In my experience, Catholics and Calvinists often talk past each other in conversations about issues surrounding predestination, grace, and free will. I thought that perhaps presenting such a conversation in a dialogue format might be helpful. The participants in this dialogue are Cyril, a Calvinist; Roger, a Catholic; and Ethel, a third party who helps eventually to get the conversation on track.
Cyril: Hi Roger! How have you been?
Roger: Oh hi, Cyril! Good to see you! Things have been going well. How about you?
Cyril: Things have been good. This is my friend, Ethel.
Roger: Hello, Ethel.
Ethel: Hello, Roger. Good to meet you. I've heard a lot about you from Cyril.
Roger: Good things, I hope! You know, Cyril, I was just thinking about you this afternoon. We've never gotten a chance to have that discussion about predestination, grace, and free will we've talked about.
Cyril: Well, have you got some time right now? I'm free!
Roger: Sure, that would be great. You're welcome to join in as well, of course, Ethel.
Ethel: Sounds interesting!
Roger: I've always been fascinated by your Calvinist point of view. To be honest, it just seems so strange and hard to believe. For example, you believe that God decides not to save some people. He chooses them to go to hell! How could a loving God do that?!
Cyril: Well, God doesn't owe anyone anything. We all deserve hell from God, because we're sinners. So it is not unjust of God to choose not to save some people. It wouldn't be unjust of God if he decided to save nobody! Salvation is a gift of unmerited grace!
Roger: Well, of course grace and salvation are undeserved. But I don't think that's the point. It's still unfair and unloving of God to choose to send some people to hell. It's unfair, because he doesn't give them any chance to be saved. He doesn't give them an opportunity! How can he punish them when he doesn't give them a chance? That seems clearly unjust. And it's unloving. The Bible says that God wants everyone to be saved. How could a loving God willingly send people to hell? Wouldn't a loving God do everything he reasonably could to save everyone? That's what we Catholics believe. God desires all people to be saved, and he calls everyone. Christ died for everyone, and he gives everyone the grace they need to be saved. But he can't make them be saved, because they have free will. That's why some people are lost. They freely reject God's grace.
Cyril: The Calvinist view is not unfair. Remember, no one deserves God's grace. No one deserves a chance to be saved. So it's not unfair if God doesn't give some people that opportunity. And it's not unloving. Love is not supposed to be indiscriminate. You don't love random strangers as much as you love your wife or your children. You don't love rocks as much as you love people. Well, God has a kind of love for all people, but a more special love for his elect. He loves other people insomuch as they are his creatures, but he does not love them enough to grant them salvation and keep them from their deserved fate in hell. This eternal, saving love he reserves for his elect. Also, I have some serious problems with your Catholic view. You say no one deserves God's grace and mercy, but you act as if people do. You say God is unfair if he doesn't save everyone, which implies that he owes salvation to everyone. You say it would be unloving for God not to save everyone, as if God owes his love to everyone. And you say that God gives everyone a chance to be saved, and he wants everyone to be saved, but his desires and the opportunities he gives are thwarted by the free will of creatures--as if mere creatures could frustrate the eternal purposes of God! And you say that everyone is given a chance and ability to be saved, and that the only reason some aren't is because they reject salvation by their free will. But that implies that salvation is not really by grace. Sure, grace is necessary, but sinners have to add something to God's grace--namely, their own free will cooperation--in order for it to have the effect God desires. So we're not saved by grace alone. The saved can forever boast that the only thing that made them different from those in hell was the contribution of their own free will. It wasn't grace that made the difference, since that was given to everyone. It was their own free will that made the difference. So all their goodness ultimately came from themselves and not from God.
Roger: In the Catholic view, we are saved by grace. It's true that we have to cooperate with that grace, but that doesn't mean we aren't saved by grace. If someone gives me a gift, I have to freely receive it, but I don't for that reason earn the gift or make it any less of a gift.
Cyril: But that analogy oversimplifies the matter. It's not just that you are receiving the gift of salvation. You are contributing to it, because it is the contribution of your will that makes the difference between the saved and the unsaved. Picture the unsaved in hell, raging and gnashing their teeth in hatred of God. Picture the saved, morally clean and perfect, loving God with their whole hearts for all eternity. And what, in your view, really makes the difference between these? It's not what God does, for Christ died for them all and he gave grace to them all. Really, the difference comes from what they have contributed. The unsaved made themselves what they are by their own free will, and the saved made themselves what they are by their own free will. So, really, God's grace is just the facilitator, the background, that allows the saved to take themselves out of hell and place themselves in heaven.
