# Doug Wilson's CRE Examination - What?



## Scott Bushey (Nov 4, 2004)

*Doug Wilson\'s CRE Examination - What?*

What is this?

http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?3=10778

{Edited for title clarity}

[Edited on 11/5/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 4, 2004)

Its your exam you take to get into heaven.

blade


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 4, 2004)

I was just about to comment....


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 4, 2004)

LOL were you going to say the same thing?

blade


----------



## cupotea (Nov 4, 2004)

It's sad is what it is...


----------



## luvroftheWord (Nov 4, 2004)

What's sad about it? I read over a big chunk of Wilson's written answers to the exam questions and found nothing contrary to the gospel. I found some things contrary to the WCF, but I happen to believe one can stray from the confession without straying from Christ and leading others astray.

Here are the written answers:

http://www.cmfnow.com/cre/WilsonExamAnswers.pdf

[Edited on 5-11-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 4, 2004)

Craig - did you start at the beginning?

What he denies off the bat is:

The meaning behind the Sabbath as a day wholly dedicated to God.

He denies the Covenant of Works.

Changes the meaning of the sacrament of baptism by allowing completely different theological views in a single church for the officers of the church.

Paedocommunion...

Misunderstand historical theology by denying that the Westminster Assembly did not believe the WCF to be a synopsis of the bible itself...

He is making massive theological sweeps over the WCF yet, he says, he does not have enough knowledge about Reformed Confession ot make good value judgments about them...

Beleives himself to be a "sacramental Calvnist." Has he really read Calvin??

etc.......


----------



## luvroftheWord (Nov 4, 2004)

Well, like I said, I know Wilson is at odds with the WCF on some things, but I can live with that. I don't think the WCF is the end all of Christian theology. I stand by my statement that Wilson has not denied the gospel in his answers.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 5, 2004)

What about his denial of the Covenant of Works?


----------



## luvroftheWord (Nov 5, 2004)

Did you read what he said about the CoW? About imputation? Or are you basing it upon what you've heard Wilson has said about the CoW? His words are clear as crystal, and none of it takes away from a gospel of free grace and unmerited favor.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 5, 2004)

Just small details


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 5, 2004)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> Did you read what he said about the CoW? About imputation? Or are you basing it upon what you've heard Wilson has said about the CoW? His words are clear as crystal, and none of it takes away from a gospel of free grace and unmerited favor.



Yes, I read what he said about it, which included several mentionings of it throughout the whole document, such as, "The 'covenant of works' was not meritorious and we deny that any covenant can be kept without faith. Good works, even in this covenant were a result of faith." He later says that "if Adam had stood, even that standing would have been a gift from God, which he would have received by faith."

One of the grave problems with the denial that the Covenant of Works was truly a covenant of works and thus included grace can be seen in a question: If it was a gracious covenant, and yet man fell from it and failed to obtain life from it, what does that say about the nature of God's grace? Furthermore, if that covenant was marked by grace, and man failed to attain life through it, what's to guarantee that we won't fall from the current Covenant of Grace, and fail to attain life from it?

Relating to that question, Wilson tries to say that they graces in the two covenants were of different types, as "pearls are not a coffee table" even though both can be given as a gift. That is nothing more than a word game. (It may be objected that today we can have two different types of grace - common grace and redemptive grace - but that present distinction cannot be applied to the Covenant of Works to try and show that it was merely grace of a different type - as Wilson tries to do - because common grace is by definition a grace that limits sin, and there was no sin during the Covenant of Works.)



> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Just small details



While that is indeed rightly said about some doctrinal issues, the nature of God's grace (as seen by its effectiveness) is hardly something that can be safely classified as such.


----------



## turmeric (Nov 5, 2004)

I can't open it.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 5, 2004)

Only God can unless he allows you to or use ur free will:bigsmile:


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 5, 2004)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I can't open it.



Do you have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your computer? That's the program usually required to view PDF files.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Nov 6, 2004)

Chris,

If I held Wilson's position I may be able to answer your question. But on the surface I could simply respond that the Bible is crystal clear that all of the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace can be broken. If that is the case, then why would making the CoW a gracious covenant cause problems? It doesn't when you differentiate between God's sovereign decree and covenant membership. The fact that people break the New Covenant (because God does not give them grace to keep it) does not keep the New Covenant from being a gracious covenant. Likewise, God could have graciously entered into covenant with Adam without giving him that special grace to keep it. And further, if what you have called a "word game" on the part of Wilson has any legitimacy (stated roughly, that there is a difference between the grace of the CoW and the grace of the CoG), then your first complaint doesn't have much force.

