One point of clarification on the limited atonement debate

If anyone thinks for one minute that the lack of a quick response in this dialogue indicates a "gotcha" (something I warned against in my lastest response), he should think again. Most of us have many responsibilities throughout the day, in addition to engaging in these kinds of discussions. It would be an error to assume that the side that delivers the response the quickest is somehow the "winner" (as though there is such a thing in this kind of dialogue).

On the other hand, nor should anyone assume that a quick response necessarily entails a lack of quality over quantity, or a lack of precision, clarity, or sense of importance and sacredness of the issue. As I mentioned in my last response, I have the advantage this week of having a lot more disposable time on my hands than I will the entire coming year. In the interest of economics, it is better for me at the present time to spend twelve hours at a time researching, developing, reading, re-reading, and rewriting responses that define the major issue going forward than it would be for me to wait until next week to do this when I will have to scratch out a sporadic hour here and there. In fairness, it also needs to be mentioned that only one side of this dialogue has had the advantage of thinking through the 4.5 position for fifteeen years; and that side will obviously be able to anticipate the responses from a known position to a greater degree than the other side will. But that says absolutely nothing about the relative abilities or strength of either side's position.

All the comments I have personally received about the dialogue so far have been positive toward both sides, and no one to my knowledge has "declared a winner"--and if they have, they should cease. This dialogue still holds a lot of developments that have not yet been put on the table.