Roger: Just because the saved chose to cooperate with grace and the unsaved didn't, it doesn't prove that they made the difference and not God's grace. It was God's grace that made the difference; the saved only chose to cooperate with that grace. We have to remember that all the good that we can do is a gift of God's grace. Even when we cooperate with grace, that too is a gift of God's grace! So it's still all grace, even though we must cooperate.
Cyril: But it's not, though. Let's make this concrete: Sarah is among the saved and Suzie is among the unsaved. Sarah cooperated with grace and Suzie didn't. You say that Sarah's cooperation with grace was a gift to her from God. But don't you say that God also gave to Suzie the same ability to cooperate with grace. Didn't he give grace to them both?
Roger: Yes.
Cyril: Well then, if God gave both of them grace, then it was not the grace that made Sarah cooperate. Sarah contributed that herself, and Suzie didn't, and that's how they ended up so different from each other.
Roger: But even though God gave them both grace, and Sarah cooperated and Suzie didn't, it was still the grace that gave Sarah the ability and the desire to cooperate, and so her cooperation was a gift of grace. But let's not gloss over the problems with your position. You say that the reason Sarah is saved and Suzie is not is because God gave grace to one and not to the other, right?
Cyril: Yes.
Roger: So how can you escape saying that God is unfair? Could Suzie be saved without grace?
Cyril: No.
Roger: So then how could it be fair for God to damn Suzie, when there was nothing she could do about her situation? You can't condemn someone for rejecting a gift they were never given! It isn't Suzie's fault that she's unsaved; it's God's fault. Sarah just got the luck of the draw and Suzie didn't. But how can it be fair and loving for God to randomly pick some people to save and other people to throw into hell, when neither the saved nor the damned could do anything about it? What's become of all the exhortations in Scripture for us to choose what is right, to love God, to turn away from sin, etc.? Nobody can do any of this! God gives nobody a real choice. Suzie is not given grace, so she can't choose or do anything right. Sarah is given grace, but that grace forces her to be saved; it doesn't give her any ability to say no.
Cyril: God's grace doesn't force Sarah to be saved. It simply makes her willing to be saved.
Roger: It makes her willing? Don't you hear the absurdity in that language? How can someone be made to be willing? To have a truly free choice means that we are not made to choose one way or another. We have to be able to choose either way. As soon as we are made to choose a certain way and our option to choose otherwise is taken away from us, then our choice is no longer truly free. You can chafe at the word force if you want to, but that's really what it comes down to. If my mind is taken over by aliens and they control my thoughts and actions, I might look willing enough, but it's an illusion. I was never given a real choice.
Cyril: We can be willing without having the ability to choose otherwise. We can never choose against our strongest motive.
Roger: Sure we can! We do it all the time. It's called "resisting temptation".
Cyril: But if you wanted to sin more than you wanted to do the right thing, you'd do it. If you chose to do what is right, it must be because you wanted to do that more than you wanted to sin.
Roger: Really? That's not my experience! My experience is that I often have to choose to do what is right even though I really want more to do what is wrong. That's why resisting temptation is so praiseworthy. If the righteous were only righteous because they just happened to feel like doing the right thing, that wouldn't be any more praiseworthy than just, say, making a sandwich because you feel hungry. There's no virtue in just doing whatever you want. The virtue lies especially in doing what is right in spite of not wanting to, in the face of wanting to do what is wrong.
Cyril: Well, perhaps that's part of where we differ. I don't think the good works of the saved are meritorious. They are gifts of grace from God. But I have another question: How are you going to deal with the problem of God's sovereignty? You say that God is not in charge of what people choose. Free will is a rogue factor, independent of God, and it can even thwart his will! He wants everyone to be saved, but his desires are thwarted by free will. He wants everyone to do right, but he can't make it so because of free will. Instead of looking at history as the plan of God being carried out, you look at it as a giant chaotic jumble, where God simply has to take what he can get much of the time. And there's no use saying that God will make it all work out in the end, because he can't even do that. People can go to hell, and there is nothing God can do about it (without taking away their free will, which would be, in your view, to take away their very humanity)! God is like a Dr. Frankenstein, who has the best of intentions, but simply cannot control his creation. It has a mind of its own, and he's just got to run with it.