But that's really an aside to what I really want to say (which is really directed to everyone). Even given Wilson's teaching on the CoW, this does not change the fact that he teaches and preaches a gospel of free and unmerited grace in which the righteousness of Christ (both active and passive) are imputed to the elect (and them alone). Wilson is not a heretic or unorthodox on this issue. That may or may not be in spite of other things he teaches. But to simply say that Wilson's view of the CoW doesn't square with the gospel does not logically mean that Wilson has abandoned the gospel, yet I don't know how many times I have read that in this messageboard. You can fault Wilson for allegedly being inconsistent in his theology, but you cannot fault him for what he actively affirms and teaches: salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. That is the Reformed gospel. Nay, it is THE gospel.


----------



## blhowes (Nov 6, 2004)

> *22d
> Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, andpurifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God ´s merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals. (Catechism of the CC, 1990.).*
> I differ with this. Justification never occurs apart from an infusion of righteousness, but it cannot be understood as an infusion of righteousness. God does give us a new heart, but that gift is not justification. It is the new heart that repents and believes, and that faith in turn is the instrument of justification.



What does he mean by the second sentence ("Justification never occurs apart from an infusion...") of his response? What's the difference between imputation of righteousness and infusion of righteousness? Would the phrase "infusion of righteousness" be more appropriately used with the term 'sanctification' instead of 'justification'?


[Edited on 6-11-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Nov 6, 2004)

Bob,

The "infusion" of righteousness that he is speaking of is the new birth. It is the new birth that produces faith, which is the instrument of justification. Poor and unnecessary wording on his part.


----------



## blhowes (Nov 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> Bob,
> 
> The "infusion" of righteousness that he is speaking of is the new birth. It is the new birth that produces faith, which is the instrument of justification. Poor and unnecessary wording on his part.


Thanks, Craig.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 6, 2004)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> Bob,
> 
> The "infusion" of righteousness that he is speaking of is the new birth. It is the new birth that produces faith, which is the instrument of justification. Poor and unnecessary wording on his part.



A good example of exactly that Craig.

Who would want their pastor to be unable to describe the most basic element of the Christian faith (how to be right with God) in terms that are unequivocal? We're not talking about lapsarianism, or Middle Knowledge, or something abstruse.

In fact, Wilson seems to delight in using "wrong terms" in his own way for shock value. It is actually NOT righteousness infused. It is life granted by a new birth (cf. Ezekiel 37, John 1:13, 1 Peter 1:23) from which righteousness is imputed, and as a RESULT, righteousness is infused. Everyone associates infusion with Romanist doctrine of salvation. So instead of using perfectly clear terms like "regeneration" or "new birth" which came very quickly to an unordained young seminary student (good job Craig!), Wilson uses a term that makes us go round and round the barn to figure out why he ISN'T a Romanist.

Isn't it the place of a teach to actually make things CLEARER instead of UNCLEARER? Or is that too much to ask?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 7, 2004)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> If I held Wilson's position I may be able to answer your question. But on the surface I could simply respond that the Bible is crystal clear that all of the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace can be broken. If that is the case, then why would making the CoW a gracious covenant cause problems? It doesn't when you differentiate between God's sovereign decree and covenant membership. The fact that people break the New Covenant (because God does not give them grace to keep it) does not keep the New Covenant from being a gracious covenant. Likewise, God could have graciously entered into covenant with Adam without giving him that special grace to keep it.



The members of the _external_ Covenant of Grace can indeed break the covenant, hence all the warning passages, the olive tree and the like. The members of the _invisible_ Covenant of Grace, however, absolutely _cannot_ break that covenant. In other words, I'm sure we all agree that those who may _appear_ as internal covenant members, but are actually only external covenant members, can likewise only _appear_ to break the Covenant of Grace, but all they are truly breaking is the _external_ covenant; they can never _actually_ break the _true_ Covenant of Grace, because they are not even members of that covenant. We then need to ask in which sense Adam broke the Creation Covenant, to which the answer is clear: He was a _true_ member of that covenant (as opposed to merely an external one), since he was the one with whom God made the covenant, and the results of the breaking caused Adam to fall from that covenant, showing that he definitely broke it in the eternal, invisible sense. And since the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken in that sense, introducing grace into the Creation Covenant remains a problem for the nature of grace.



> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> And further, if what you have called a "word game" on the part of Wilson has any legitimacy (stated roughly, that there is a difference between the grace of the CoW and the grace of the CoG), then your first complaint doesn't have much force.



