Will the Real Christian Sabbath Please Stand?

A rare Sunday posting for the outhouse (and unfortunately, a rare RubeRad post!)…

I’ve been using my SoCal commute to memorize the Shorter Catechism lately, and I was encouraged recently by the affirmation in SC 59 that the first day of every week is merely a shadow and a promise, while the real Christian Sabbath rest is only to be found in the consummation:

…and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian sabbath.

In that grammar, what could possibly be the referent of that “which,” other than “the end of the world”?  Then, I discovered in yesterday’s Daily Confession of WCF 21.7 (the obvious source of SC 59), a completely different sentence structure:

…the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.

In the WCF formulation, the grammar more clearly identifies “Christian Sabbath” with “first day of the week.”  As a tie-breaking witness, the Larger Catechism:

…the first day of the week ever since, and so to continue to the end of the world; which is the Christian sabbath, and in the New Testament called The Lord’s day.

is not much help, being worded more like the Shorter, but with an extra semi-colon which that “which” might be able to use to leapfrog over the intermediate phrase to refer to “first day” (but I have no idea how certain we are of authentic punctuation!)

Probably the clearest indication that the Divines were not intending the deeper meaning I got out of SC 59, is that among the scripture proofs, there is not a single reference to Heb 4.

Nevertheless, I really like Kline’s analysis of the Sabbath,* with his emphasis on Sabbath as an almost sacramental promise of eschatalogical rest to God’s covenant people alone — a promise which we have no right to extend to (nor impose on!) the non-Christian, for any non-Christian participation in the Covenant Renewal Ceremony would be a blasphemous claiming of a promise of rest which is not theirs.  And for Christians to encourage or condone non-Christian pseudo-Sabbath-keeping, is to offer them false assurance of the benefits of the promise which was given only to us.  In this framework, non-Christians should be disabused of the concept that they could or should recognize a weekly day of divine rest, just as non-Christians should be barred from Baptism and Communion.

*I wish I could tell you the specific lecture(s) in which he addressed the Sabbath — if I ever listen to them again, I will certainly jot down a succinct index**, if only for my own benefit!  What I can say for sure is, if you want to listen to the lectures, don’t be discouraged by the abysmal sound quality of the very beginning.  It takes about 4 minutes, but then somebody adjusts the microphone or something, and the sound jumps from completely incomprehensible, to what you would expect of a cassette-to-mp3 transfer.

**[Update] I have listened to them again, and here’s the index!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Will the Real Christian Sabbath Please Stand?

  1. Zrim says:


    What do you do with the notion that the Sabbath, like marriage, is grounded in creation?

    Nuptials and days of the week seem to fall under another category (creation) than baptism and communion (redemption). In the former, all have access to them, while in the latter only the elect do. You know I have absolutely no sympathies for soft- or hard-theonomists, but I am not so sure that means we should end up with conclusions that act as if unbelievers don’t exist on Sunday or that suggest they aren’t “really married,” which is what I always infer when you and I get into the whole marriage-is-grounded-in-creation exchange. But I see lots of pagans on Sunday, so I know they exist that day.

  2. sean says:


    Not to be curt, but the fall happened. I guess you could have pagans practice the sabbath in anticipation of their eschatological doom, but I don’t think you’d get many takers. Pipa and others want to emphasize the 1 in seven principle, but really it’s a seventh day empasis and while you can say that the sabbath helps order life, to do so at the exclusion of it’s eschatological import is to make it something other than the christian sabbath. Though, like I said you could encourage them to set it aside in anticipation of their future judgement.

  3. Zrim says:


    Good point. But I am not so sure that just because the implications of Sabbath for unbelief being bad means that there are no common implications for Sabbath. Creation happened just as much as the fall; the Sabbath was ordained before the fall and all creatures live in light of it. Same with marriage. This all seems to turn on whether or not Sabbath is grounded in creation and flows out from there. I think it is, just like marriage. Granted, celebrating one’s doom won’t happen. And I have no theonomic interest in making sure civilization shuts down on Sunday. But I don’t think that means we can say there are no common implications for Sabbath rest.