Roger: No, no, it's not like that at all. True, God respects the free will of his creatures, but he is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can fulfill his purposes even while respecting human (and angelic) freedom.
Cyril: But, don't you see, he doesn't fulfill all his purposes. God wants everyone to be saved, right? But everyone won't be saved, right? And even if God was lucky enough to have it be that everyone would end up choosing to be saved, it would still be just that: luck. God is at the mercy of uncontrolled chaos. It's not his plan that runs the show or that ultimately prevails; it's chance. Sure, he's got a lot of input, but, like the rest of us, he's got to deal with a universe that, in many ways, is beyond his control, and he just can't get everything he wants. You might say that he could have chosen not to give free will to his creatures, but then he wanted them to have free will, didn't he? To not give them free will would be to fail to get the creation he wanted. But if he does give them free will, he can't make them do what he wants, and so he still can't get everything he wants. He can win some things, but, in no scenario, can he win everything he wants. Chance ultimately determines how much he wins and how much he loses.
Roger: Whew! This is getting to be a tiring conversation. I don't feel like we are really getting anywhere. I just don't get your view, Cyril, and I don't see how you could see my view the way you do.
Cyril: Well, that's exactly how I feel. Your views just don't make any sense to me. It's like we're coming from different planets.
Roger: Ethel, you've been silent over there. Do you have anything to add to the conversation?
Ethel: Well, as a matter of fact, I have been developing some thoughts as I've listened to you both talking. I happen to know something about both Catholic and Calvinist theology, and it seems to me like you two are mostly talking past each other. I think that is the cause of much of your confusion.
Roger: What do you mean?
Ethel: Well, it seems to me like you two don't really disagree as much as you think you do.
Cyril: Really?! It seems to me we disagree over just about everything! Our views are like polar opposites!
Ethel: Yes, on the surface it does seem that way. But I think that beneath the surface there is more agreement than there may seem to be. Perhaps, as a third party, I can help bring that out. Let's start with the sovereignty of God. Roger, Cyril has asked you an important question. You talk about God wanting Suzie to be saved, and yet she isn't. How can you square that with God being sovereign over the whole creation? Can you elaborate on that? Because it seems to me that Cyril has a concern worth addressing further.
Roger: Yes, of course. Well, God wants everyone to be saved, but he does allow people to make their own choices. He wants a world in which free will exists and is respected. This is part of the larger question of why evil exists in the world. We can't think of evil as a defeat of God, because he is indeed sovereign, being the Creator of all things. God willingly chooses to allow evil things to happen in the world, because he intends to use them to produce a greater good. He allows some evil into the creation because he knows that he can produce a better result making use of the evil than he could if he kept all evil out altogether. So, while God wants all people to be saved, he would rather have it that people make their own choices, so, all things considered, he chooses to allow Sarah to choose what is right and Suzie to choose what is wrong.
Ethel: So if Suzie chooses wrongly and goes to hell, this is not a defeat of God's purposes?
Roger: No, because God willingly allowed it to happen, in pursuit of a greater good. God is sovereign. He does get the world he wants. He weaves even the evil into the ultimate pattern, like a composer might weave discordant notes into a symphony, or a novelist might weave evil characters and events into a good story.
Cyril: In some respects, that's really not all that different from what I would say. God chooses not to save Suzie. That is, he chooses to allow her to choose evil and end up in hell. He doesn't force her to choose evil, but he allows her to do so. And he doesn't do this because of any lack of love for Suzie as his creature, but in order to promote a greater good, where even evil is woven into a tapestry that is overall perfect, where God's perfections shine out in their full glory to the happiness of all beings who do not shut themselves off from the source of all happiness. However, one thing still bothers me about your view in this area. You say that God allows Sarah to choose right and Suzie to choose wrong. But are you saying that God doesn't himself decide who chooses what? Is it just a matter of chance, and he simply has to watch to see what is going to happen? I have a problem with that, because it suggests that God is not the source of all reality, that some things happen by chance, and God has to find out about them by observing history, that not all things are a part of his eternal plan. This seems contrary to God's absolute sovereignty over the universe.
Roger: God is still sovereign, but he allows for free will. So he doesn't micromanage everything.
