Is Calvinism Wrong?

[glorydaz]

Why do you evade these particular questions?

1. Do attempt to fulfill through faith and practice "Love God" and does this change manifest itself in your life?
2. Do attempt to fulfill through faith and practice "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and does this change manifest itself in your life?
3. Do attempt to fulfill through faith and practice "Love thy enemies" and does this change manifest itself in your life?
4. Do attempt to fulfill through faith and practice "Love one another" and does this change manifest itself in your life?

If it manifests itself in your life because you're trying really hard to be a good or better person or because you think you owe God something, then, even if you succeed you've failed. All such works are of the flesh and will be burned up on that Great Day.

If you have been saved by grace alone through faith alone, by what method of reasoning do you conclude that you are made perfect by some other means?

As you were saved, so walk. There is no other way that God will accept.

It is not you but Christ. Christ will live His life through you and good fruit will be the result but it has to be Him doing it, not you.

Your roll is belief in the biblical facts concerning your righteousness in Him not effort intended to accomplish that goal. Trying to attain perfection is to believe you aren't already perfect in Him.

You have been accepted in Christ and He ALONE is your standing. You are not on probation. You died on the Cross, you were executed by the law - in Him - and He is now your life.

William. R. Newell wrote the following in his classic, Romans, Verse by Verse...

“The Proper Attitude of Man Under Grace:

“To believe, and to consent to be loved while unworthy, is the great secret.
“To refuse to make ‘resolutions’ and ‘vows’; for that is to trust in the flesh.
“To expect to be blessed, though realizing more and more lack of worth…
“To rely on God’s chastening [child training] hand as a mark of His kindness…

“Things Which Gracious Souls Discover:

“To ‘hope to be better’ [hence acceptable] is to fail to see yourself in Christ only.
“To be disappointed with yourself, is to have believed in yourself.
“To be discouraged is unbelief,—as to God’s purpose and plan of blessing for you.
“To be proud, is to be blind! For we have no standing before God, in ourselves.
“The lack of Divine blessing, therefore, comes from unbelief, and not from failure of devotion…
“To preach devotion first, and blessing second, is to reverse God’s order, and preach law, not grace. The Law made man’s blessing depend on devotion; Grace confers undeserved, unconditional blessing: our devotion may follow, but does not always do so,—in proper measure.”​

Resting in Him,
Clete

To which Rosen referred to this response as a "smoke screen". The answers are right there, and why I will never claim I attempt to do what only God can do in me.

Only a worker would insist someone answer those questions. Those IN CHRIST have entered into His rest. So be shocked, oh world, that anyone should trust in the Lord's work, and should find rest in their soul.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Rosenritter]

There is no instance recorded where they didn't rest, either. Do you think that proves something?

In Eden before the fall, there was no labor for man in the garden. Labor enters the picture for the first time with the curse, as the ground becomes cursed, "in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread" ... it says. This would be the most opportune time to mention anything about a restriction on when Adam was to labor, should such a command ever have existed, seeing this would be the first time it could have found application.

Genesis 3:17-19 KJV
(17) And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
(18) Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
(19) In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Are you suggesting that it was an unknown fact that God rested on the 7th day and made it holy.

Gen. 2:2-3 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.​

​

Therein is reason for God instituting the seventh day as a sabbath unto Israel, and the seventh day sabbath (there are other sabbaths as well) points to the Creation and the Creator. Yet the passage of Genesis 2:3 does not institute a sabbath commandment.

We know that the Sabbath was made for man. Seems that knowledge was passed down.

If it was passed down, then not only did it escape mention from the entire scripture but Israel also seems to have completely forgotten it during their time in Egypt. When God proclaimed a sabbath in Exodus 16:23 he taught them in a visible dramatic way that now this day was holy compared to any other day. The manna which they ate would not fall that day, but rather be preserved.

Do you think Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord if he was not keeping the seventh day holy as had been passed down to him? There is no grace if there is nothing to condemn. Surely he didn't work seven days a week for all those years.

Circular reasoning. There is no record of such a commandment given to Noah, nor evidence that Noah observed any sabbath, seventh day or otherwise, so you cannot logically build an argument that "If Noah had disobeyed the sabbath he would not have been holy." The only commandment we have for Noah is "to build thee an ark of gopher wood...."

And the children in Egypt....

