What is required...

[ChristVader]

...to Pay For Sin.

hehehe...I may have just changed my mind on this subject, but, here is the question:

In order for Adam and Eve, to get back into the Garden, what is Required?

1. Physical Death?

2. Physical Death as an Innocent Person Economicaly?

3. Spiritual Death?

4. Spiritual Death as an Innocent Person Economicaly?

5. Some combination of these?

6. Something I missed?


Scripture Please and no Eisegesis is allowed! ;D

[the answer]

Well, I haven't thought much about this but when I look at it, the payment was made on the cross.

So the question is, what happened on the cross?

We know Jesus died physically. But did he die spiritually? I dunno. What do u mean when u say that?

[ReGeNeRATE]

I would say option 6, LOL JK

Couldn't be spiritual death because according to the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity after they fell they were ALREADY spiritually dead. For them to die spiritually they would have to still be spiritually ReGeNeRaTe(lol) unless we hold to a trichotomist view of man(body soul and spirit).

Physical death is the only option because the wages of sin is death. It cannot be a spiritual death because we are born spiritually dead already, that would mean that the penalty for sin is already paid the moment we are born. So physical death would be the biblical option because we die physically after we are already dead spiritually. Am I making any sense?

Also does a soul actually die or cease to exist? I don't think it does. Notice how other doctrines come out of one question.

Jesus could not have died spiritually because if He was Body and Spirit/Soul and his Spirit being His Divine nature wouldn't that mean that the second person of the Godhead died? And if the Triune Godhead are united as one then does that mean the they all died and there was not God at all?

[the answer]

regenerate said:

I would say option 6, LOL JK

Couldn't be spiritual death because according to the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity after they fell they were ALREADY spiritually dead. For them to die spiritually they would have to still be spiritually ReGeNeRaTe(lol) unless we hold to a trichotomist view of man(body soul and spirit).

Physical death is the only option because the wages of sin is death. It cannot be a spiritual death because we are born spiritually dead already, that would mean that the penalty for sin is already paid the moment we are born. So physical death would be the biblical option because we die physically after we are already dead spiritually. Am I making any sense?

Also does a soul actually die or cease to exist? I don't think it does. Notice how other doctrines come out of one question.

Jesus could not have died spiritually because if He was Body and Spirit/Soul and his Spirit being His Divine nature wouldn't that mean that the second person of the Godhead died? And if the Triune Godhead are united as one then does that mean the they all died and there was not God at all?

good points

[ChristVader]

So Christ was not born Spiritually Dead. But He had to die Physically. So then the point would be Him being innocent and Dying. But not just any death. Like, maybe dying from a stray ax head or being trampled by a horse or something. So if I died with Christ, which death did I die with Him? Last I checked we are all still dying Physically.

[ReGeNeRATE]

christvader said:

So Christ was not born Spiritually Dead. But He had to die Physically. So then the point would be Him being innocent and Dying. But not just any death. Like, maybe dying from a stray ax head or being trampled by a horse or something. So if I died with Christ, which death did I die with Him? Last I checked we are all still dying Physically.

I believe the reason for your confusion stems from your Christology. You are equating Jesus the Theoanthropos with a regular human being and descending Him to a mere man. Sure Jesus was 100% man but He was also 100% God, don't get me wrong I know you know that already but I think that it has not penetrated completely into your system(hope I don't sound condenscending).

Can God sin? I know thats a ridiculous question but thats what I deduct from your view of Christ.

Why did the Second Person of the Godhead even take the form of man if a mere man who was spiritually dead could have atoned for my sins? After all there is nothing special about Christ if He was born spiritually dead like the rest of us.

You ask what death you partook with Christ, it was our old self or as scripture calls it your "old man" not your spirit. Your "old man" died and your new man has become alive(regeneration). Again How can I die spiritually twice? If I am already dead then what makes my spirit more dead than it is?

In all humbleness I would like you to answer my questions as well in my previous post about the death of the Godhead since I have been more than willing to answer yours.

thanx in advance

Sola Agape

[ChristVader]

"Physical death is the only option because the wages of sin is death. It cannot be a spiritual death because we are born spiritually dead already, that would mean that the penalty for sin is already paid the moment we are born. So physical death would be the biblical option because we die physically after we are already dead spiritually. Am I making any sense?"

Here is my answer.

Physical death is the only option because the wages of sin is death.

