain it so it needs a new generation who have no clue?

BTW: The links to your blog are not working. They take us to a wordpress plug in page. I would like to read your blog articles.

Dennis L. Dabney

Men walked with God before the flood. Those who chose not, did so with rebellion in the heart, sin on their mind and many cases blood on their hands. Still and yet they knew God. Listen, the old world perished by water as Noah the preacher of righteousness proclaimed salvation by repentance and faith toward God. This crowd perished with more knowledge of God than we ever had while we were lost in the world before we came to saving knowledge of Christ. God required them to turn from their wickedness and turn again unto Him.

Men also knew God on the other side of the flood seeing Noah continued to preach and his sons had a tremendous message to pass on to their descendants. Noah didn’t retire from the pulpit. Why, because there were still 7 sinners in the new world beside himself who were saved by grace that needed to hear the word of God. God Himself also spoke to Noah and his sons and made a covenant with them. The descendents of these boys instructed their posterity of God and His will. All societies beyond Noah’s sons had enough light of God to walk in as their customs indicated. God has judged no person or nation that didn’t have it coming. Ask Nineveh if you think I’m making it up. You see “when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God neither were they thankful. What did God expect them to be thankful for? I’ll tell you what they were to be thankful for, what He had revealed to them. They had to know enough about Him to be thankful even though they chose not. The Gentiles, who had not the Law of Moses, did by nature the things written in the law. They demonstrated the work of the law written in their hearts. Those nations did not perish without the work of the law in their heart, their conscious accusing or excusing them.

Doug Sayers

Micah, you may have brought up more issues than I have time to respond to tonite! Please note the Amazon link to the book “Chosen or Not?” It addresses all the issues you raise – and then some.

We certainly agree on several points and it is always good to acknowledge those places. I would agree that Adam’s sin has brought sin and death onto the entire race. We are born in sin and in need of a Savior. Although, you did not explicitly assert otherwise, I would disagree that the Bible teaches that everyone is born *guilty” of Adam’s sin. He opened the door that leads to hell but nobody was irresistibly pushed out the door into hell as a result of his sin. The biblical God is very patient. It is biblically and rationally unsustainable that the guilt of Adam’s sin could be imputed to his posterity, which is what most Reformed creeds teach. We know that sin is not imputed where there is no law and where there is no law there is no transgression. (Rom 5:13;4:15) Therefore, by His own sovereign decision, God does not impute the guilt of sin via arbitrary decree or natural generation. The word for impute is not used in Romans 5. Do you (or does your church) teach that babies deserve to perish in hell as soon as they are born (and thus infants who die could go to hell)?

We all suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin but not the culpability.

I would agree that the gospel was sent/preached to Abraham but remember that same gospel was *for* the gentiles (Egyptians, Phoenicians, Cushites, etc) also. Gal 3

I would agree that the flesh is in constant enmity against God (mine still is!). But no one is left entirely to their flesh by God. The works of God’s law are written in our hearts, we can see the invisible attributes of God in the creation, and the Holy Spirit is sent to convict the world (not just the church) of sin, righteousness, and judgment. We probably agree that the Holy Spirit actually dwells in true believers.

Lastly, to your question: “Why does one person come to faith whereas another doesn’t?” I can’t answer that any better than you could answer why God chose you to be a believer over others. But we can both be sure that the condition which God has attached to salvation is one that we can’t be proud of. It is impossible to be proud of true contrition. If we are proud of our faith then we have the wrong kind. Rom 3:27

Thanks for your interest. These issues are important as they reflect on the character of God.

Micah Burke

> We are born in sin and in need of a Savior.

Yet later you write:
> I would disagree that the Bible teaches that everyone is born *guilty” of Adam’s sin…. We all suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin but not the culpability.

Why would we suffer the consequences but not the culpability? The Bible states otherwise: ” by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners”. If you deny the imputation of Adam’s sin, you must likewise deny the imputation of Christ’s righteousness? After all, if Adam wasn’t our federal head in the garden, what need would there to be a federal head on Calvary?

> I would agree that the gospel was sent/preached to Abraham but remember that same gospel was *for* the gentiles (Egyptians, Phoenicians, Cushites, etc) also. Gal 3

Except it wasn’t preached to the others. Scripture no wear records God providing the other groups with the Gospel, but Abraham and his offspring alone. Yes, occasional Gentiles were saved over the course of the Old Testament, but God specifically chose Israel, not Egypt.

