Over at Reformation21 Rick Phillips has a provocative piece called Theistic Evolution: A Hermeneutical Trojan Horse. Now I have friends who are special creationists, theistic evolutionists, and progressive creationists. We all get along just fine even though we disagree about how to read Genesis 1-3 and the validity of scientific models for understanding the formation of the universe and the beginning of life. When I was in seminary I read Derek Kidner's Genesis commentary in the TOTC series and I remember him saying that Genesis 1-3 contained a mixture of "history and parable" which seemed pretty good to me and still does. Some of the best Reformed Christians I know in Australia are Anglicans in Sydney who are mostly theistic evolutionists. But I have to ask, why can't you American Presbyterians do the same and recognize that the literalness of Genesis 1-3 is a secondary matter to faith and order? There is nothing wrong with having strong convictions on this area, trying persuade others to your view, contending that one view has negative implications, having forthright and honest discussions in appropriate forums, but we don't lambast people over this stuff. Phillips' piece abounds in highly charged and polemical remarks against Enns and Waltke. I count Enns as a personal friend and the things Phillips attributes to Enns are just plain false: Enns believes the divine authority of Scripture and he believes in the biblical accounts of creation. In the case of Waltke, the tragedy is that he has been so gracious during the whole unpleasant process with RTS, putting the seminary ahead of himself, and yet we see him treated in the most ungracious fashion by Phillips. Waltke is derided as the Trojan bringing in the horse of "atheist" hermeneutics into the church. Would anyone who knows Waltke say that of him? I invite you to read the piece and list all of the things that Phillips accuses Enns and Walke of: smuggling in atheist hermeneutics, naivete, and evacuating the Bible of its divine authority. If he was talking about Jack Spong I could understand, but this is Bruce Waltke for heaven's sake. Some of you objected to my earlier post that it was too stereotypical of Reformed ideologues, yet this is what I'm talking about. A critique of Enns/Waltke is one thing, but to do so in freighted and pejorative terms is unnecessary. How does that glorify God or extend the kingdom? It amazes me that those who believe so earnestly in the doctrines of grace seem to practice so little with those whom they disagree. Furthermore, it seems that Reformation21 has become little more than a podium for irate and self-assured men to make the most uncharitable and ungracious remarks about other Christians who confess Jesus Christ as Lord (note that I'm still annoyed at Carl Trueman's tirade against evangelicals in the Church of Scotland!). Finally, I'm not worried about atheists mocking Christians by saying, "Ha, they don't believe in evolution". But I am concerned about atheists mocking Christians by saying, "Ha, see how these Christians love one another!" .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Michael, I've commented on your post here:
http://anglicanoriginsdiscussion.blogspot.com/2010/04/trojan-horse.html.
Thanks for the thoughts Michael. I haven't read Rick's piece, and won't get time, but I agree with your sentiment about our need to love one another as brothers in the Lord, as a primary concern.
You write:
"Furthermore, it seems that Reformation21 has become little more than a podium for irate and self-assured men to make the most uncharitable and ungracious remarks about other Christians who confess Jesus Christ as Lord."
I guess the only issue I would take with this sentence is the verb "has become." It seems to me that this is a good description of that blog since day one.
Hey Michael,
Just a few thoughts on your post. First, I agree that we as brothers and sisters in Christ must always strive under and by the grace of God to live our lives transparently according to the gospel before both the world and the throne of God. They should see His love in our love for one another. It is no small tragedy that we war against one another at times and over things which, as Augustine said, should be exercised in the realm of charity and love. Nevertheless, with Augustine, there are areas about which unity is essential, and, I would argue, non-negotiable.
Full disclosure: I take Gen 1-3 to present in poetic-type form straightforward historical realities. I take it that God created the world in six normal solar days. I am no fundamentalist, however. But seemingly, and this is what really grates on my nerves, is that men and women such as myself are vilified as fundamentalist, brainless, and any other derogatory and demeaning phraseology one could muster because I (1) hold this view of Gen 1-3 and (2) I emphatically reject the **theory** of evolution. Your post comes off somewhat disingenuous precisely because Waltke and Enns both suggest that if you hold to a young earth, or reject evolution, you've gone bonkers. Where's the outcry against their non-too-gracious diatribes?
Second, American Presbyterianism is filled with a variety of approaches to gen 1-3, so your question regarding the literalness (whatever that means) of Gen 1-3 in those circles is at best a nonsequitor, and at worst just grotesque over-generalization. Yes, there are some who make it a sine qua non of the faith, but that's a far cry from all.