Stop: Adam was promised Death the DAY he ate of the Fruit. Not 900yrs later. Therefore Adam did die that Day or God Lied and Satan told the truth. Therefore Spiritual Death is the penalty for sin. Period. Not Physical Death. So on this point I think we would dissagree.

You continue...




It cannot be a spiritual death because we are born spiritually dead already, that would mean that the penalty for sin is already paid the moment we are born.

Stop: Absolutly not! Sin is not paid for by simply Dying Spiritually or Physically. Sin is, and can only be paid for by dying and having been WITHOUT sin. Now, I must say that many of my suedo-neo-Catholic brothers in the PCA believe that Children ARE born innocent and go to heaven upon death. Spurgeon also held to this I believe. The Westminster states that "Infants, upon dying...bla, bla,bla". Somwhere around chapter 16 or 18 I believe.

You continue...


So physical death would be the biblical option because we die physically after we are already dead spiritually. Am I making any sense?

Stop. No. You are not.

So oh well, at least now you know where I am coming from alittle more.

I believe that Christ did Die Spiritually when the Father turned His back on His Son. It was a Spiritual Act so powerfull that the Universe was rocked to the core. And unlike God casting Adam Physically out of His Good Graces, where Adam was DESERVING of that. Christ on the other hand was INNOCENT. And to punish an Innocent Person is Totaly Against God's Nature! For Righteous God to Pour out His Pure Wrath on an Innocent within His Holy Economy is Litterally Inconcievable!!!!!

This get's back to the Love Story that Neb has brought up. For did not Christ have to ASK, as it were, for this Judgement to be poured upon Him. As, if He had not asked for it, God would have become Unjust?

Regen, it's just not a simple 1- 2 subject in my book. I am as Trinitarian as they come, but there again, that "systematic" hit's some walls when we force the Scripture's to "toe the line" of the System, instead of the other way around.

The "Death" of the Scripture's is a Spiritual one. Physical Death is part of Gods origional order of the Universe. Not a consequence of Sin.

[king neb]

"it was our old self or as scripture calls it your "old man""

Regenerate,

would you mind explaining to me what exactly you believe the 'old man' to be? along with that, is it something we all have individually (or had, etc.)

thanks.

[ReGeNeRATE]

christvader said:

Stop: Adam was promised Death the DAY he ate of the Fruit. Not 900yrs later. Therefore Adam did die that Day or God Lied and Satan told the truth. Therefore Spiritual Death is the penalty for sin. Period. Not Physical Death. So on this point I think we would dissagree.

Yes he did die spiritually but what you forget I think is that in the Hebrew text( I am no Greek or Hebrew scholar but have read scholars on this point) its says "dying you shall die" hence being a reality spiritually but physically would be a process. so God told the truth on both counts and the wages of sin is physical and spiritual death.

You continue...
Sin is, and can only be paid for by dying and having been WITHOUT sin.

Yes but that was only for an atonement to be freed from sin but if one does not have an atonement one continues to be in the state of death and will continue to die. People pay for their sins all the time in death and hell but the payment for being free from sin is an atonement which requires what you have stated above.

Now, I must say that many of my suedo-neo-Catholic brothers in the PCA believe that Children ARE born innocent and go to heaven upon death. Spurgeon also held to this I believe. The Westminster states that "Infants, upon dying...bla, bla,bla". Somwhere around chapter 16 or 18 I believe.

They need to study more because that is absurd. The Westminster does not state that children are born innocent but states that ELECT children are given effectual grace to enter heaven but never says they are born innocent.

WCF chapter 10:3

"III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word."

Just wanted to clear that up.

I believe that Christ did Die Spiritually when the Father turned His back on His Son. It was a Spiritual Act so powerfull that the Universe was rocked to the core. And unlike God casting Adam Physically out of His Good Graces, where Adam was DESERVING of that. Christ on the other hand was INNOCENT. And to punish an Innocent Person is Totaly Against God's Nature! For Righteous God to Pour out His Pure Wrath on an Innocent within His Holy Economy is Litterally Inconcievable!!!!!

I am not understanding how Jesus could die spiritually and his Divinity not die. Can you explain more what you mean by this? Did Christ become an unregenerate in dying spiritually? What do you mean?

The "Death" of the Scripture's is a Spiritual one. Physical Death is part of Gods origional order of the Universe. Not a consequence of Sin.

Not at all, remeber "dying you shall die". It was not God's intention for man to die in his pre-fallen state.


In Christ

[ReGeNeRATE]

kingneb said:

"it was our old self or as scripture calls it your "old man""

Regenerate,

would you mind explaining to me what exactly you believe the 'old man' to be? along with that, is it something we all have individually (or had, etc.)

thanks.

Our old nature our sinful depraved nature that we are all born with.

In Christ

[king neb]

Regenerate,

1.) on the Hebraism “dying you will die”, I disagree that that would speak of two deaths. Though I am not a Hebrew scholar either, I do have access to one. My friend Sam is working on a Ph.D. in Hebrew lexicography at Whitefield. I also have Bibleworks 6.0. ;D I did my own search on this one day because it was actually a preterist that first brought that to my attention, as he was using it to say that Adam was ‘dying’ when God warned him, and then would spiritually die the day he ate. So even if it did mean two deaths, someone could just as easily argue the other way around. Adam was physically dying, as a natural part of being a created being, and was warned that he would die spiritually when he ate – dying (presently when God spoke that) you WILL die (the day you eat)

So, I asked Sam what the deal was with that, actually hoping the preterist had something that I could use. Sam said, “Nope, it’s simply a Hebrew way of emphasis.” In english, we would say, you will “certainly die.” Thus, almost every English translation out there says just that. (Young’s Literal has “dying thou dost die”)

ESV -“you shall surely die."
KJV – “thou shalt surely die.”
NAU – “you will surely die."

Bibleworks affirmed this as well. If you search the string of Hebrew there, that phrase pops up a couple of times. One example will suffice:

1 Samuel 14:44-45 44 And Saul said, "God do so to me and more also; you shall surely die, Jonathan." 45 Then the people said to Saul, "Shall Jonathan die, who has worked this great salvation in Israel? Far from it! As the LORD lives, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, for he has worked with God this day." So the people ransomed Jonathan, so that he did not die.

It obviously has only one meaning here and that being Jonathan put to death physically.

So, I, along with many other ‘futurist’ scholars, would disagree on your explanation of the phrase.

2.) You say the “wages of sin is physical and spiritual death.” If I may ask you then, why then do Christians, for whom Christ atoned for, still physically die? Futurists don’t seem to have an answer to this. I thought dogmatix might, for he said over a month ago, “Good post neb straight and to the point and good points at that, will be back to fully respond” but as usual I never heard back from him.

If physical death is a wage that a person pays for sin, then what do you make of Christians dying? What does that imply concerning Christ’s substitutionary atonement? It implies that Christ did not get the job done for if He satisfied the penalty on our behalf, why are we still paying the penalty? Doesn’t make sense. And saying that even though we physically die, the victory will be applied later at a so-called ‘physical resurrection’, doesn’t solve the problem either, for it still does not escape the reality that we are still paying the penalty of sin.

Also, if physical death is the wage of sin, why do plants and animals die? Do trees sin? Sin presupposes rationality and I am not aware of any trees (other than on Lord of the Rings) that ‘think’.

[ChristVader]

Yes he did die spiritually but what you forget I think is that in the Hebrew text( I am no Greek or Hebrew scholar but have read scholars on this point) its says "dying you shall die" hence being a reality spiritually but physically would be a process. so God told the truth on both counts and the wages of sin is physical and spiritual death.

Regenerate,

Do you see what you just did here. I mean this in all love and sincerity here too. You just pitted the Omnipotence of God against Humanity and possibly even Satan, and the Enemy has won! For you have just asserted that God has been incapable of preserving His Word as it has transitioned from one language to another. From one Generation to the next. Man has somehow either "lost" a part of God's message along the way. Or, mankind has specifically chosen to to subvert it and has won.

The bottom line here is that God said "THE Day". Period. And "day" is deffined BY God for us as a "rising of ... and a going down of the same". So "in dying you will die" can have all kinds of wondeful implications. That is Great! But God put a lock on what He meant by dropping a Specific Time Marker on the issue. Period. It really doesn't matter if the phrase means "Chevrolet and Black Helicopters" or "Kitty Cats". [This is the very root of all Eschatologies as well, but that is for another thread]. So, God is made a liar, and the Hebrew Scholars carry the day. All the while God needs a watch and a Translator to navigate His New Creation. Thanks to: Vantilian Logic; Post Modern Relativism; the Feminization of the "church going" mind; and a lingering type of Roman Catholic desire to elevate Intelectualism to some type of authoritative position.