> I would agree that the flesh is in constant enmity against God (mine still is!). But no one is left entirely to their flesh by God.

I pray that you are not the enemy of God, and that the Spirit dwells in you now giving life to your mortal body. But, again, the Bible specifically states (Rom 8:7-9) that the mind set on the flesh is at enmity with God and ~cannot~ submit to him nor please him. The difference between the two mindsets, Paul states, is the indwelling Spirit. Now, please explain how a person whose mind is “set on the flesh” gets a “mind set on the Spirit” if, according to Paul, they’re enemies of God, unwilling and unable to submit to him?

> The works of God’s law are written in our hearts, we can see the invisible attributes of God in the creation, and the Holy Spirit is sent to convict the world (not just the church) of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

The Law of God is indeed written in a sense on the hearts of all mankind, however that only serves to condemn them of their sin. No one is found guiltless because of that. Rather, most find ways ignore it, worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. The Holy Spirit does convict, but specifically through the preaching of the Gospel. A person who does not have the Spirit of God dwelling in them, again quoting Paul, *cannot submit to God’s Law*.

> Lastly, to your question: “Why does one person come to faith whereas another doesn’t?” I can’t answer that any better than you could answer why God chose you to be a believer over others. But we can both be sure that the condition which God has attached to salvation is one that we can’t be proud of. It is impossible to be proud of true contrition.

I can answer the question, for the Bible tells us clearly why one believes and one does not: “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls” and “‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose, calling… the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.”

Finally, given what God says about himself in Isa 46:9-11, what exactly does God purpose that he does not bring to pass?

~ Apart from my discussion, I do want to thank you for answering me, Doug. I think this is a difficult discussion that we need to thoroughly hash out. I think your article is straw, and I think clear cross-examination would show that. The point here is not to win a debate, but for everyone to be edified.

    Robert

    Hello Micah,

    You are not going to very happy with my post, but I feel compelled to point out some clear and obvious problems with some of the things that you presented.

    “If you deny the imputation of Adam’s sin, you must likewise deny the imputation of Christ’s righteousness? After all, if Adam wasn’t our federal head in the garden, what need would there to be a federal head on Calvary?”

    Micah where in Genesis or Romans, or anywhere else *in* the Bible does it speak of Jesus as our “federal head”? This phrase and concept may be present in Reformed theology, but it should be noted that it is *not* derived *from scripture* (i.e. it comes out of theology: not exegesis). This is important to see because not all Christians agree with this theology: in fact most reject it.

    The same is true regarding “imputation”. Unless you have not been following things lately, many are rejecting the Reformed doctrine of imputation as well. A clear and rather well known example is N. T. Wright. Wright has strongly argued against the Reformed doctrine of imputation. While you may assume this Reformed understanding and make your assertions based upon your assuming it to be true: people need to be aware that most Christians reject this doctrines.

    “But, again, the Bible specifically states (Rom 8:7-9) that the mind set on the flesh is at enmity with God and ~cannot~ submit to him nor please him. The difference between the two mindsets, Paul states, is the indwelling Spirit. “

    Paul was discussing sanctification and comparing believer and unbelievers in Romans 8: he was not talking about the preconversion work of the Holy Spirit in the unbeliever. The preconversion work of the Holy Spirit enables unbelievers to understand spiritual things such as their sinfulness, their need for Christ to be saved, that the way of salvation is faith in Christ rather than their own works, the need for repentance, etc. etc. Nonbelievers may experience this work of the Spirit while they are not yet believers before they receive the indwelling Holy Spirit. So it is wrong to try to argue from Romans 8 a passage where Paul is discussing sanctification against the Spirit working at all in nonbelievers prior to their conversion to Christ.

    The nonbeliever who has experienced the preconversion work of the Spirit, who then makes the decision to trust in Christ for salvation: does not yet have the Spirit indwelling in Him or Her. It is only after we become believers that God gives us the indwelling Spirit (according to Paul we receive the Spirit when we become a member of the Body of Christ: see especially 1 Cor. 12). You may believe that we receive the Spirit first and then later have faith. But the Bible presents it as faith first and then people receive the Spirit.

