I'm actually grateful for Scott's response to my rejoinder for two reasons: the first is that it's both loving and serious to respond when one is seen to be at fault for something and one is not -- because it sets a brother to right again in good James 5 fashion (and: being the brother set right, I am grateful to have been therefore loved-upon).  The second is that the obvious reason for my concerns is that the arguments Scott put forward yesterday are familiar to any Baptist of confessional stripe for reasons which are obvious to Baptists of confessional stripe.  That he did not refer to those reasons in his clarification ought to be a good reminder to all of us (me included) that sometimes good arguments can be put to bad use, and we shouldn't suspect those using them rightly of the other thing.

Still, I'm worried about a couple of things which maybe I ought not to be worried about.  Maybe it turns out I'm just hobbled by fear when it comes to theology and need counselling.  Be that as it may, I'm worried about a few things which Scott did not clear up, and they all come down to this:

By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatesoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently, upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets the victory; growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.