I don't see how that relates. Even so, I don't even need to claim that Wilson is playing a word game to make my point, which is that the grace that would be present in the Creation Covenant if it was gracious would be by definition covenantal grace, thus distinguishing it from common grace. So I guess even if Wilson's explanation of that is not a "word game," it still fails to save his position.



> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> But that's really an aside to what I really want to say (which is really directed to everyone). Even given Wilson's teaching on the CoW, this does not change the fact that he teaches and preaches a gospel of free and unmerited grace in which the righteousness of Christ (both active and passive) are imputed to the elect (and them alone). Wilson is not a heretic or unorthodox on this issue. That may or may not be in spite of other things he teaches. But to simply say that Wilson's view of the CoW doesn't square with the gospel does not logically mean that Wilson has abandoned the gospel, yet I don't know how many times I have read that in this messageboard.



Well, all I can say is that I fail to see how one's view of the Covenant of Works (the Creation Covenant) can possibly have no effect on their view of the Covenant of Grace, and thus of salvation and the Gospel. Almost all historic and contemporary Reformed theologians agree as well.



> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> You can fault Wilson for allegedly being inconsistent in his theology, but you cannot fault him for what he actively affirms and teaches: salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. That is the Reformed gospel. Nay, it is THE gospel.



The thing is, the inconsistency in his theology is his very claim to affirm salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone, when that claim is compared to the views of Shepherd and other men Wilson affirms regarding the extremist view of Sacramentalism being effectual in an absolutist, Romanistic way. It is no coincidence that Wilson and the other people in that camp who deny the Covenant of Works also hold to such doctrines as paedocommunion, elevating the sacraments to a level that is dangerous to Sola Gratia at best, and contradictory to it at worst.

I understand that you are not advocating Wilson's view on the Covenant of Works, Craig. Even so, not recognizing it as definitely being dangerous and very related to the Gospel message is dangerous as well.

[Edited on 8-11-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 8, 2004)

I think this pretty much identifies the problem in understanding Wilson (from Q 101) - "I would rather speak in paradox than in equivocation or confusion. Not all the sons of Sarah are sons of Sarah." Unfortunately he speaks in paradox when he doesn't need to, which would lead someone to think he is being obtuse on purpose.


----------



## pastorway (Nov 8, 2004)

Of course he is being obtuse on purpose - otherwise it would be too easy to know what he is actually teaching and then reject his seriously flawed theology.

Phillip


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 8, 2004)

to Wayne and Phillip - great points.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 8, 2004)

Ok I give up waving my white flag now I surrender to complicated redefinitions


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



I am really confused.


----------



## crhoades (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 8, 2004)

I think I know where Paul is going but I care not to voice it lest I show my ignorance.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Nov 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_The members of the _external_ Covenant of Grace can indeed break the covenant, hence all the warning passages, the olive tree and the like. The members of the _invisible_ Covenant of Grace, however, absolutely _cannot_ break that covenant. In other words, I'm sure we all agree that those who may _appear_ as internal covenant members, but are actually only external covenant members, can likewise only _appear_ to break the Covenant of Grace, but all they are truly breaking is the _external_ covenant; they can never _actually_ break the _true_ Covenant of Grace, because they are not even members of that covenant. We then need to ask in which sense Adam broke the Creation Covenant, to which the answer is clear: He was a _true_ member of that covenant (as opposed to merely an external one), since he was the one with whom God made the covenant, and the results of the breaking caused Adam to fall from that covenant, showing that he definitely broke it in the eternal, invisible sense. And since the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken in that sense, introducing grace into the Creation Covenant remains a problem for the nature of grace.



Sounds like word games to me, Chris.  Seriously though, I don't particularly like nor do I buy into the whole "internal/external" language concerning covenant membership. The question is quite simple. Are you in the covenant or not? Do you break the covenant or not? If people aren't "internally" in the covenant (i.e., REALLY in the covenant), then do they really break it at all? The external/internal language is completely unnecessary when you speak of it in terms of objective (gasp!) covenant membership with blessings for the elect and curses for the non-elect.



> I don't see how that relates. Even so, I don't even need to claim that Wilson is playing a word game to make my point, which is that the grace that would be present in the Creation Covenant if it was gracious would be by definition covenantal grace, thus distinguishing it from common grace. So I guess even if Wilson's explanation of that is not a "word game," it still fails to save his position.



I'm not sure I understand how common grace relates to this issue, though I agree with you that covenantal grace is different than common grace.



> Well, all I can say is that I fail to see how one's view of the Covenant of Works (the Creation Covenant) can possibly have no effect on their view of the Covenant of Grace, and thus of salvation and the Gospel. Almost all historic and contemporary Reformed theologians agree as well.