  4. sean says:


    I think the marriage analogy breaks down rather quickly, because marriage is a uniquely temporal institution whereas the seventh day is in essence our eschatalogical framework. We will forever live in the seventh day, our covenant reward and rest. Marriage doesn’t exist in glory. That doesn’t mean there aren’t common implications, but like I said, sabbath practice is particular and peculiar to the covenant community now, which is radically dissimilar to the institution of marriage. I have no idea how a pagan can practice the sabbath, it’s redemptive community privilege. I’d ask the pagan practicing the sabbath the same thing I ask the theonomist; where’s your charter?

  5. Zrim says:


    I agree that marriage and Sabbath are different realities in relation to each other, but they both still share a grounding in creation.

    If this turns on temporality, remember that the visible church is a temporal institution as well. (I for one am hoping that our eschatalogical rest is much better than our typical Sunday afternoon and that the elect of God are much better at our election than we are now.) So marriage and the church and Sunday as we know these things now, will either pass altogether or be graduated into better states. Resting from labor seems to be the most obviously common way a pagan can “practice the Sabbath.” Just because the pagan does not love his wife as Christ loves the church doesn’t mean it is inconceivable how he can possibly practice marriage. But I can see how this is confusing if you don’t view Sabbath as grounded in creation but rather only a “redemptive community privilege.”

  6. sean says:


    Yeah, I see sabbath as particularly cultic and it’s grounding not so much in creation as a creation ordinance, but replica or lisping if you will of a heavenly reality held out for successful completion of the probated covenant. It is the successful ending of being created imago dei, we shall imitate the resting of the King. Actually, I should say I’m convinced of Kline’s rendering of the situation.

  7. RubeRad says:

    What do you do with the notion that the Sabbath, like marriage, is grounded in creation?

    I take a cue from OHS Clark’s lecture on the Sabbath from WSCAL’s 2007(?) Conference on the Law of God: even in creation, God hallowed the Sabbath. What does it mean to make something “holy” in the absence of sin? It means to set it apart, to consecrate it and make it sacred. So even in creation, before the fall, the Sabbath illustrates the existence of a sacred/secular distinction.

    Interestingly, I don’t think the analogous case can be made to sanctify marriage.

  8. RubeRad says:

    Also, note that the beginning of the paragraph WCF 21.7 has an interesting perspective:

    As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.

    It would seem that the divines are saying that one-in-seven-ness (or any other particular characteristics of the Sabbath, such as being a rest from labor) is special revelation, not natural law.

  9. Zrim says:

    I agree with what both of you are saying, namely that Sabbath has special meaning for believers that it doesn’t for unbelievers. I am having a hard time with the idea that it has no common import for unbelievers though. I mean, we all, un/believers alike, know what resting from one’s labors means, just like we know what marriage means. I suspect that you might presume that to admit there is a common meaning for Sabbath is to give something away to the theonomists (?). But I don’t see that such an admission does that at all. It just admits that creation has certain realities.

    I’ve read Clark to understand Sabbath as grounded in creation; from what Rube says of his lecture it still suggests that Sabbath has a foot in creation even as it has one in redemption. If it has a foot in creation it must have creational (read; common) implications. I don’t have ears to hear Kline. Got anything in print?

  10. RubeRad says:

    Well, the mp3/tapes were of Kline lecturing through Kingdom Prologue. I haven’t even cracked my new hardcopy yet though, so I can’t even begin to point you to chapter & verse. Sean, you sound like you might be more familiar?

  11. sean says:

    Zrim, Rube

    I’ll have to crack open my KP. I’m not so concerned about how the theonomists treat it, as I am somewhat convinced that once you exchange the seventh day for a one in seven principle the sabbath loses it’s eschatological character.

  12. sean says:

    Alright, KP pg 78, particularly pg 81 2nd paragraph. Many of the same points already made. In addition, Sabbath signalizes theocratic order, and whether viewed as God’s promise of consumation or man’s devotion to God in imitation as vassal, it is particularly covenant sign-think sacrament-thus Rube’s sacred-secular distinction. Pg 81 3rd paragraph_”Only finds expression in corporate assembly of covenant people, as the ekklesia-extension of the heavenly assembly of God’s sabbath enthronement. That is sabbath observance will have to do only with their holy cultic (but not their cultural common) activity.” Rest is consummation not common cultural recuperation from work, and more importantly eschatological sign of future blessing NOT a one in seven principle. (last sentence mine)

  13. RubeRad says:

    That’s better than what I found — p 39 near the bottom:

    Observance of the Sabbath by man is thus a confession that Yahweh is his Lord and Lord of all lords. Sabbath-keeping expresses man’s commitment to the service of his Lord

  14. Tristan Weeks-Galindo says:

    I do not know how important this point is but:

    What about those externally in the covenant while not internally in it? It seems some unbelievers partake in the sabbath though it does not bode eternal blessing for them in their unbelief.