Exodus 5:4-5 And the king of Egypt said unto them, Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, let the people from their works? get you unto your burdens. 5 And Pharaoh said, Behold, the people of the land now are many, and ye make them rest from their burdens.​

​

Did you forget the context of the previous verse 3? They are talking about a three day journey, not a sabbath commandment. If anything, the sabbath commandment would exclude laborious travel. This was to be for sacrifices, not abstaining from labor and travel.

Exodus 5:3-4 KJV
(3) And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the LORD our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword.
(4) And the king of Egypt said unto them, Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, let the people from their works? get you unto your burdens.

Again, This was before the 4th commandment was written on tablets of stone.

Exodus 16:25 And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the Lord: to day ye shall not find it in the field.​

​

God does not need a tablet of stone to initiate a commandment. For example, there's no indication that he wrote on stone when he commanded Noah to build the ark, no tablet of stone or a written commandment when Jonah was to go to Nineveh. Above (Exodus 16:23) God first instituted the sabbath (the first of many both weekly and annual) for Israel.

However, consider that Exodus 16:25 is the first recorded instance of a sabbath commandment. It isn't God's first commandment for Israel, that would be the blood on the doorposts. God DID give them a commandment here... over a time span that covered fourteen days... and no mention of a sabbath of rest on the seventh day.

Exodus 12:1-7 KJV
(1) And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,
(2) This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.
(3) Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
(4) And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.
(5) Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:
(6) And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
(7) And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

If there was a seventh day of rest here that needed to be observed, this would have been the time to say it. But it was not until after Israel had passed through the Red Sea that God first gave Israel the commandment to rest on the seventh day.

If you have something to say, come right out and say it. Stop presuming you know what I might say or think. Beating around the bush like that is just sounding brass.

The earliest evidence that shows a sabbath commandment is in Exodus 16, after God instituted the first day of their first month, after the first Passover on the fourteenth of that month, after having come through the Red Sea. Had there been a commandment known and expected in between, God wouldn't have needed to educate them after they left Egypt: they would have observed at least two sabbaths before the lamb was slain between the first of Nisan and the fifteenth.

If you want plain speech, do you think you can drop the aggression a wee notch and dispense with hurt feelings? This is simply scriptural evidence. The implication is what most of us already agree upon, that the Ten Commandments are a part and parcel of the Law of Moses, which was a specific set of laws for Israel, whom God declared would be his peculiar people. Those outside of that Covenant at Sinai never had that commandment or any of that Law. It was unique to Israel.

 

[Rosenritter]

Absolutely NOT. You didn't answer my question, so, what is my incentive to answer yours?

Grosnick, which number comes first, 795 or 803? I think most people of sane and rational mind would choose "795" ...

Post 795 from this thread:

Yes, provided that the question has no hidden tricks or caveats from grammatical errors or omissions.

Your post declaring the question has not yet been answered is post 803. That's after 795.

Yes, your question was answered very directly. Is it just safer to assume that you are not sincere with these types of offers?

 

[Rosenritter]

I suppose that's 'your way' of 'sliding past the question.' I suspect you're one of those 'fellas' that avoid answering questions. Carry on.

So either you do not know what the word "yes" means, or the "yes" is disqualified because you did have "hidden tricks" or "caveats" concealed in grammatical errors or omissions. If you were being straight you had your answer.

 

[Rosenritter]

To which Rosen referred to this response as a "smoke screen". The answers are right there, and why I will never claim I attempt to do what only God can do in me.

Only a worker would insist someone answer those questions. Those IN CHRIST have entered into His rest. So be shocked, oh world, that anyone should trust in the Lord's work, and should find rest in their soul.

They were simple yes or no questions, but when asked for clarification Clete responded again with clear "yes." Did Clete do wrong by answering in the affirmative? In doing so he demonstrated that he had a spirit of peace.

 

[Clete]

Faith manifests itself in trust and obedience; it is impossible to have faith without trust, and willing disobedience is evidence of a lack of faith. When Adam took of the forbidden tree, he showed that he did not have faith in the word of his Creator, trusting Eve and the serpent over God.

Precisely! For Adam it was simply about trusting God. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was the first manisfestation of Law. In fact, it is symbolic of the Law. Indeed, the Law is the result of, the very fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam's only command was do not partake of it! It is the same for us.

He also said that keeping those commandments was not enough, that with those he still lacked something very important, did he not?

I am not disputing that simple wrote obedience to the Law was sufficient. It is not possible to please God absent faith. That is not in dispute.