Then show me where Wilson has denied the gospel because of his defective views on the CoW. Look over his examination and find where he denies the imputation of Christ's righteousness (both passive and active). Where does he deny salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone? He positively affirms all the things we affirm, all the while affirming his view of the CoW. Nobody can provide evidence to the contrary.



> The thing is, the inconsistency in his theology is his very claim to affirm salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone, when that claim is compared to the views of Shepherd and other men Wilson affirms regarding the extremist view of Sacramentalism being effectual in an absolutist, Romanistic way. It is no coincidence that Wilson and the other people in that camp who deny the Covenant of Works also hold to such doctrines as paedocommunion, elevating the sacraments to a level that is dangerous to Sola Gratia at best, and contradictory to it at worst.
> 
> I understand that you are not advocating Wilson's view on the Covenant of Works, Craig. Even so, not recognizing it as definitely being dangerous and very related to the Gospel message is dangerous as well.



Here's my rub. (I'm not singling you out, Chris. I just happened to use your post as a springboard.) You guys keep committing the guilt by association fallacy thinking that this somehow proves that Wilson is a false teacher. Yes, Wilson likes some stuff N.T. Wright and Norman Shepherd have to say. But everybody acts like he buys into every jot and tittle these guys have written. Richard Pratt told me almost a year ago at RTS that he highly recommends that I read N. T. Wright's stuff. Are we now going to lump Pratt into the NPP-Shepherd camp? R. C. Sproul highly recommends and endorses J. Stuart Russell's The Parousia. Do we now lump Sproul in with the hyper-preterists? Of course not, and if we are consistent we will grant some common courtesy to Doug Wilson. There is nothing wrong with reading Wright, Russell, Shepherd, et al with a _critical_ eye (ala Pratt, Sproul, Wilson) and gleaning helpful ideas from them. And please don't be so naive as to think that Wilson is not critical of the NPP-Shepherd movement. He has written things critical of them and contrary to what these men teach (see the appendix to Reformed is Not Enough, and various articles on justification available at the Christ Church website).

But alas, the evidence is in front of all of you, clear to see. I am perfectly confident that the honest reader of Wilson's presbytery exam will see that the things I have said are true. Maybe it is true that Wilson's view of the CoW logically runs contrary to the gospel (I'm not yet convinced that it does). Everybody assumes that Wilson will continue on a path to destruction and one day abandon the gospel for the sake of his view of the CoW. But did any of you ever think that because Wilson is committed to the gospel that he will one day realize that his view of the CoW is detrimental to the gospel and abandon it? Is that not a likely possibility?

Nah, I forgot. We're Reformed here. Everybody's a heretic until proven innocent.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Nov 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Of course he is being obtuse on purpose - otherwise it would be too easy to know what he is actually teaching and then reject his seriously flawed theology.
> 
> Phillip



And what would that be? Tell us what Wilson is reeeeeally teaching.  Be sure to include references to actual quotations of Wilson to prove your position.

P.S. - "I know a guy in the OPC that knows a guy that heard Wilson say such 'n' such one time at a conference" doesn't count.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> Nah, I forgot. We're Reformed here. Everybody's a heretic until proven innocent.



No, but teaching and pastoring carries responsibility with it. It is CRITICAL to be clear, especially when teaching on fundamental doctrines.

I have not (I think) called Wilson and out and out heretic, but he (sadly) seems to need to learn that a cute turn of phrase is not as important as precision in needful things.

And I say this ESPECIALLY since he already has a wide audience because of the (good) work he has done in teaching on male/female roles, parenting, etc.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_The members of the _external_ Covenant of Grace can indeed break the covenant, hence all the warning passages, the olive tree and the like. The members of the _invisible_ Covenant of Grace, however, absolutely _cannot_ break that covenant. In other words, I'm sure we all agree that those who may _appear_ as internal covenant members, but are actually only external covenant members, can likewise only _appear_ to break the Covenant of Grace, but all they are truly breaking is the _external_ covenant; they can never _actually_ break the _true_ Covenant of Grace, because they are not even members of that covenant. We then need to ask in which sense Adam broke the Creation Covenant, to which the answer is clear: He was a _true_ member of that covenant (as opposed to merely an external one), since he was the one with whom God made the covenant, and the results of the breaking caused Adam to fall from that covenant, showing that he definitely broke it in the eternal, invisible sense. And since the Covenant of Grace cannot be broken in that sense, introducing grace into the Creation Covenant remains a problem for the nature of grace.
> ...



