Predestination and salvation

We have written frequently about Calvinism/Reformist doctrines in our blog. We never wish to dishonor those who believe these doctrines, but we can and will continue to examine what we consider to be false and pernicious doctrines.

Predestination is one such doctrine. Perhaps the lynchpin of Calvinism, predestination is the idea that God has already chosen those who would be saved. In other posts we have considered the biblical case regarding predestination, but today we are going to consider the logical implications of this doctrine.

A key component of predestination is that those God chose were not chosen based on merit. Those who God predestined for salvation (the Elect) were chosen before they were born or had done anything good or bad. Merit is irrelevant. God sovereignly chooses His Elect, regardless of merit. Only the chosen ones are saved.

Which must mean that any feature about the chosen ones is irrelevant. They did nothing, they possess no attribute, there is nothing at all that can be regarded as virtuous or gives them standing before God. We humans might have standards as to who is godly, or who is a good person, or even who is saved and who isn't, but those standards are ours. God sets His own standards, and we don't know why He chose who He chose. In predestination He has His own criteria for choosing some to save and choosing others for hell. 

We don't know His mysterious will. We don't know who the Elect are.

Sinners and False Teachers: The Women Who “Pastor” and Preach - Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------------------

Ms. Lesley has written numerous articles about the role of women in the church, parsing and creating micro-doctrines about every conceivable activity a woman might engage in. This is all based on a misunderstanding of a single verse: 

1 Tim. 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

We should say that Ms. Lesley's interpretation of this verse, i.e., that women can't preach or be pastors, is widely held. However, even a widely-held belief isn't necessarily a biblically correct belief.

Before we consider her position, we need to establish the biblical fact that the church is not presided over by a pastor, it is led by a team of men called elders: 

1Pe. 5:1-2 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers...

Here we find Peter exhorting the elders of this church to be shepherds and overseers. That is, elders need to step up to be more than just elders, they need to pastor and oversee.

Paul instructed Timothy about elder leadership in the very same letter cited by Ms. Lesley:

1Ti. 5:17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

Paul is very clear. There are (or should be) elders who run the church, and those elders that preach (share the Gospel) and teach (instruct the church) are worthy of greater honor. Again, there is no mention of a singular man in charge here.

There is no Bible verse that tells us that pastors lead churches. There's no verse that tells us pastors preach. There's not even a Bible verse that tells us that pastors are part of the eldership.

Elders govern the church, not a pastor.

From the belief that pastors run churches comes the idea that preaching the sermon is exercising authority. We can start to see the "chain of evidence" here. Because the pastor is in charge, and he preaches the sermon, the preaching itself is an expression of the pastor's leadership. And since women cannot teach or be in authority over men, a woman can't be a pastor or preach a sermon.

It all seems to make sense until we gain clarity about how a church is biblically governed. 

Now with that clarity, let's consider the verse. Let's quote it again:

1 Tim. 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

The first thing we wish to note is that Paul was not not telling Timothy about what happens in the church service. This should be obvious if we are able to remove the veil and simply accept the biblical narrative. Let's quote the whole chapter. As we read, the questions we then should ask are, 

• Should prayers and intercession be made only in church?
• Should we lead tranquil lives only when in church?
• Should men pray with lifted hands only in church?
• Should women dress modestly only in church?
• Should women do good deeds only in church?

This is the ASV:

1I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; 2for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. 3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times; 7whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

8I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing.

9In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; 10but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. 11Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. 12But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 14and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 15but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

The answers to our questions are obviously no. But for some reason we think Paul was discussing church order throughout this passage. This is not the case.

Why?

First, Paul was not telling us about what women can do, but rather, "a woman." The Greek word is singular. A woman

• should learn in quietness and submission
• cannot teach
• cannot have authority
• over "a man" (Also singular)
• must be silent

"A woman" cannot do these things regarding "a man." This is most certainly not a church service. More likely with think, Paul was discussing marriage. "A woman" is also translated "a wife," and "a man" is also translated "a husband."

We find an example of this right in text:

14and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression...

We know that "the woman" was Eve, Adam's wife. The same Greek word is found here:

Mt. 5:31 “It has been said, `Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’

So depending on the context, the word can easily go either way. 