My point is that if someone came to you, today, and asked you, "What must I do to gain everlasting life?", if you answered the same way Jesus did, you'd be giving the wrong answer! To get the answer right, you are forced - forced - to go to Paul to get it. "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." is the right answer and it is nowhere to be found on the lips of Jesus Christ nor anyone else other than the Apostle Paul.

I think that argument was (or at least it resembled) that "The Ten Commandments" were not part of the Law of Moses that was nailed to the cross, and that it was an Eternal Law ... that would always exist and always had existed "and would be written in our hearts?" Usually when someone says that the law was "nailed to the cross" they mean that it is abolished and of no more legal effect.

I suspect that some people take that position because (for example) they innately know that "adultery" is sin and thus deduce that there must be law or else there would be no more sin but because when they think "law" they look for a specific code such as a list of "Thou Shalt" or "Thou Shalt Not." But the Ten Commandments (which were part of the Law of Moses) were first given at Mount Sinai and also specifically include the Sabbath Days which the apostles declare as not binding in the New Testament, as well as other statements that the law entirely stands together or falls together, to break one item is to break the whole law.

I agree that the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross, not in part, but in whole. So while I agree (and would maintain) that the presence of sin proves the presence of law, I could not say that "the Ten Commandments" are that binding law. Law (which some people seem to think is a dirty word) would have preceded those Commandments or else there could have been no sin from either Adam or the Serpent.

Perhaps we might discuss other items later....

"Where there is no law, sin is not imputed." - Paul the Apostle.

This reminds me of another TOLer from a very long time ago name Sozo who really pounded hard on this topic of there being no sin if there is no law. He was really brilliant and argued very effectively for his position and in the sense that he (and you) use the word "sin" he was right and so are you. But it is important to understand that you are not using the term "sin" in the same sense that most people mean it when they say it. Yes, 'sin' can be used to refer specifically to a 'transgression of the law' but that is not what it has to mean. The word 'sin' usually refers to an action that is wrong or a failure to do rightly. To sin means to disobey or to rebel against God; to be ungodly. So, in one very important sense, Sozo was to totally right to insist that we who are under grace cannot rightly be considered sinners but unless you are talking to people with a common understanding, saying such things usually leads to more confusion that would otherwise have been warranted because there is no intention to imply that Christians lead perfect lives where we always do the right thing and never do things which grieve God (sin).

Clete

 

[Clete]

As you pointed out very nicely, the Ten are not in effect for those who were crucified with Christ...those who are in Him. We no longer need the law, it's purpose has been served in us.

With you so far!

But it wasn't the law itself that was nailed to the cross. It was the record of charges against us.

Except that this isn't what it says.

You just read it in the post of mine that you quoted...

"having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us."

It isn't the charges, its the law!

That is not only consistent with the plain reading of the text (i.e. handwriting of requirements) but also with Paul's entire message and ministry.

The Ten do still convict ungodly men of their sin. That was their purpose to begin with, and it remains so today.

Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.​

Even before God wrote the Ten on tables of stone, men knew not to covet their neighbor's wife. It went against their conscience which had been created in them by God. Romans 1:19-20 Romans 2:14-15

Gen. 12:17-18 And the Lord plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?​

I agree except that I don't see Paul making the distinction here that you are making between the 10C and the whole law.

Remember in Romans 1, just two chapters before the verse you quote, Paul discusses evil things that condemn unbelievers such as homosexuality and other things that are not in the 10C but are clearly forbidden in the Mosaic Law. Right and wrong and even the existence of God Himself is understood by human beings intuitively because "what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them" and they choose to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." and this is clearly not limited to the 10C.

It seems we are almost entirely in agreement except for this segregation of the 10C from the rest of the Law as it applies to Paul's ministry and to the lives of human beings in general.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

To which Rosen referred to this response as a "smoke screen". The answers are right there, and why I will never claim I attempt to do what only God can do in me.

Only a worker would insist someone answer those questions. Those IN CHRIST have entered into His rest. So be shocked, oh world, that anyone should trust in the Lord's work, and should find rest in their soul.

My answers to the questions where focused on the "manifest itself in your life" portion of the question, not on the implication of 'success due to effort' part.

I really did respond initially to the questions as though they were rhetorical. I only offered the answers so as to not cause unecessary offense. I saw no reason to let the answers he was looking for or lack thereof to become an obstact to the the point I was trying to make.

