[Campion]

I know full well that the term "law-observing," coming from a Calvinist, is an accusation of Pelagianism or "works-righteousness"

That's an insult. That's a big insult.

Moreover, it wouldn't matter if she had said "chocolate-pie eating Catholic"; it's still evading the question with a personal slam, yet another ad hominem.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I didn't evade the question at all. You drew some strange distinction between "covered" and "cleansed."

I answered that yours was a legalistic and meaningless argument and that if you persisted in distinguishing between the two concepts, you must further distinquish between "healed" and "atoned for" and "saved" and "acquitted" and any number of verbal concepts which tell us the same truth -- that Christ alone paid for our sins in full, and that His righteousness is imputed to us as a merciful, unmerited gift from God.

"And therefore it was imputed to him (Abraham) for righteousness.

Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." -- Romans 4:22-25