Second, "a man" works the same way. The Greek word for man/husband is found here: 

Mk. 10:2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

Obviously the word "man" is referring to a husband.

Ok, let's apply our knowledge to the verse and create a perfectly justifiable retranslation:

1 Tim. 2:12 I do not permit a wife to teach or to have authority over [her] husband; she must be silent. 

 

The reason Paul gave for her to do this? Not to ensure a church service is conducted properly. His reason is the prototypical marriage, Adam and Eve:

1Ti. 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

This simplifies the whole scenario and dare we say puts an end to the dispute over these verses.

So what can "a woman" do or not do in church? 

She cannot be an elder or lead the church, which is reserved for men:

Tit. 1:6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

So if she is not among those who govern the church, everything else is available for qualified women: 

• She can teach men, since teaching men is not exercising authority over her husband or leading the church
• She can be a pastor, since the pastor position is not exercising authority over her husband or leading the church
• She can lead ministries, since leading ministries is not exercising authority over her husband or leading the church
• She can speak from the pulpit, since speaking from the pulpit is not exercising authority over her husband or leading the church

We recognize that these assertions might be a stretch for some, but our appeal is from the Bible and not tradition. We hope this expands the reader's understanding.

So, Ms. Lesley's presentation is all based on false premises. Read on.

---------------------------

Have Tongues Ceased? A Reformed Answer for Christians Leaving the Charismatic Movement - by Anthony Faggiano

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------

The author tells us he is here to help those who are leaving the charismatic movement. How he helps is a mystery because he never speaks to the topic at all. Rather, he makes a bunch of doctrinal assertions, uses obtuse terminology, and quotes sympathetic theologians who also make doctrinal assertions. A typical charismatic would find no help from this because a typical charismatic is not acquainted with these things.

So, the author writes to defend his doctrine, not to help charismatics.

But even then, we had hoped he would lay out the Scriptural case for his doctrine, but he doesn't. In his over 2000 words, we find

• The number of Bible verses quoted: Six, none of which improve the author's case
• The number of Bible verses cited but not quoted: Twenty three, none of which improve the author's case
• The number of agreeable theologians quoted or referenced: Twelve, none of which improve the author's case
• The number of undocumented assertions: Dozens
• The number of contrary sources quoted in order to evaluate and refute: Zero

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching, and bad polemics.

We discuss tongues in detail here.

----------------------------------

The Devastating Double Standard for January 6 Rioters - by Kali Holloway

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------------

The author does what leftists do, she parrots The Narrative. The Narrative is the official story, the talking points disseminated by talking heads and political operatives, repeated incessantly until they become the "conventional wisdom."

Such is the case with J6. The Left immediately branded it as a violent insurrection where people died or suffered life-altering injuries, which of course is a leftist fairy tale obediently repeated by the national news media and funded by monied anonymous persons. Over time The Narrative has been expanded and embellished to the point that anyone who points out what really happened is mocked and derided into silence as a conspiracy theorist or a Trump True Believer.

As is typical for leftists, the author whines and complains about the very things the Left themselves routinely perpetrate. They are the ones who tear down statutes, burn down car dealerships and corner stores, they are the ones who utter rhetoric dripping with hate, they are the ones who harbor criminals or are criminals themselves, they are the ones who are intolerant, bigoted, repressive, and homophobic.

But the author says it's the J6 demonstrators who represent a double standard. However, when leftists complain about J6 threatening democracy, well, that's exactly what they want to do themselves. When they complain about incivility, they are the ones who are uncivil. When they complain about the rich and income inequality, they are the ones with the money.

But no one on the Left gets held to account because of a complicit media and their comrades who run interference for them. That is, until they finally commit an unpardonable sin, which is when they attract public notice and become a political liability. In such cases they are thrown to the wolves, only to be rehabilitated a few months later.

Bottom line: The Left hates America, referred to as The System. The System is racist and bigoted and must be torn down and replaced by any means necessary. If blood must be shed and cities burned, well, as long as The Agenda is served, the ends justify the means.

So, keep in mind as you read that nothing you find here will be for the purpose of information, clarity, or gaining understanding. It is agitprop, created only to parrot The Narrative in order to further The Agenda.