I hope I didn't create more confusion by doing so!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Rosenritter]

Precisely! For Adam it was simply about trusting God. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was the first manisfestation of Law. In fact, it is symbolic of the Law. Indeed, the Law is the result of, the very fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam's only command was do not partake of it! It is the same for us.

I am not disputing that simple wrote obedience to the Law was sufficient. It is not possible to please God absent faith. That is not in dispute.

It is refreshing to have some things not in dispute.

My point is that if someone came to you, today, and asked you, "What must I do to gain everlasting life?", if you answered the same way Jesus did, you'd be giving the wrong answer! To get the answer right, you are forced - forced - to go to Paul to get it. "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." is the right answer and it is nowhere to be found on the lips of Jesus Christ nor anyone else other than the Apostle Paul.

If someone were to ask me that question, I would still need to determine what they actually meant as to know what type of answer to supply: I don't have the same ability that Jesus had to discern the heart. As the case in point, the example of the lawyer is contrasted by a different person who asked exactly the same question, but his answer had a subtle (but very important) difference.

So why was one lawyer dismissed with a brief "Do this and live" but the other one which Jesus loved told "One thing thou lack, sell all that you have and follow me?" This explanation is also be consistent:

1) The first lawyer was not sincere and so no more was given. To clarify, if one truly would "Love God and Love Thy Neighbor" that path leads (instructs as the schoolmaster) to God and Faith and Christ. But Jesus could tell that wasn't his intention, and his attempt to justify himself with "Who is my neighbor" afterwards is evidence. So no more was given; the answer to the technical lawyer was technically correct in response; and pearls were still not cast before swine.

2) The second man is distinct in that we are told that Jesus beheld him and loved him. Jesus saw something in him, and when this man responded that he had kept those commandments from his youth (he obeyed the schoolmaster with his heart) Jesus showed him the natural progression of to faith to salvation through the Son of God:, "Sell all that you have and follow me." That law (of Moses and commandments) was not the salvation, but that law led to Christ, which was his salvation.

3) Were a random person to ask me "What must I do to inherit eternal life" I would choose an answer that they would understand. Your typical person on the street in a modern Western city isn't going to relate to Mosaic law (although there might be the odd exception) and they would also have their own set of hurdles (paradigms) that must be overcome, possibly including skepticism, atheism and humanism. And again, the answer to be given must be weighed against whether they were antagonistic, mildly curious, or sincere and committed.

You said that I would be "forced to go to Paul to get the answer... but I could just as easily use Christ's statement to the other young man "Sell all that you have and follow me" to explain the meaning of faith unto God and belief in his Son unto everlasting life. John 3:16 is a very common starting point and well understood, also from the gospels and not from Paul. It would depend on the person and the circumstance, and hopefully when presented with that question one would also have the sense to pray for the Holy Spirit to guide their words rightly as well. God willing the best answer may be provided for you for (Luke 12:11-12).

"Where there is no law, sin is not imputed." - Paul the Apostle.

This reminds me of another TOLer from a very long time ago name Sozo who really pounded hard on this topic of there being no sin if there is no law. He was really brilliant and argued very effectively for his position and in the sense that he (and you) use the word "sin" he was right and so are you. But it is important to understand that you are not using the term "sin" in the same sense that most people mean it when they say it. Yes, 'sin' can be used to refer specifically to a 'transgression of the law' but that is not what it has to mean. The word 'sin' usually refers to an action that is wrong or a failure to do rightly. To sin means to disobey or to rebel against God; to be ungodly.

But I am using sin in that sense as well without internal contradiction. I also understand wrong actions (or failure to do rightly) as against the law of God; I also understand disobedience or rebellion against God to be against the law of God. If God's law is truly spiritual and we must worship him in spirit and in truth, then obedience of the heart and spirit is an inseparable part of that worship. Failure to worship God in spirit and truth would be sinful [sin.]

Matthew 19:5-8 KJV
(5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
(6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(7) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
(8) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.


To clarify, when I say "God's law" in this context I mean the spiritual law that has no codification on tablets or codex that has always existed. The Law to Israel would have based on and reflected that law and could be used to teach the Higher law.

. So, in one very important sense, Sozo was to totally right to insist that we who are under grace cannot rightly be considered sinners but unless you are talking to people with a common understanding, saying such things usually leads to more confusion that would otherwise have been warranted because there is no intention to imply that Christians lead perfect lives where we always do the right thing and never do things which grieve God (sin).