  15. Zrim says:

    Rube and Sean,

    Again, I don’t have any problem with what you are saying strictly speaking. The Decalogue, by way of analogy, insofar as it is a republication of the CoW, is really a symbol for believers, which means its placarding in the public square is inappropriate. But that doesn’t mean the Law has no common import to all creatures. I think this may be where theonomists might get a foothold and charge something like antinomianism.

    But lest I distract too much from Rube’s point, quite agreed, we have no more charter to compel unbelievers to Sabbath observance than we do to placarding the Decalogue in the public square. The Sabbath, just like the Law, belongs to the church as a symbol of covenant.

  16. RubeRad says:

    What about those externally in the covenant while not internally in it? It seems some unbelievers partake in the sabbath though it does not bode eternal blessing for them in their unbelief.

    Yes, I used “unbelievers” as shorthand for “non-covenant-members”. Visible-but-not-invisible members of the covenant do participate in the Sabbath, and they are also baptized and take communion.

  17. sean says:


    As far as pagans existing on sunday, all I can imagine is that they exist particularly as a lost and excluded people. Sunday becomes for them a day of calling to join, or judgement for their rebellion(Kris Kristoferson’s “Sunday coming down”). I’m struggling to find the common parallel. As I said, once you treat it as ordering of time, it seems to me, to lose it’s eschatological character. I’m not sure how the theonomist’s may get a foothold in this scenario, but then I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

    Kline, at this point, may emphasize the anti-christ character of the kingdom of man as it regards the redemptive community’s cultic activity.

  18. RubeRad says:

    KP, p 82:

    As prophetic sign of the the final day of the Lord, the Sabbath held before mankind symbolically the prospect of the divine judgement. Under the creational covenant, the proper purpose of the covenant was to bring man to the end of his historical labors in a consummation of kingdom blessings and agreeably the proper purpose of the covenant sign of the Sabbath was to point to and minister to a consummation of blessedness. But the Sabbath, viewed more broadly symbolized the day of judgment generically, and since that judgment confronts man with the options of both blessing and curse verdicts, the generic significance of the Sabbath included both the dual sanctions of the covenant. … In this respect, the Sabbath, continuing on into redemptive administrations of the covenant, is like its accompanying signs of circumcision and baptism. For these also symbolize the judgment of death generically, while pointing, as to their proper redemptive objective, to a faith-passage through the death-curse in Christ as the way to ultimate resurrection and consummate beatitude.

  19. RubeRad says:

    Z, a thought:

    If the Sabbath contains a 2nd kingdom principle valid for unbelievers, wouldn’t that translate to a difference between Saturday and Sunday, which in our culture, are both days of rest?

  20. Zrim says:


    If I understand the question, yes, since Henry Ford invented the weekend. Before that everyone understood Saturday as a work day. I may not go into the office on Saturday (thanks, Henry), but I still do things that day I wouldn’t on Sunday. Even so, I am still not quite persuaded that Sunday has no common significance to the unbeliever, especially since most believers think of Sunday as a glorified day off. There’s rest and then there’s leisure.

    I don’t mind if the shopkeeper opens on Sunday (since I’m no theonomist), but it sure seems to me that even before Henry Ford came along all creatures knew Sunday was just plain different, no matter what one decided to do with it.

  21. sean says:

    “along all creatures knew Sunday was just plain different, no matter what one decided to do with it.”

    Jealousy, people want to be part of the covenant community-imago dei residual. The downside; they do in fact get theocratic (still the unbelievers impulse-Babel, emperor’s cult, etc..) Manifests at it’s most extreme, as persecution of the redemptive community. Theocracy is a human impulse not merely a reformed theonomic one, as such, when it’s in full-bloom the redemptive community’s altar is viewed as threat and challenge.

  22. sean says:


    Maybe better said; the regarding of sunday as different by the pagan, is an innate religious impulse.