    Also regarding obeying or submitting to God’s law, the first century Jews were rejecting Jesus because they believed their fulfilling of the law is what would save them (cf. Rom. 9:31-33). Paul does not correct them by arguing that they never obeyed the law: instead he and other NT writers argue that a person must fulfill the law perfectly to be saved (something no one except Jesus has done). It is similar to when you are witnessing to a person today who is convinced they are a “good person” (i.e. they think they have not done much bad but they have done good so they will be saved). The response to such a person is not to deny that they do any good, but to point out that the standard is perfection. Unless you are perfect in your righteousness you cannot save yourself by your works. All fall short of perfection because all have sinned.

    “I can answer the question, for the Bible tells us clearly why one believes and one does not: “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls” and “‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose, calling… the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.””

    This is an awful example of proof texting.

    You asked the question about why one person believes and another does not. Doug answered: “I can’t answer that any better than you could answer why God chose you to be a believer over others.” Doug is correct Calvinists cannot answer that with a particular individual either. They can quote general verses as you have done. But none of the verses you quote tells us why say Tom believes and Joe does not. And the verses you quote here tell us only that when God purposes something he will bring it to pass (these verses say NOTHING about him purposing to save Tom and damn Joe).

    “Finally, given what God says about himself in Isa 46:9-11, what exactly does God purpose that he does not bring to pass?’

    Micah the problem with your question here is that we all believe that when God purposes something he will bring it to pass.

    The difference between the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist is not that Calvinists believe that whatever God purposes He brings to pass and non-Calvinists reject that.

    No, Calvinists go further and additionally claim that God purposes *every event* that occurs. That is where we disagree. We do not believe that He purposes every event in history.

    To use an example close to home: I work with inmates who have committed all sorts of crimes. I do not believe that God purposes all of those crimes. That he preplanned them all, ordained them all, and made sure they all occurred exactly as he preplanned for them to occur. If God did preplan them all and ensure they all happen by controlling all circumstances then that makes God into the author of sin. We believe that in some cases God *uses sin* (e.g. the crucifixion of Jesus, Joseph and His brothers. Etc.): but using sin that God foreknows people will choose to commit is very different from ordaining that they commit those specific sins. In Calvinism he ordains everything, including sin. In non-Calvinism God purposes some things, but he does not purpose every event that occurs.

    Robert

      Norm Miller

      I knew I could count on you, Robert. However, there will be no reply from Micah, here.

        Norm Miller

        Moderating a blog is an interesting, challenging and educational endeavor. Occasionally, we run into someone who is too enthusiastic for their own good, (shall we say?).

        The “enthusiasm” of numerous such folks have in times past caused the moderator to offer warnings and even temporarily, and sometimes permanently, remove posting privileges from them. This is not joyful for the moderator in the least. However, it is necessary as we want to try to live by the adage: let’s disagree without being disagreeable. (Full disclosure: I have transgressed that adage in my tenure, here, and have written several emails of apology).

        Then there are those who only rarely transgress the ideal, and we tolerate them, maybe send a private email, etc.

        In some cases, we will edit using ellipses, or even delete entire comments that are a bit over the top. That is the moderator’s prerogative, yea, duty. However, we do that in cases where such comments transgress our commenting guidelines.

        That brings up another matter in this regard: whenever a transgressive comment comes in, two polar opposite responses emerge. One is to let it go public so the world can see the social, theological, intellectual, and/or perhaps even spiritual deficiencies of the commenter. But then I recall Prov. 10.12: “Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all transgressions” — thus, the second, opposite reaction.

        We have little tolerance for the intentional belittling of others, unfounded accusations, impugned motives and name-calling. We find it particularly egregious to be called a semi-heretic or even a heretic.

        SBCToday readers can be assured of this, and that is we never delete a comment based solely on its disagreement with our positions. Never (but we are accused of that). There is always some other transgressive aspect to the comment. However, we readily admit that we are not infallible at this point. We follow the Perfect; we are not perfect.

        Commenters who disagree with us are always welcome provided they have read, understood and agreed to comment with adherence to our commenting guidelines.

        Disagree? Fine! Disagreeable? Nah.

Leave a Comment:

All fields with “*” are required

 characters available