Cyril: I still have a problem with that. It makes sense to say that some human CEO might choose not to micromanage employees in his company. But with God, you've got a Being who is the source of all reality. It seems to me that you have to say either that every detail of history that happens is planned by him, or some things happen ultimately by chance. I mean, sure, Sarah chooses the right and Suzie chooses the wrong. But why? What caused Sarah to choose the right? What caused Suzie to choose the wrong? Did these events simply come about by chance, or, like all things, are there causes involved that explain why two different choices occurred?
Roger: But free will, by definition, can't be controlled! So no, God doesn't micromanage everything. But that doesn't mean things are left to chance.
Cyril: Well, I don't see how that can be.
Ethel: Let me see if I can help here by putting this a different way. Roger, why does Sarah choose what is right? What are all the factors that go into explaining why she decided to make that choice?
Roger: Well, as with all choices, there are lots of factors. With Sarah's choice to go right, certainly the prime factor was the grace of God, which persuaded her to make that choice. God didn't make her make that choice, but his grace did effectively persuade her to it.
Ethel: What do you mean by "effective persuasion"?
Roger: Well, God knows everything about Sarah. He knows what will persuade her to choose what is right. So, from all eternity, he planned to give her his grace in such a way that it would have the effect of leading her to choose what is right. That is why her good will is a gift of God's grace. Without that grace, she would never have chosen right. But with that grace, she will certainly choose what is right. In Catholic theology, such a gift of grace is called efficacious grace, because it is effective at leading a person to go right.
Cyril: But that's exactly what we Calvinists mean by irresistible grace!
Roger: No, efficacious grace is not the same as irresistible grace. Irresistible grace can't be rejected or refused, and so it removes free choice. efficacious grace can be refused.
Cyril: But you just said that efficacious grace is always effective.
Roger: It is. It always persuades a person to do what is right. But it doesn't make them do what is right. They could reject it, but they never do, because God knows how to apply his grace in such a way as to effectively change people's minds, hearts, and wills to lead them to do what is right. His grace has a supernatural power to penetrate into the fallen hearts of human beings and to lead them to see and love the truth. And he knows how to apply his grace to each individual in the way best suited to each of them.
Ethel: Cyril, you say that grace is irresistible. Do you mean that Sarah is literally unable to reject God, that she has that option taken away from her?
Cyril: No, certainly not. Sarah could reject grace if she wanted to, but she will never want to, because irresistible grace causes her to not want to. It's not that the option to refuse is removed; it's that God opens people's hearts to see the truth and to desire to follow it, shedding his supernatural light and love into their hearts.
Roger: But that's the same as my view!
Cyril: So it would seem.
Ethel: But what about Suzie, Roger? What is it that leads her to reject the right?
Roger: Well, it isn't God! God never tempts anyone to evil or makes them do evil.
Ethel: But God was able to bring Sarah to accept his grace. Couldn't he do the same for Suzie?
Roger: He could, theoretically, but he chooses not to. Again, it's the whole problem of evil. God often allows evil things to happen because he is seeking a greater good. From all eternity, God determined the path of history. He decided what he would do, what he would prevent, what he would allow, etc. He knew what would happen in all possible scenarios. And he decided to actualize the world that accomplished his purposes. In that world, some evil is prevented, but some is allowed. With regard to Suzie, God saw that it was best, all things considered, not to put Suzie into a position in which she would be persuaded efficaciously by his grace. This is a great mystery, and we have to be careful here! God doesn't force Suzie to do anything. He gives her every chance to choose to go right. He wants her to go right. But he does decide, in his eternal plan, to allow her to go wrong. With Sarah, he decides to efficaciously lead her by his grace to choose right, while he allows Suzie to go wrong. But this is totally unlike Cyril's view, where God actively chooses to damn Suzie because he wants her to be damned, and he gives her no choice.
Ethel: Cyril, could Suzie choose to be saved if she wanted to?
Cyril: Yes. She has that option. If she ends up damned, it is her own fault for refusing God and his grace of her own free will.
Ethel: So God gives her everything she needs to choose and do what is right, if she will simply choose to avail herself of her opportunity?
Cyril: Yes. God does not force her to reject him or remove the freedom of her choice. He simply refrains from efficaciously moving her will to accept him. She has everything she needs to be saved if she would choose that.
Roger: That's what we Catholics call sufficient grace--that God gives all of us everything we need to be saved if we would choose to accept it. I thought you Calvinists denied that and say instead that only the elect have grace!