Vantilian logic = We can't really know what God meant. We are left to guess and operate from some type of "burning in the bossom". He called it faith in what we CANNOT see. Blind Faith based upon Intelectual Guesses and Propositions. (Rocks always fall straight down...therefore there is a Creator)

Ulitimatly here in this Context = Yes He said Day; but if we really knew that He meant Day, we would be God. Can't have that. Therefore we must protect God's Incomprehensibility by saying "well we just cannot say for sure...BUT! we can look around Empericaly and see folks dying, therefore maybe this is what God meant. Also the Westminster states this so it must mean this....

Post Modern Relativism = What does "day" mean to me? Well...hmmmm...I see fossills. They look really old, so Genesis must be Poetry....hmmmm....and God is love, so I know God wouldn't really make anyone really die...soooooo....who knows really, cause I think it would really be offensive to say one way or the other. I like the Prayer of Jabez though. And there are alot of smart people who have figured all that stuff out, so I just won't worry about it. They said it...I believe it.

Feminization of the "church going" mind = I'll pick what I like. I'll leave what makes me feel uncomfortable. I am not going to submit to Authority in my life. Any Authority including a book called Scripture that some want to say was written BY God. You can't prove it, so I aint submittin to anything I don't like the sound of. Muchless understand. Therefore it will submitt to me because Christ gave up everything for His Bride. Even the meaning of His Word!

In this Context, Comfort Zones and Self Established Authority Structures are shattered, and one must quit looking to blame Satan and/or God for the parts of their life that have not gone exactly the way THEY would have liked for it to. They must Submit to the fact that God has determined ever step of their life. Go back to my example of Peter walking on the Water.

Roman Catholic'esque elevation of Intelectualism = 2 Office vs. 3 Office vs. 10 Office Debate's; Westminster vs. Southern; John Owen vs. John Bunyan(not between the two men, rather within the Church as to whom should be submitted to, and whom should not)

All this to say, God's word is dealt a serious blow by your Paradigm. For example sake, and no offence meant to either party here, but, look at Eternals presuposition on Christ in the other thread on the Lords Prayer. You have left the door wide open to whoever's opinion "feel's" best. Meanwhile God cannot even communicate clearly with His own Creation. Muchless tell time. And mind you, this is a PRE FALL Adam He is communicating with. In your paradigm of Humanity "loosing" something to the corrupting effects of the Fall, God is EVEN more Suspect now of telling "little white lies". For Adam, would have understood, PERFECTLY, what Death was to BE, and WHEN. Not to mention what "Day" meant.

Funny to here, that in the Promise made to Adam and Eve for Restoration, that the Physical is not even mentioned. It is ALL a *Spiritual* Restoration. To top that off, not one single Patriarch EVER talks about "one day havin some new skins to kick around in". It is always a Hope of *Spiritual* Restoration. Post formation of the Economy of Isreal under Moses, the Individuals hope is only realized in the Restoration of the Corporate Body: The 12 Tribes. Then 1 Cor. 15 puts the icing on the cake of Romans 9, when it ask "with what BODY(singular) do they(plural) come?"

Spiritual, Spiritual, Spiritual, from beginning to end. All bolstered by very Specific Time Statements.

There can be no shadow of double speak in our God. It is a house of cards at best. One card slips, and the whole is destroyed. To read the Scripture like this is to have God plaving the roll of John Luvits on SNL saying "yeah, yeah, the "day" you eat of it you will die, I mean, ahhh sorta die...yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!" "In dying you will die... yeah that's the ticket, yeah"

This same argument is used by the Futurist who are expecting Christ to return with an Army. For Pilate asked Christ if He was bringing an Army and Christ say's NO. The Futurist then goes off to summon scholars of all sorts to get Christ out of a bind. Christ said No. No usualy means No. Pilate even washed his hands, believing Christ meant No. Well, the Scholar say's, "Pilate meant in his life time. Christ knew that He wasn't coming back in Pilates life time. So 'No' wasn't a really a lie. Christ also knew the the High Priest WOULD see him coming back (IN His life Time) so He changed His answer back around for Chaiphus(sp)". Looks like a spotless Lamb to me boy's! Let's stick Him on the Cross and call it a "day"! (No pun intended! It just worked out that way.)

It is the same thing Regenerate. Over and over again.

