Missing the point

I confess to having no clue that Vicar Gatiss was setting out to lampoon my post on Wesley, although I did find the mockery of style confusing. I fear he rather missed the point of my post as much as I missed the point of his. I had no thought of snidely suggesting that the Vicar's previous harangues about Wesley's Arminianism were unfounded; I actually tended to agree. I was simply sharing the surprise that a sophisticated Arminian can say some pretty orthodox-sounding things, considered from a Calvinist perspective. I should also point out that the three paragraphs belonged together, offering a surprisingly sustained tone. I should have been happy to quote Wesley in some regards, but I don't think I would have been entirely true to his intent.  Of course, the issue then arises as to what qualifications are introduced and how the words are actually interpreted.

With regard to the Vicar's Roman quotations, I think the same applies. Again, I had wondered what point he was trying to make by , and it now becomes clearer. But because I missed the point, the barb failed to penetrate. Far from proving something other, these quotations actually make my point rather well: those with whom we disagree - often fundamentally - can sound very much like us. Again, what often matters is what is left out, introduced by way of qualification, changed by way of interpretation, or mentally suspended in making a certain declaration. That bears further exploration.

However, in the meantime, because I clearly lack the necessary sophistication to make the point obliquely, I am spelling it out.