Cyril: We say that God only effectively converts by his grace the elect and brings them to eternal salvation. But he does give even the non-elect the objective opportunity to be saved if they would want to be--which they won't, unless God efficaciously leads them to that.
Ethel: So would you say, Cyril, that God, in his grace, efficaciously leads Sarah to choose right, while he allows, in his eternal plan, for Suzie to choose to go wrong?
Cyril: Yes, basically. Since the Fall, we all choose to go wrong, but God leads his elect back to himself by his grace, while allowing the reprobate--the non-elect--to continue to go wrong.
Ethel: Does he allow the repbrobate to go wrong because he hates them, because he likes to see them damned, because he has no love for them?
Cyril: No, not at all! God loves all his creatures, although he puts his special eternal love on those he's chosen to bring to eternal salvation. He doesn't like anyone to be damned. In itself, that is hateful to him. But he does allow some to choose freely to turn away from him and end up damned in order to pursue the greater good.
Roger: So would you say that God desires all men to be saved?
Cyril: Well, it depends on what you mean. God desires all men to be saved, in the sense that, in itself considered, he is pleased with the salvation of people and hates the damnation of people. He never desires or loves the suffering of any being for its own sake, although he ordains suffering in his plan, not for its own sake, but for the greater good. So, all things being equal, God desires both Sarah and Suzie to be saved. But, all things considered, as they are in his eternal plan, he chooses to bring Sarah to salvation and not to bring Suzie to salvation, not out of any malice towards Suzie or any love of her suffering per se, but because he sees that it is for the greater good.
Roger: Yes, I would say basically the same thing. In Catholic theology, we talk about God's antecedent will and his consequent will. The former is what God wills in itself considered, all things being equal, while the latter is what he wills all things considered. So God antecedently wills all to be saved, but he does not consequently will all to be saved, inasmuch as he has chosen to allow some to be lost in his eternal plan.
Cyril: Very interesting! But, Roger, I have one further question on this point. You talk about God's allowing people to make evil choices. Is it possible for God to simply allow things to happen? Doesn't he, being God, have to positively ordain all things, cause them to happen, good and bad?
Roger: No, certainly not! God is not the author of evil! He allows it to happen, but he never causes it!
Cyril: Well then, what causes it?
Roger: Evil people making evil choices.
Cyril: But isn't God behind those evil choices?
Roger: No!
Ethel: Roger, would you say that evil happens contrary to God's plan, that it thwarts his purposes in history?
Roger: No, of course not. Evil can only occur to the extent that God willingly, in his sovereign plan, allows it to happen. Nothing happens outside of God's plan, not even the smallest things. You see, goodness is a positive thing, while evil is a negative thing. It's like light and darkness. God creates light and goodness, but he only allows darkness and evil, because the latter are not positive beings or entities, but are simply absences of being. Darkness is the absence of light, not a positive entity in itself. And evil is simply the lack of goodness. It is a weakness, a failure. So God can't be the cause or source of evil, for that would imply that evil is a positive thing that has its roots in some evil in God himself.
Ethel: Cyril, do you think evil is a positive entity that has its roots in God himself?
Cyril: Certainly not! God is not the author of evil. God causes evil to happen, but he does this in a way different from his causation of good. The same goes for light and darkness. Light is a positive being created by God. But darkness is caused by God only by his not creating or putting light in certain places. Similarly, good is a positive thing that comes from God and that he gives as a gift. But evil, or sin, is not a positive thing that comes from God. It comes about simply from God refraining from causing good to exist in some place. So, with Sarah and Suzie for example, God positively acts to infuse Sarah's heart with goodness, but he does not infuse Suzie's heart with evil. He simply refrains from giving her the effectual grace that would infuse her heart with goodness, and so he allows her to continue in her sinful condition.
Roger: Do you notice, Cyril, that you are using the word "allow" just about as much as I am?
Cyril: Now that you mention it, I suppose I am. I guess there's nothing objectionable about the word. It just concerned me when I heard it coming from you, because I thought that lurking behind it might be some denial of God's sovereignty. But I guess that's not the case.
