Ask Mr. Religion wrote:
The OP [original poster–CD] smacks of arrogance where epistemic humility is certainly warranted. Nahum [me–CD] might have been taken more seriously had he adopted a more irenic tone from the start.
Where is the “epistemic humility” and “irenic tone” to be found in your assertion that my tone “smacks of arrogance”?
First you said that if I had interacted with men who did not write the Confession, then I would have been taken more seriously. You now add hypocritically, that I am arrogant since I allegedly failed to begin with a more “epistemically humble” and “irenic tone.” The WCF framers lacked this humble attitude toward the Scripture when they invented their clever yet wicked phrase, “as if the offending party were dead” in order to endorse, promote, and encourage the wickedness of adultery. In an ironic twist, the learned men of Westminster showed themselves to be the corrupt ones who were apt to study arguments unduly for the express purpose of justifying the wickedness of adultery (WCF XXIV).
In a further display of epistemic arrogance, the framers of the WCF imposed upon God their own standard of righteousness and then took it upon themselves to rescue Him from its condemnation. I speak of their pseudo-pious attempt to distance God from the origin of evil, undermining and blaspheming His absolute sovereignty in the process (see WCF III and V).