The Lord's words are plain and easy to understand. I have presented my case in great detail, both in my book and here in this discussion. Once again Al, your philosophy stands in opposition to the doctrine of Christ. The case you presented in your book takes the simple words of our Lord and the inspired writers of the New Testament, and changes their true import and meaning to fit your theory. The only way we can be united in this matter is to stay with that which is written in the Book.
Religious unity is only possible when men stay with what is written.
He says nothing new, and just rehashes his traditional stance. I have clearly outlined, and in great detail, both in my book and in this discussion, my view of the so-called 'exception clause' which appears only in the gospel record of Matthew. It obviously will do no good to continue declaring what has already been declared. If Darrell didn't comprehend it the first and second time, a third presentation isn't going to be any more conducive to comprehension on his part. The fact that the clause only appears in Matthew makes absolutely no difference to its validity.