Ethel: OK, so if I'm understanding you both correctly so far, it seems that you both agree that God is sovereign over the whole universe, that he loves good and hates evil, but that he has allowed evil things to happen in the world in order to achieve the greatest good. You both agree that good is a positive thing that comes from God, while evil is a negative thing that God allows by refraining from producing good in some ways, while both what God causes and what he allows are under the sovereign plan of God which accounts for all the details of history. You agree that God gives people real free will--meaning the ability to make real choices--and that he respects that freedom, but that human freedom is also under the sovereignty of God and is never exercised apart from or in a way that thwarts God's eternal plan for history. You agree that people, since the Fall, have turned away from God, and that no one can or will turn savingly to God without grace. You agree that God has planned all of history from all eternity, and that in that plan, God has chosen some out of the mass of fallen humanity to bring to salvation by giving them grace in such a way as to efficaciously lead their minds, hearts, and wills to freely choose him, while he has chosen to refrain from efficaciously converting others, allowing them to freely reject him and end up damned. He has not allowed some to be damned because he lacks love or because he enjoys seeing people damned or wants to see them damned, but because he is pursuing a greater good in which his glorious perfections will be fully displayed and the greatest happiness will be attained for all those beings who choose not to reject it. You both agree that everyone has a chance to be saved. Everyone has sufficient grace to be saved, meaning that they are given everything they need to have the objective possibility to be saved if they would choose to do so, that all obstacles are removed but their own free refusal to be saved, so that there is no one who might choose to be saved but be prevented from attaining salvation. You both agree that if people are damned, it is their own fault, and that if people are saved, it is a gift from God. The saved choose to cooperate with grace, but that cooperation is in itself a gift of grace, so that while the will is important in salvation, all saving good in its entirety is ultimately a gift of grace. Am I right so far?
Roger and Cyril: Yes, surprisingly, it would seem so!
Ethel: Is there anything else we need to address?
Roger: I'd like to ask about the Calvinist idea of Limited Atonement. Don't you Calvinists say that Christ died only for the elect and not for everyone?
Cyril: Yes.
Roger: Well, doesn't that contradict everything we've agreed upon? If Christ died only for the elect, then only the elect can be saved! Everyone else is left out, with no possibility of being saved. So their damnation is not their own fault!
Cyril: But if Christ died for everyone, then why isn't everyone saved? Is Christ's death a failure in some cases? Is he not powerful enough to save? If Christ died for everyone, then his death doesn't actually bring about anyone's salvation. It simply makes everyone's salvation possible, without making anyone's salvation actual.
Ethel: There is a saying in Christian theology: "Christ's death is sufficient for all men, but efficient only for the elect." What do you two think about that? Could you get behind that?
Cyril: Yes, Calvinists usually accept this saying. Christ's death is sufficient for all men in a few ways. For one, it is of infinite value and power, so that it could actually save all men. Also, it is freely offered to all men. If any person, elect or not, should choose to receive that offer, Christ's death would save them. There is no such thing as a person who would choose to receive Christ's death but would have it refused them. It is available to all if they will choose it. But Christ's death is efficient only for the elect, in that, in his eternal plan, God chose to effectively and actually bring about the eternal salvation of only the elect, and, in fact, he only actually brings about their eternal salvation.
Roger: I would say basically the same thing. Christ's death is infinite in value and power and so is sufficient to save all people. It is truly offered and available to all. It gives to everyone the possibility of being saved if they should choose to accept it. But it doesn't actually bring about the eternal salvation of anyone but those who choose freely to receive it. People can reject it. As we've discussed, from all eternity, God chose to give grace in an efficacious way to some--the elect--and so bring them to accept his grace. He did not intend to bring the non-elect efficaciously to the choice of eternal salvation. So we can say that, in God's eternal plan, and in actuality, Christ's death does not actually bring about the eternal salvation of anyone but the elect (though, again, it is sufficient for all and is offered and available to all).
Ethel: So, if I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like you two are in basic agreement about the various ways in which Christ's death and the application of that death are limited and unlimited.
Roger and Cyril: Yes, I suppose we are!
Ethel: Well, I've got to be going now. But thanks for letting me be a part of such an interesting conversation!
Roger and Cyril: You're welcome. And thank you for helping to make that conversation much more enjoyable and productive! We've covered a lot of ground, and I think we've both realized that we have much more in common in these areas than either of us previously thought. Not that there isn't more we could talk about. But we'll save that for another time.
For more, see here and here.
Posts
'So glorious a gleam, over dale and down'
4 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment