[aron]

Let me re-cast my argument, here. If Paul talks in Acts about the "eternal purpose of God", quoting the OT, and then later presents something else, in his epistles, WL would take the first and superimpose it on the second. Even if changing context no longer made it as applicable, he'd get some grand, over-arching theme and plow the entire Bible with it, and who knows what kind of monstrosity would emerge from his "revelation"? WN would do the same thing: he'd find a "theme", and bring it places it probably didn't belong. But he'd get us to uncritically assume it did, usually because he put it so dogmatically. It was a confidence game, and we took his confidence as our own.

Now please don't think I am painting Kaung and company with the same brush. I don't know how they operate. Perhaps quite differently. But forgive me if I'm gun-shy, with people finding "the eternal purpose of God" and dragging it through irrelevant scriptures.