  23. Zrim says:


    Are you suggesting Reformed theonomists aren’t human?

    Seriously, point taken for sure. Created man wants Sabbath on his own terms still despite the fact that sin makes that a really bad idea.

    Still, does that really mean closing shop on Sunday doesn’t make good creational sense the way one man and one woman does? I think that’s all I am really asking.

  24. RubeRad says:

    it sure seems to me that even before Henry Ford came along all creatures knew Sunday was just plain different, no matter what one decided to do with it.

    You’re importing a lot of western cultural assumptions here — what did the ancient Chinese think about Sunday?

    See also the overlong and threadjacked discussion to this post

  25. RubeRad says:

    OK, so maybe the Chinese did have seven-day-weeks, but did they have a one-in-seven pattern of rest?

    And how about the Aztecs, who had a shockingly sophisticated calendar, but no mention of seven-ness.

  26. sean says:

    “Are you suggesting Reformed theonomists aren’t human?”

    No, just that they’re too pagan.

    “Still, does that really mean closing shop on Sunday doesn’t make good creational sense the way one man and one woman does? I think that’s all I am really asking.”

    I don’t know, didn’t Bill Gates recently propose getting rid of the 5 or 6 day work week for a 7 dayer? I’m pretty sure he was anti-sunday. I think he wanted sunday to be a regular work day. Bill Gates is the de facto supreme pagan, right?

  27. Zrim says:


    I imported to make a point. I just posted on Gordon’s notion that getting too caught up in “days” is, well, a distraction well enough without dragging the Chinese and Aztecs into this. All I am trying to get to is that the Sabbath has some creational character to it; your overall point is well taken, kudos.


    I don’t know, but he has a funny commerical out with Jerry Seinfeld. Wasn’t it Ted Turner who wanted to re-write the Decalogue? I defy Ted to be funny like Bill.

  28. sean says:


    I don’t know about the whole decalogue re-write, but he sure did punish us with his version of southern christian piety in God’s and Generals. One of the worst movies I ever saw, and then had to put up with all the cooing at church about how “good” it was.

  29. RubeRad says:

    you’re overall point is well taken, kudos.

    Does that mean I win?

  30. Zrim says:


    I didn’t know it was a contest. But if it makes you feel better, sure, you win.

  31. mbosse says:

    Question to anyone/everyone:

    In addition to or aside from Kline’s Kingdom Prologue, what book provides the best treatment of the Reformed view of the Sabbath and Sabbath observance?


  32. RubeRad says:

    I’m sorry, but I don’t have any good recommendations; and as good as KP is, I wouldn’t call it a “treatment” of the Sabbath. It’s more of a treatment of Genesis and Covenant Theology, with about 10 pages on the Sabbath.

  33. sean says:


    D.A. Carson has a book out called “From Sabbath to Lord’s Day” that is reportedly fairly exhaustive even if you don’t side with his particular conclusions. The sections I’ve read I’ve found enlightening.

  34. Ron Smith says:

    And for Christians to encourage or condone non-Christian pseudo-Sabbath-keeping, is to offer them false assurance of the benefits of the promise which was given only to us.

    I guess Nehemiah wasn’t up on his Klinianism.

  35. RubeRad says:

    That’s because he was in the Old Covenant before it became obsolete, (even focusing on the National Covenant of Works to the exclusion of the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace)

  36. Ron Smith says:

    What section of the Confession is the recapitulation of the Covenant of Works again?

  37. RubeRad says:

    That would be Chapter 19, where in 19.1 “God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works”, the same law is given to Moses in 19.2, and not until 19.6 (covenant of grace) is the law described as “not a covenant of works”.

    We’ve been around this tree before, and I have nothing new to say.

  38. Ron Smith says:

    Maybe there is a typo on the version posted here on TCO, but XIX says absolutely nothing about a so-called recapitulation of the CoW. It simply says the *Law* was handed down to Moses, but nothing about the CoW.

    But you think Law => CoW. Here is your argument. Feel free to correct the syllogism if I have misrepresented you.

    P1: Law => CoW
    P2: Law
    C: Cow

    If one takes this argument, then when he takes a look at all the Law in the Mosaic Administration, he simply thinks CoW. The problem is that your first premise is refuted by WCF XIX.VI. We have been given the same Law (WCF XIX.V), commonly called “Moral” (WCF XIX.III), but we are not under it as a CoW (WCF XIX.VI). So Law => CoW is FALSE. Further, this same Law continued after the fall as the perfect rule of righteousness (XIX.II), but the Covenant of Grace was established right after the Fall (Gen 3:15; WCF VII.III).

    Of course, you’ll likely say that they were under the CoW and the CoG simultaneously (though, I don’t know how both could be kept since the former requires self righteousness (according to your view) and the latter forbids self-righteousness), but that doesn’t help you because this doesn’t make the proof of a Mosaic CoW appear out of nowhere in the WCF. Just because they *could* coexist (which they can’t), doesn’t mean they *did* coexist.

    Just for fun, I’ll syllogize a proof that the CoW and the CoG cannot co-exist without there being a contradiction. Mind you, I am defining the Adamic “CoW” as you define it.

    P1i: CoW => Self-righteousness
    P2i: CoW
    Ci: Self-righteousness

    P1ii: CoG => ~Self-righteousness
    P2ii: CoG
    Cii: ~ Self-righteousness

    P1iii: CoW • CoG => Self-righteousness • ~Self-righteousness
    P2iii: CoW • CoG
    Ciii: Self-righteousness • ~Self-righteousness

    How do you resolve this glaring contradiction?

  39. RubeRad says:

    All of this was already covered at the link previously mentioned, and as I also already mentioned, I have nothing new to say; in particular, I’m not going to waste time discussing fine distinctions among covenants of works with someone who can’t even tell the difference between works and grace.

  40. Ron Smith says:

    Actually, the argument I posted above is nowhere in the post or the comments of the post you linked. (I am open to correction on this point. If I am wrong, please link the actual comment that reflects the argument above, and I will retract.) Those comments majored mostly on the Confession’s use of “THIS LAW” in WCF XIX, and RSC’s assertion that “THIS LAW” must refer to a CoW in WCF XIX.II, but somehow, “THIS LAW” does *NOT* refer to a CoW in XIX.III or XIX.V. This is arbitrary and no one has ever proved otherwise.

    No worries. I understand you have more important things to do that substantiate your assertions. You have learned from the best. The best method of argumentation is to post, link or refer one to a volume of text, hoping it will chase off any naysayers. In actuality, this is called a red herring, and it designed to get readers focused on something other than the fact that you cannot support your position.

  41. RubeRad says:

    You’re quite right; I do have many more important things to do than justify myself to you. The better I learn that lesson, I think the better off I’ll be.

    And I still have nothing new to say. The fact that I have pointed to a large volume of text is different than the usual FV tactic, in that the text is MY text (and YOUR text) — a “conversation” I am not interested in repeating — or even extending (otherwise I would go leave more comments over there). I am happy to leave it in its current state, and would be delighted for anyone to go read all 73 comments, and judge for themselves who makes sense, and who makes nonsense.

  42. Ron Smith says:

    Actually, the FV “tactic” is to produce coherent argumentation and challenge the Klinianists to address those arguments (not unlike what I have done here). The Klinianists’ tactic is to pretend that their Klinian views somehow existed before Kline and to say “Go read this or that reformed volume more slowly…”, etc (not unlike what you have done here).

    So you say you are “not interested in repeating” the “conversation”. That’s cool. Neither am I. But you never addressed my assertion that this argument is not part of the “conversation” you linked. If it is, where is it found (what comment)? If it is not, then the claim that you are “not interested in repeating” the “conversation” doesn’t explain your refusal to address the contradiction I pointed out to you.

    It’s real easy. All you have to do is reject a premise or point out a logical fallacy.

  43. RubeRad says:

    As I said, if you can’t find it there, I am not interested in extending the “conversation”. I think I might also have said I have nothing new to say.

  44. Ron Smith says:

    Translation: I cannot logically defend my view.

    So, for the record, a glaring contradiction has been demonstrated to exist in the notion that God’s people under the Old Covenant were simultaneously under a CoW and the CoG, but none of the Klinianists here who espouse this bizarre and unconfessional view is willing (or even able, it appears) to resolve the contradiction.