In the Old Testament, there was an external Israel (the Jews) and an internal Israel (the elect), was there not? Likewise, there is now an external church and an internal church, is there not? There has to be an external church for infant baptism to hold up, and yet there also has to be a distinct internal church for Christ to be able to call the church His bride, since no reprobate human can be Christ's bride. Not all who are descended from Israel (external covenant) are of Israel (internal covenant), and that statement now applies to the families of external church members.



> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> 
> 
> > I don't see how that relates. Even so, I don't even need to claim that Wilson is playing a word game to make my point, which is that the grace that would be present in the Creation Covenant if it was gracious would be by definition covenantal grace, thus distinguishing it from common grace. So I guess even if Wilson's explanation of that is not a "word game," it still fails to save his position.
> ...



I was just saying that Wilson has to acknowledge that any grace in the Covenant of Works would be covenantal grace by nature, and thus could not be taken as being of the same nature as common grace.



> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> 
> 
> > Well, all I can say is that I fail to see how one's view of the Covenant of Works (the Creation Covenant) can possibly have no effect on their view of the Covenant of Grace, and thus of salvation and the Gospel. Almost all historic and contemporary Reformed theologians agree as well.
> ...



Of course he would never directly and openly deny salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone - but what I am saying is that he cannot consistently account for that belief in light of his beliefs about the Covenant of Works. And the reason those two views are incompatible is because of what grace in a covenant from which man fell and failed to attain life through says about the nature of God's grace, and how the Covenant of Grace is then guaranteed to be any more secure than was the Covenant of Works.



> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> 
> 
> > The thing is, the inconsistency in his theology is his very claim to affirm salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone, when that claim is compared to the views of Shepherd and other men Wilson affirms regarding the extremist view of Sacramentalism being effectual in an absolutist, Romanistic way. It is no coincidence that Wilson and the other people in that camp who deny the Covenant of Works also hold to such doctrines as paedocommunion, elevating the sacraments to a level that is dangerous to Sola Gratia at best, and contradictory to it at worst.
> ...



I do not claim that his association with those men _automatically_ means he denies the Gospel of grace in the ways they do. I was just pointing how it is at least noteworthy and interesting that he happens to associate with them on points like the sacraments _and_ that at the same time his view of the Covenant of Works challenges the nature of effectual grace. In other words, while the former is not a in itself a definite implication that he is out of sync with the Gospel of grace, the fact of the latter may shed some light on what the implication of the former is.



> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> But alas, the evidence is in front of all of you, clear to see. I am perfectly confident that the honest reader of Wilson's presbytery exam will see that the things I have said are true. Maybe it is true that Wilson's view of the CoW logically runs contrary to the gospel (I'm not yet convinced that it does). Everybody assumes that Wilson will continue on a path to destruction and one day abandon the gospel for the sake of his view of the CoW. But did any of you ever think that because Wilson is committed to the gospel that he will one day realize that his view of the CoW is detrimental to the gospel and abandon it? Is that not a likely possibility?



It is indeed a possibility, and no one denies that. What we (at least me) are saying is that the direction he is currently headed is pointed toward danger, and that if he does stay within orthodoxy it will be because of a shift of his from his current direction, and not a continuing on it. In conclusion - his current leanings will inevitably need to change if he is not going to eventually end up outside of orthodoxy by continuing with them.



> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> Nah, I forgot. We're Reformed here. Everybody's a heretic until proven innocent.



 to Fred.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 9, 2004)

The one thing I don't get, and maybe I'm just missing it, but Wilson does not make the connection between his version of the COW and the COG. Traditional covenant theology defines the righteousness of Christ by the COW or the righteous requirements of the law as a covenant of works. It is that righteousness that is earned by Christ and imputed to us. But Wilson doesn't provide the parameters of the obedience which Christ does on our behalf. And how did Christ receive His designation as righteous? Was it through faith? Or was it through satisfying the righteous requirements of the law on His own? You just can't thow out "merit", at least in relation to what Christ has done for us.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Nov 9, 2004)

That's a fair criticism, and I would be interested in hearing Wilson's response to it.


----------



## pastorway (Nov 9, 2004)

I thought a _paradox_ was when a pastor earned two doctorates.......because then he has a pair of docs.......


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 9, 2004)

I never knew phillip could be a comedian


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> I never knew phillip could be a comedian



Whose doctrine is it anyway?


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 9, 2004)

Doctrine?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 9, 2004)

As in, "Welcome back to 'Whose Doctrine Is It Anyway?' the show where everything is made up and the conclusions don't matter." A good analogy for evangelical Christendom, actually.

(You mentioned comediens, and this is a theological discussion board, so my mind just went off...)


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 9, 2004)

sorry for my confusion.


----------