--------------------------

What Is Predestination? - Core Christianity

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------------

Here's another "teaching" on the Elect, i.e., those who are supposedly chosen by God to be saved. It's a tenet of Calvinism, and it's a false and pernicious doctrine. 

We do not write this flippantly. Calvinism distorts the Gospel, distorts salvation, distorts the nature of God, and distorts the Cross. It is very nearly cultic. 

We will discover the author is misinformed at times, and even lies. He quotes snippets of Scripture to disguise what the whole verse says, he lies about obvious things contained in the Bible, and he twists the Gospel into a farce.

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

--------------------------

How Do We Reconcile God’s Sovereignty and Man’s Responsibility? - By Aimee Joseph

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------

The author employs words but explains absolutely nothing, except that the answer to the title's question is a mystery. 

She quotes no Bible verses. At all. The article is about 620 words, rather short. Of those, 362 words are actually hers. The rest are references to or quotes from theologians. The author relies on them to restate what she already stated, except these quotes are themselves undocumented statements.

We think she intended to explain the Calvinistic/Reformed teaching about predestination versus man's free will. We're guessing, because she provides no information.

This simply Bad Bible Teaching. Embarrassingly bad.

-------------------------

Is Sola Scriptura Biblical? Exploring the Fundamental Divide Between Protestants and Catholics - by Kevin DeYoung

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

Although this article is about the way Catholics approach Scripture, we are redacting that material in favor of examining the author's explanation of Sola Scriptura.

The author, for all his advocacy of Sola Scriptura, only manages to quote snippets of Scripture.

In view of this irony, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

--------------------------

Comments exchanged with Mike Ratliff about three days and three nights

Found here. Our commentary on Mr. Ratliff's article found here. It originally appeared here.

Our comments in bold.
------------------------

Mr. Ratliff is one of those Bible commentators who is absolutely convinced of his correctness, to the point that he bristles at disagreement. He posted an article which he claimed solved the age-old problem that Jesus was not in the grave for three days and three nights.  

He did this by claiming that being in the grave is different from being in "the heart of the earth." That phrase actually meant that He was in the hands of the Jewish and Roman leaders. This novel and abiblical theory, like the traditional church understanding, did not align with his acknowledgement that a Jewish day starts at sunset and continues until the next sunset. 

Using this criteria I pointed out to him in a comment that his theory fails (I'm quoting him in italics):

Sunday Style and the Devil's Beat My Favorite Genre Is Loving Your Neighbor - Andrew Osenga

Found here. A thought-provking article.

-------------------------------

Here’s another post in my series on Why We Sing The Songs We Do On Sunday.

Today I want to talk about Style.

Cause you know I’ve got it.

I can safely say that very few American Christians have been to as many churches as I have.

I’m a born and raised church kid, sure, but I’ve also been traveling to different houses of worship as a musician for over 25 years. For the past decade I’ve been visiting even more as a teacher, mentor, or speaker.

I think I’ve pretty much seen it all: from the most charismatic to the most stoic, from suit and tie to board shorts, from a cathedral to an elementary school cafeteria.

Righteousness Like the Mountains - by Justin Huffman (Covered in the righteousness of Christ)

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------

The author contemplates the grandeur and awe-inspiring mountains as they testify of the glory of God, but somehow swerves into a completely unrelated thing. He writes:

"...every human who must face the perfect standard and thorough holiness of God must be covered in the righteousness of Jesus Christ in order to withstand the righteous scrutiny of the Almighty."

This is false. The author provides no Bible verse that tells us we need to be covered in the righteousness of Christ in order to stand before the Father. Because there isn't one. 

We think this errant idea comes from misunderstanding the nature of salvation. Some think that even though we are saved we are still sinners, still soiled and dressed in filthy rags, so much so that the Father cannot bear to look upon us:  

Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing. (Habakkuk 1:13).

Apparently the Father is such a fragile flower that He needs Jesus to distract His gaze from us dirty little humans. This is nonsense. 

The Bible tells us that we are righteous by faith:

Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

We have been made clean and are purified:

1Jn. 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

We do not hide in Jesus' righteousness, we stand with unveiled faces before the God who made us righteous.

