I wil really need to be moving on, but would just like to make a passing comment on this one thing. Tony Byrne is currently involved in some Reformed Calvinism forum, and it seems that somebody has picked up on my responses to him. And in his response in this discussion, he made this amazing statemnt:
I was further amazed that Chew even tried to explain away John Frame's beliefs about the universal saving will of God! Not only is Frame crystal clear on the point, anyone can contact him via email and ask the man what he believes, as if that is even necessary.
I'm sorry, but did Tony actually read what I wrote? Here is what I have said:
Frame's argument that if God desires the effect means He desires the consequence is a logical fallacy. Much as Frame is a brilliant seminarian professor, he is wrong here as he does not rightly divide the Word of God in this work of his. Being a disciple of the irrationalist Cornelius Van Til with his ideas of analogy definitely didn't help of course. (Source)
Now, if Byrne cannot even interpret correctly what I have said regarding Frame (which is written in modern English), how can anyone be sure that he has interpreted the Reformers and Puritans properly?