Clete

I could see how Sozo's way of speaking could be easily misunderstood by many... including me. One would have to be careful to listen to understand.

 

[Rosenritter]

My answers to the questions where focused on the "manifest itself in your life" portion of the question, not on the implication of 'success due to effort' part.

I really did respond initially to the questions as though they were rhetorical. I only offered the answers so as to not cause unecessary offense. I saw no reason to let the answers he was looking for or lack thereof to become an obstact to the the point I was trying to make.

I hope I didn't create more confusion by doing so!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Perhaps this was a lack in my part in forming the question, but the intended emphasis was meant to be "Do you attempt ... in faith...." It was entirely meant in the sense that here must be a point in which no follower of Christ could possibly disagree, surely this must be common ground, let us remember that we share this. The questions were intended to be as simple to respond to as "yes or no" to cut past all thorns that might scratch and object straight to the heart of the matter, even specifically that it is the heart that matters.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

...

 

[glorydaz]

With you so far!


Except that this isn't what it says.

You just read it in the post of mine that you quoted...

"having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us."

It isn't the charges, its the law!

That is not only consistent with the plain reading of the text (i.e. handwriting of requirements) but also with Paul's entire message and ministry.

Except for what Paul says about the Law. Romans 7:12

In respect to this verse...we have many different translations, INCLUDING ordinances (KJV), requirements (NKJ), bill of charges (CJB), record of debt (ESV). However, if you look at what precedes that statement we see, "forgiven you all trespasses". Add to that the "handwriting" which was against us, it seems to be talking about the our sin DEBT and not the law that condemns us. It was the charges that were nailed to the tree of the condemned.

Colossians 2:13-14
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;​

I agree except that I don't see Paul making the distinction here that you are making between the 10C and the whole law.

Remember in Romans 1, just two chapters before the verse you quote, Paul discusses evil things that condemn unbelievers such as homosexuality and other things that are not in the 10C but are clearly forbidden in the Mosaic Law. Right and wrong and even the existence of God Himself is understood by human beings intuitively because "what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them" and they choose to "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." and this is clearly not limited to the 10C.

It seems we are almost entirely in agreement except for this segregation of the 10C from the rest of the Law as it applies to Paul's ministry and to the lives of human beings in general.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Well, I suppose that could be, but I believe the Ten does contain all that. The command not to commit adultery for instance. Adultery is not limited to a woman.

Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Jeremiah 3:9 And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks.

Ezekiel 23:37 That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, whom they bare unto me, to pass for them through the fire, to devour them.​

The commandment about coveting includes any and all desire of what does not belong to you. I believe this moral Law (including homosexuality) is written in the hearts of men.

 

[glorydaz]

My answers to the questions where focused on the "manifest itself in your life" portion of the question, not on the implication of 'success due to effort' part.

I really did respond initially to the questions as though they were rhetorical. I only offered the answers so as to not cause unecessary offense. I saw no reason to let the answers he was looking for or lack thereof to become an obstact to the the point I was trying to make.

I hope I didn't create more confusion by doing so!

Resting in Him,
Clete

I addressed that manifest part in an earlier post. Would I be a good judge on whether I manifested something in my own life? I wouldn't feel comfortable judging that...nor would I be comfortable in claiming it was something I did, rather than something the Lord accomplished in me.

However, you did an excellent job, which I highlighted in yellow, having to do with the "attempt" part. You didn't know you were manifesting that part, did you? Which is proof of how boasting is excluded by the law of faith.

 

[glorydaz]

Perhaps this was a lack in my part in forming the question, but the intended emphasis was meant to be "Do you attempt ... in faith...." It was entirely meant in the sense that here must be a point in which no follower of Christ could possibly disagree, surely this must be common ground, let us remember that we share this. The questions were intended to be as simple to respond to as "yes or no" to cut past all thorns that might scratch and object straight to the heart of the matter, even specifically that it is the heart that matters.

If it's the heart that matters, give the glory to God for what He accomplishes in you. Stop making it look like you are doing something to boast about (while faulting others for not doing what you boast in).

 

[Rosenritter]

You kind of have a degree of 'Paranoia,' huh?

If so, then in this case it was proven correct. Given a very straight "Yes" plus "barring any tricky tricks" you chose to deny the answer and launch accusations regardless.