-------------------------------

5 Reasons Why ‘Casting Down Principalities and Powers’ Is a Doctrine of Demons - by Don Pirozok

Found here.
--------------------

The irony here is that the author is correct, and we agree with his position. His reason #3 is the only really relevant and biblical reason for Christians to not mess around with rulers, authorities, or powers. The rest of it is is speculation, non-biblical reasons, or even, false teaching. So even though we agree with the author's position, we cannot abide with ignorance or even lying.

Further, though the author has a lot to say about powers and principalities, he will never deal with the casting out of demons. This seems like an important omission.

Though he quotes Scripture and eventually supplies the correct Scriptural reason regarding his topic, we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

-------------------------

Who are the elect of God? - gotquestions.org

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------

This question and answer is not about explaining the Bible, it is to defend a particular doctrinal perspective. Calvinists/Reformists believe in something called the "doctrines of grace," a collection of five doctrines roughly represented by the acronym TULIP:

• Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance of the Saints

Gotquestions intends to explain the U, unconditional election. We think they fail miserably.

-------------------------

Misunderstanding the blood of Christ

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

-----------------------

Introduction

In our experience we have encountered substantial numbers of Christians who misunderstand the sacrificial blood. The nature of the misunderstanding differs, but whether one is a Charismatic or Calvinist, both seem to have errant ideas about the blood.

What is the Purpose of the Blood?

The blood is the result of a sacrifice (see Leviticus chapter one). God set forth the requirement that animals would be sacrificed and the blood of those sacrifices would be sprinkled on the altar for the atonement of Israel's sins (Exodus 20:24, Exodus 29:12, Exodus 29:36). 

Leviticus 17:11 says, 

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.

The relationship between sin and blood is tightly connected. Sin is the problem, and the blood is the solution.

Atonement

The Hebrew word "atonement" is kaphar, which means to cover over. Thus the blood of the sacrificial animals covered over sin, but did not remove sin: 

Hebrews 10:4 ...it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

Because of this it troubles us when we hear Charismatics talking about being "covered by the blood," as if Jesus' blood was some sort of protection:

In times of uncertainty and spiritual warfare, it is essential to recognize that the blood of the Lamb serves as a shield of protection.

Notice that this idea appeals to the OT concept of covering over. But Charismatics don't invoke the blood to cover over sin, rather, the blood wards off the attacks of the enemy or deflects peril.

There is no Bible verse that refers to the blood in this way. 

Calvinists/Reformists have their own variation of this error. GotQuestions.org describes it this way:

When God the Father looks at us, He no longer sees the old sinful self. The old you is now hidden with Christ in God. The Father ceases to count your sins against you because of your identification with the death and resurrection of His Son. In the eyes of God, you are changed into a new creation in Christ’s image... (Colossians 3:3)

It's a variation on the same idea, but instead of being covered by the blood of Christ one is covered by Christ, in this instance for warding off God's judgment rather than for the attacks of the enemy.

Again, there is no Bible verse that tells us that Jesus protects us from the Father.

Both perspectives are in error.

Jesus' Blood Cleanses, it Doesn't Cover Over

We are washed clean by Jesus' blood and are no longer dressed in filthy rags (Revelation. 7:9, Zechariah 3:4). Our sin isn't hidden under the blood, we have been set free from sin and been given new life as new creations. Jesus' one sacrifice is complete, sufficient, and all we need:

Hebrews 7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Jesus' blood was spilled to completely remove our sin:

Hebrews 9:14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death...

Hebrews 10:10 ...we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all... 

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

The blood is enough. The cross did it all, and nothing more is needed. This of course means that we are not "covered by the blood," we are washed clean by the blood, a past event for every Christian. All sin and death is already dealt with:

Col. 1:22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation... 

 

Not only are we not hidden in Christ to cover over our filthiness, Jesus doesn't cover us with His righteousness either. We are not offensive to the eyes of God. Jesus' blood actually, literally makes us clean. 

Conclusion

We are not covered by the blood, we are washed by the blood. Our protection is the indwelling Holy Spirit, not the blood. We do not invoke the blood, we ask for more of the Holy Spirit.

The blood does not hide us from the Father, the blood washed us so we can stand before the Father.

Jesus is not our camouflage before the Father, he is the one who presents us as clean to the Father.

A Word on Pascal’s Wager - John C. Wright

Found here. Some interesting background information.