[ChristVader]

As to the Westminster issue...

1. It says seeing trees and clouds makes you guilty. But not guilty enough. It eisegetes verses from Romans 1 and 2, to make this assertion and can't even leave the verses in their origional context of Psalms for that would destroy their Presup.

2. Then it says, that "hearing the Word" is what REALLY makes you guilty. I will not even comment on the lack of them even mentioning Romans 9 here.

So, in so many words, No, it does not say that Infants are innocent. But they sure don't close the door on it either.

You found the statement I was looking for there, Thank you. You can see their (West Divines) waffeling back and forth on Catholic ideas right there in that statement alone. (They do it on virtualy every page) "Elect Infants..." hmmmmm, who cares? If they are Elect, does it really matter if they are 50yrs old or 50min old? No! It is an unessesary statement at best. Unless!!! Unless, there is some underlying current and or ground that need's to be preserved. And it is! It is Anglican/Catholic raggs that are being brought along as they fled Parliment. It is why I believe John Owen did not sign the document. And it is why John Bunyan was kept in prison. They were bound to a Catholic Ideology. And we are still tote'n it around today. It is dressed up Arminianism if you get right down to it.

But yes. You are right in that it does not specifically say Infants are Innocent. And I meant to add above that the other logical end to their statement is that the 50yr old could LOOSE his Election. Hense, I believe, the division between Infant and Non-Infant.

In chapter XXI:4, they cut off praying for someone who has sinned the sin unto Death. Well, that just compounds the whole Election issue again, not to mention the innocent Infants and poor Esau to boot. For Esau, before He even got to see tree's and clouds; before he even heard the Word; before he even had a chance to "sin a sin unto death"; was Elected by God to go to hell.

So yes, in my opinion, they have left the door wide open to believe alot of questioable things about Infants... and everyone else for that matter.

Just my take on it. I wonder if I showed up Sunday at my little PCA Church in a Kilt, if anyone would get the hint? lol Maybe for the next Presbytery I could wear one!

Kent

[ChristVader]

Also, if physical death is the wage of sin, why do plants and animals die? Do trees sin? Sin presupposes rationality and I am not aware of any trees (other than on Lord of the Rings) that ‘think’.

And even if they had taken on some kind of consequence due to sin, which it appears they probably did, that consequence was removed upon the New Covenant established with Noah. God says "No longer will the Ground be cursed for your sake". Curse removed upon the restructuring of a "New" World.

Went round and round with TR over Genesis 5 - 9 on this. They had no answer. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics was about as good as it got for proof that the "Dirt" today was fallen/corrupt. True to the VTil paradigm I must say. And the 'truely' Orthodox have always held to a "corrupt dirt and tree" idea to, so it is off limits to discussion. Who knows, we may find that that "Poetry" thing of Genesis 1 & 2 really carries on up into Joshuah or even Isaiah!

Kent

[ReGeNeRATE]

christvader said:

You found the statement I was looking for there, Thank you. You can see their (West Divines) waffeling back and forth on Catholic ideas right there in that statement alone. (They do it on virtualy every page) "Elect Infants..." hmmmmm, who cares? If they are Elect, does it really matter if they are 50yrs old or 50min old? No! It is an unessesary statement at best. Unless!!! Unless, there is some underlying current and or ground that need's to be preserved. And it is! It is Anglican/Catholic raggs that are being brought along as they fled Parliment. It is why I believe John Owen did not sign the document. And it is why John Bunyan was kept in prison. They were bound to a Catholic Ideology. And we are still tote'n it around today. It is dressed up Arminianism if you get right down to it.

Kent, I as well in love and honesty would make the bold assertion in saying that the statement about your understanding of the Westminster is totally off base and misconcieved. I know this is not the topic of the thread so I will just like say that for the sake of those who don't know what the WCF teaches. Catholics do not believe in election. So basically you are saying that the WCF is not even Reformed but is on every page camoflauged Roman Catholicism, I would heavily disagree and would venture to say that you do not understand the WCF. Why are you in a PCA church if you feel this way? Wouldn't you be participating in Romish doctrines? Lastly what PCA church do you attend being that I as well am a member of the PCA.

In Christ


ps Neb I will get to you post soon I was just taken back from Ken'ts assertions and had to respond immediately, you did make some excellent points that I would like to address. Ken't I will deal with yours as well but there are so many questions and implications in both your posts that I need to contemplate on which to deal with first, so guys please forgive me if I take long.

