[*] from reformedCatholicism.com ...

Since I'm banned at rC.com, but Tim has more to say on this matter, I'll use the blog for my reply. TGE wrote:
    Well, Frank. (1) I don't read every single last comment posted on this site, ...
I wonder, if Tim did not read Kevin's post, why he could then weigh and defend Kevin's post? They must have a kind of unity there that I can't fathom. Oh wait - his point is, "I didn't read it, so I don't really know what he said."

I see: it's my fault for thinking that Tim would defend something he's actually read rather than defending something he didn't actually read. Yes. My bad.
    and (2) I have other things going on in my life than reading this site.
Again, that must be my fault. Tim is excused for responding in defense of the things written here because he has a "life" apparently.
    These things being the case, I don't feel bad for missing Kevin's comment about Abraham. But on that score, once again in your comments we see the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that is so much a part of reactionary Evangelicalism.
Yes - I am further enlightened and chastised now. Because Kevin used - to put the best possible spin on his statement - "short hand" to say his peace, I am actually at fault for missing the nuance in his post.

As with David Fehrenthold, apparently the onus of understanding what is said is 100% on the reader - except in the case of Scripture. Or any other prooftext these guys might supply.

I get it Tim: Because I looked at the 3 passages Kevin provided and found that they didn't say Abraham knew not Christ, I'm the reactionary. It doesn't come back to someone being responsible for saying what he or she means the first time: it comes back to "if you disagree with us and demonstrate your point, you're a jerk."

Let's get something straight: I am a jerk. Calling me a jerk doesn't put me on the defensive. I accept that I am a jerk. If only you accepted that you are a jerk, you could probably navigate the conversations you encounter on the web with a little more aplomb than simply saying someone is a "reactionary" (as opposed to answering the legit questions he asks).
    As a matter of fact, I was at work when Kevin posted his article and his comments.
For the record, so was I.
    How I could know what Kevin is posting and whether it needs to be "dealt with" by me when I work at a job where I do not have computer access is beyond me, as is your rush to judgment about why I was "silent".
The problem, Tim, is not that you "didn't deal with" Kevin: the problem is that you reacted to my post before bothering to read his! Do you not see the comedy here? Your claim is that I wouldn't have written what I did if I weren't a "reactionary", but you (A) didn't read the initial post, and (B) had no idea if the statements made were applicable or not when you responded to me. I'm a reactionary? Mao, call Castro a Communist.
    Secondly, it appears that you chose to put the worst possible spin on Kevin's words about Abraham--words which you must now retract since given time to clarify against your RASH judgment Kevin has stated that he meant Abraham didn't "know Christ" in the form of things like Chalcedonian propositions.
For kicks, I'm going to post Kevin's words here (prior to his revision, btw) so we can compare your complaint to what he wrote
And shall we forget Abraham and all the other Old Covenant saints who though they knew not Christ, they were certainly aware of a gospel which was not a set of tightly defined Westminster-like propositional statements (Hebrews 4:2/Galatians 3/Hebrews 11)?
His explicit words were:
(1) They knew not Christ
(2) They knew the Gospel
(3) Whatever they knew, is was not the propositions set forth in the WCF or other such documents.
Now be honest: would you dare say this? You wouldn't. You're a lot of things, Tim, but you have never been this loose about something as critical to your ultimate point regarding catholicism (small "C") as Kevin was here. In his press to deploy polemic against propositionalists, he either forgets or demonstrates he doesn't know what he's talking about - which is the one faith of all the saints, the same faith from Able to Abraham to Paul to you personally.

One faith in one God and in the promise of His Christ - not a series of dispensations. Too bad I got banned - because after we resolved the matter of Kevin's understanding of Abraham's faith we were going to discuss the matter of Kevin's description of the object of that faith, and how they can be aware (his word, Perry, so keep your Gnostic accusations to yourself) of the Gospel absent of the matter of Christ.
    But you didn't think of any of this, didn't think of other possible explanations, before you rushed RASHLY into your criticisms, any more than other guys like you rush RASHLY into goofy non-arguments about the Jesus of the Koran or the Book of Mormon--arguments you would not make against credally-orthodox Christians if you were actually properly grounded in basic Christian orthodoxy yourselves.
I am much abashed by your use of caps.

On the other hand, the next time you want to rage against the "goofy non-arguments about the Jesus of the Koran or the Book of Mormon" (the Jesus I described was the Jesus at the carwash, btw), you have to ask yourself: why did Kevin bother to correct himself (you say "clarify", I am sure)? Was it because I'm just a jerk who fronts a goofy argument, or is it because Kevin was concerned, as I pointed out in point (3) of my original post, about talking about "true believers"? You might look and see if Kevin has clarified that yet before you answer, but the reality check is that Kevin was advocating something about the Covenant of Grace which must include the matter of the Son of God, the Savior Christ to be validly Christian. If the OT saints knew not Christ but had a gospel, what gospel was it?

The only rash thing I said on your site was that Kevin is a church-hopper, and without any qualification, I apologize for making that statement as it was intended to hurt. If Kevin will accept the apology, I ask for his forgiveness.