  45. Zrim says:

    Since this thread is getting more activity, I thought it was interesting that RSC just recently posted some stuff on Sabbath matters. I asked him briefly a question along the lines I brought up earlier (i.e. implications for unbelievers if Sabbath is indeed grounded in creation).


  46. RubeRad says:

    Translation: I am getting more enjoyment from denying you an argument than giving you one.

    Would you pick a fight with a Baptist, telling him he should endorse paedocommunion? Well, maybe you would, but perhaps you can understand that there’s the little issue of paedobaptism that has to be gotten out of the way, before any discussion of paedocommunion can be worthwhile.

    Similarly, I’m not going to waste my breath discussing distinctions between works covenants, when you can’t even tell the difference between works and grace.

    I have nothing new to say.

    (Is there an Echo in here?)

  47. RubeRad says:

    Oh wait, I do have something new to say — something back on the original topic!

    I guess Nehemiah wasn’t up on his Klinianism.

    That’s because Nehemiah wasn’t (any longer) an exile. I seriously doubt he went around beating his Persian neighbors for opening their market-stalls on Saturday.

  48. Ron Smith says:

    Zrim: Classic. With that last comment, you have done precisely (as noted earlier on this thread ) what Klinianists typically do when faced with an argument they cannot defeat. Red Herring.

    Rube. We are men of action. Lies do not become us. Do you expect me to believe that if you saw even the smallest chink in the argument I have presented, you would not immediately exploit it? Are we to believe that you are “holding back” a devastating response to said argument since doing so is more enjoyable to you than invalidating said argument? Please… If you are “enjoying” this so much, why are you so eager to put an end to it?

    You keep saying you have nothing more to say, but you won’t let the conclusion of this thread be me pointing out that you left said argument unchallenged. You don’t mind leaving said argument unchallenged, but you don’t want the conclusion of this thread to be me pointing that out you left said argument unchallenged. Rather, you want the conclusion of this thread to be something that is not true. You want the conclusion to be something to the effect that this has all been handled by you before and you are way too important to be repeating yourself. “Go read x y and z,” you say. But when pressed to prove that “x y and z” actually address said argument, nothing. Like I said, you learned from the best.

    And now, it seems you want to retract the statement RE: Nehemiah you made in the first place by bringing in the exile argument – er uh, I mean assertion. This is yet another sleight of hand trick designed to direct focus away from the fact that you have not addressed said argument. Why not just admit you cannot defeat said argument and be done with it?

  49. RubeRad says:

    Are we to believe that you are “holding back” a devastating response

    Is that the royal wee? Y’all can believe what you want. In the meantime you can enjoy this — and maybe even learn something from it; I know I did.

  50. Zrim says:


    It’s good to be classic, but I don’t follow. Are you referring to my “actual emergency” comment on the other thread (which was just a friendly joke), or how I pointed Rube to RSC’s comment about how the Sabbath is grounded in creation and indeed does have implications for unbelievers (which he seems to have not noticed, or has noticed but doesn’t care).

  51. RubeRad says:

    I’m watching RSC’s comment trail for an answer to your question.

  52. Zrim says:

    He gave one. It was tucked into an answer to someone else…see it?

  53. Ron Smith says:

    Sorry, bro. I imputed motives to you without even taking a look at the link, which has more to do with the original post here than the subsequent comments.

    I stated previously that directing readers away from an argument via link or quoted volume was a tactic commonly used by certain bloggers who were on the horns of a dilemma, as it were. When I called you a ‘classic’ it was because I thought you were doing this, and right after I mentioned the tactic.

    I can see now that the link was actually very pertinent to the original conversation and that my assumptions about your motives were uncharitable. Sorry, bro.

    And Rube,
    I am sorry I imputed motives to you as well. I said that you weren’t addressing my argument because you were incapable, which I have no way of knowing. This was uncharitable of me. I’m sure you *could* be avoiding the argument because of what you’ve learned from a cartoon. Sorry, bro. 😆

  54. RubeRad says:

    I have to admit; I am incapable of listening to you and then thinking “Hmm, I wonder if I could be wrong?” All I can think is “Hmm, Ron must be wrong.” It’s no wonder our “conversations” are always so unproductive. I can only take it for so long. Probably in a few months I’ll be foolish enough to engage again.

  55. Pingback: Guess the Good Guy « The Confessional Outhouse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s