[king neb]

no prob. Reg...take your time

[ChristVader]

So basically you are saying that the WCF is not even Reformed but is on every page camoflauged Roman Catholicism, I would heavily disagree and would venture to say that you do not understand the WCF. Why are you in a PCA church if you feel this way? Wouldn't you be participating in Romish doctrines? Lastly what PCA church do you attend being that I as well am a member of the PCA.

East Pasco Preby.
Dr. John Clark out of Westminster Theo. Seminary
I am in Elder Training now, and have brought up all of these disagreements as we are going through the WCF right now.

Matter of fact Regen, I have made it very clear since day one with Dr. Clark that I am a Superlapsarian; Operationalist; Full Preterist (contrary to some Presbyterian Elders belief's). I continue to affirm these thing's on a weekly basis, and am assured that there is no problem, as there is plenty of room within the PCA for variances of opinion. See Gentry, Wilson, North, not to mention NPP and relationships like TR who mix Baptist and Preby thought, while at the same time rejecting Southern Seminary as not Reformed! ;D lol!!!

In short Regen, both Pastors at my Church agree that there are many parts of the WCF that could stand a freshening up. The poor selection of foot noted verses being one of the issues. It run's a close second to the Scofield Bible in this area! Take also for example, the American Synod of 1787s' own revision and removal of any portions that gave civil magistrates power over Synods. A quick look at Church History will tell you why all the ruling bodies of England, Scotland and Ireland, not only ,had NO problem with this concept, but felt that it was Biblical. Not just Biblical mind you, but rather Biblicaly Mandated! Look at the vow that all the Divines took at the beginning of each week or month. It says,

" I do seriously promise and vow in the presence of Almighty God, that in this Assembly, whereof I am a member, I will maintain nothing in the point of Doctrine but what I believe to be the most agreeable to the Word of God, nor in point of dicipline, but what may make most for God's glory and the peace and good will of His Church".

Now, how is it that "the greatest Creed ever written", (according to the General Assembly of 1906), ended up with a Synod that was supposed to be subject to a King, Magistrate, or Ruling Body of Government? The Divines obviously felt that it was " NOTHING in the point of Doctrine,(get that? NOTHING!) but what I believe to be, >> MOST << agreeable", and would "make most for God's glory and the peace and good will of His Church" for the Synod to answer to a King. The Scots agreed with that. The Irish agreed with that. Yet you wisper the word theonomy in most PCA and Independent Presbyterian Churches today, and you'll get yourself shot. Muchless tell any Protestant Church that today, and they will flat out tell you you must be a Catholic "throwback" to the 1500-1600 hundreds. Now tell me who is being intelectually dishonest here?

And yet, at the same time, you have the American Synod of 1787, just blowing it off and out of the WCF like so much dust on the coffee table. Poof! Gone. So much for God's Glory I guess.

Now how does that work? One day something is Biblicaly Mandated and determined to "make MOST Glory for God, and Peace and Goodwill for His Church". The next day, on the other side of the Atlantic, it is just poopoo! What!? Was there a more "spiritual" connection going down at Yale and the like? How pious and hypocritical today, to look at someone like myself and ask "why are you in the PCA". Don't you think? Yet today, we have determined that it, WCF, is like Cindarella's Porridge...Just Right! All the while, our very history is based upon our questioning of the document.

.........................................................

I'll let you have a go at my propositions with that bit of intro now aside.

Hope all had a Great Lords Day!

[ChristVader]

Catholics do not believe in election. So basically you are saying that the WCF is not even Reformed but is on every page camoflauged Roman Catholicism,

No, I am saying the WCF is *WEAK* on the issue. As to RCC on every page, not at all. It is, as stated above, *weak* on the subject, relies on Infant Baptism and is suedo-work's driven in areas.

Could be language driven. Could be fact. 500 yrs can do a lot to basic communication. I am simply saying that it, the WCF, could be tightened up. And yet, just as you and I cannot divorce ourself's from Post Modern Reletivistic thought processes, I'll be d**ned if someone is going to tell me that after 500yrs of Catholic Thought, the Divines had divorced themselves from it.

We are all products of our Culture's. Our thought prossecees are the first to reveal that. Creed's with no Expiration Dates are dangerous. Just ask those burned at the stake; be-headed; drawn and quartered.