---------------------------------

Who Killed Jesus? - by Barry York

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------

This starts out really well, but turns south after several paragraphs. And the downhill slide will become severe.

We will comment at that point.

----------------------

Yesterday, Today, Forever: Christ Against False Teaching - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------------

Ms. Prata is a cessationist who doesn't believe in contemporary prophecy. This means she needs to reframe the NT to conform to her doctrine. So she redefines prophecy as teaching (or false prophets as false teachers). 

This is a rather clumsy attempt to impugn those Bible teachers she disagrees with. Thus the pursuit of the miraculous by some churches is made out to be mere thrill-seeking. It can't be good because it violates her doctrine. It must be false because she knows the truth.

Someone once said that when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. We would say, when you have a doctrine, everyone who believes something else is a heretic.

We should note that we ourselves are committed to understanding and promulgating biblical truth. So we don't have issue with Ms. Prata's main point. We do have an issue with her presumption.
--------------------------

How Did We Get the Canons of Dort? - by Daniel R. Hyde

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

If the reader came to read the author's insights into the details of the topic contained in the title, he will not find it. If the reader wanted to know why there was a dispute, it's not here. If the reader wanted to know why Arminius was wrong, the author does not tell us. 

He will not quote any part of the Canons or the Remonstrance. The high points of the story are important to him, but the reasons for these things isn't. The details are completely absent in favor of vague hints.

So, he doesn't tell us anything at all.

He does mention a couple of Bible passages in the context of how they were falsely preached, and quotes one verse, but otherwise he does not quote or reference the Bible. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

--------------------------

Was the Cross Divine Child Abuse? - by ChrisB

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

The author wrestles with certain aspects of doctrine in a way that causes us to wonder what he really believes. Obviously the article is written to refute the idea of Jesus being subject to "child abuse," but some ancillary ideas are troublesome.

We have made note where the author's commentary becomes opaque, and in those places we explain our position.

If the author believes Jesus died in our place, or that the Father punished Jesus for our sins, or that Jesus was forsaken by the Father, or that Jesus paid for our sins, we must disagree. Those tenets of Reformism/Calvinism are quite false, as we have explained in other posts.

Lastly, the author does quote some Scripture, a happy departure from from what we typically see from these other so-called Bible teachers.

----------------------

4 Things We Added to the Bible - by ChrisB

Found here. Some interesting information.
------------------------------

I'm a nerd. Always have been, always will be. After college my nerdiness shifted some of its focus from science and science fiction to the scriptures. Yep, you can nerd out on the Bible. I haven't learned any esoteric secrets, but lately I've come to realize that a lot of what's rattling around in my head isn't exactly common knowledge, either, so we're going to start a series we'll call Bible 101. Some of the facts I'll share may only be interesting; others may have apologetic value or help us interpret the scriptures. Let's dive in by looking at things in our Bible that aren't actually in the inspired text.

Chapters

There's a more complicated history, but the chapter divisions we use now were developed in the 1200s by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. A tradition says he was reading as he rode on a mule, and whenever the mule stopped, he would mark a chapter division. And some of them feel that random, such as when the seventh day of the creation account gets bumped to chapter 2.

Chapter numbers allow us to say "Psalm 23" instead of "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want" to refer to that psalm. But the downside is we tend to think of them as hard breaks in thought when they usually are not. We often start reading one chapter without thinking about what came before. John 14 flows out of John 13. Romans 8 is a response to Romans 7. We rarely read Romans through in one sitting, much less John, so my practice has become, wherever I left my bookmark, I back up and read the last paragraph before proceeding. This helps maintain a sense of the logical flow of the text.

Lay Musicians in the Church - Brittany Hurd

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------------

We are going to get nit-picky. We are sorry for this, but this author engages in all sorts of presumptions without explaining them. And it takes her several paragraphs to even get to the subject. Although when she finally does get there, she offer some good practical advice.

She will quote a handful of Scriptures in over 2200 words, but will only once provide the full reference (i.e., book, chapter and verse.) So it the reader wants to look up the verse, well that will take a bit of searching.

We do commend the author for not rigidly holding to her chosen worship tradition. We do not commend her for her vague language, irrelevancies, or her presumptions about her audience.

-------------------------