Third, whether Enns or Waltke are personal friends, I think, is irrelevant t othe question at hand. He claims in your hearing to believe in inerrancy and infallibility, but in his hands he means something entirely different from the way that it has been used and understood. This is abundantly evident from his writings and lectures. So, is Enns a sophist? It would be like me saying "yeah, I believe in evolution" and by that meaning "God formed man from the dust, man immediately 'evolved' by divine fiat from the dust of the ground. I would hardly think that would win friends in the realm of evolutionary theory.
Where, by the way, are the ad hominem remarks in Phillips piece? He claims that science and the bible are compatible, and you say that he doesn't subordinate the latter to the former, but that is precisely what he does in his arguments against an historical Adam. We have to leave Paul's Adam behind, because we know that just didn't happen that way... according to the finding of science of course. How is that not a privileging of extra-canonical sources? Someone can say he isn't a drunkard, that he has a handle on his drinking, but if every time you turn around the guy has a beer in his hand, and can barely stand from it, you tend not to believe his word.
Fourth, to claim these things "smuggling in atheist hermeneutics, naiveté, evacuating the Bible of its divine authority" of a person are hardly cruel, mean, ad hominemesque, or the like, because, from Phillips point of view, this IS what they are doing. He didn't say that Waltke was a godless non-believer, but that in terms of principles of interpretation, in terms of posture towards the bible, this is exactly what's gonig on. Now you may disagree with that, and I certainly disagree that Waltke uses 'atheist' hermeneutics, but I am with Phillips that they evacuate the bible of its divine authority and of naiveté. I think both can be substantiated--perhaps not to your satisfaction, but certainly to that of some. Let me just focus on the charge of naivete.
Phillips asks "Do they think they can restrict the hegemony of science over Scripture to the realm of creation issues?" If the answer to that question is no, then just come right out and say it. Let the world know that the claims of science must test the claims of Scripture. If the answer is yes, then how do they go about restricting this hermeneutical posture from ranging over the entire Canon? Did the resurrection happen? Well, according to Enns' hermeneutic, it didn't *necessarily* happen. It could have, but someone using Enns' hermeneutic could take the same line as He has done with Genesis. The resurrection motif was couched in the frame of the thought-world of his day. We don't have to understand the resurrection to have actually happened in space-time reality, because it's the message of the resurrection that counts, not its factuality. You see, the writers of the NT believed in resurrection--juts like Paul believed in an historical Adam--but we know from science that Adam was not an historical figure and we know that bodies don't rise from the dead. In this age of light-bulbs and electricity, as someone once said, we just can't believe in this world the NT paints. Demythologization raises its head again. You see, Michael, to say that this hermeneutic posture doesn't apply to the NT, to arbitrarily restrict it to a given set (the account of creation) is naive. It is naive because it is fallacious reasoning. It is just a no small case of special pleading.
I must iterate that I read your blog a good deal, and find myself in resonating with so much that you say. But not here. Why don't you defend men like myself who are attacked for believing in divine fiat creation of man and woman, of a normal six solar day creation? Why do you sit silent when I am blasted and ridiculed as an ignorant, duped, unreasoning, cultist who doesn't believe in evolution? Where's the outrage over those things in the blogosphere? I don't see it coming from any of the present school who are crying out for understanding and restraint. In fact, it's precisely the opposite. just another form of privileging in the debate
Blessings,
Roland
Thankfully, others have echoed some of my sentiments, so I shall keep this short. Michael, I agree Christians need to be more charitable and gracious in their remarks to one another. Look, I would probably align myself more with Dr. Waltke than RTS on Gen 1-3, and I like a lot of what he has said about evolution and that he supports a historic Adam and Eve. But it seems to me that you're painting Waltke and Enns to be two peas in a pod, which is a bit disingenuous. Enns has gone further than Waltke on many positions, and, to be honest, Enns hasn't been the most charitable in his comments towards 'fundamentalists' in the past. So, there is enough blame to go around here. Also, I take offence — just a little — to your suggestion that we American Presbyterians all take Gen 1-3 literally as, say, RTS does. Isn't this the kind of rhetoric that you are suggesting should be put aside? There are a variety of views within evangelical Presbyterianism in the US, and your statement comes across as if we are all idiots. Phillips' piece was certainly provocative. But vitriolic? Really? And to generalise the the folks at Reformation21 as "irate and self-assured men" who "make the most uncharitable and ungracious remarks about other Christians" is a bit overboard, isn't it?
Dear Michael,
After reading your critique of my piece, "Theistic Evolution: A Hermenteutical Trojan Horse," I am a little confused as to where I was, in your words, "vitriolic", shooting people, or abounding in ad hominem remarks, and saying "nasty" things. I simply commented on the merits and likely effects of the arguments being publicized by Drs. Waltke and Enns, making no comments at all on their character or piety (although you have to admit that Pete Enns is a New York Yankees fan). You may disagree with me, but I simply do not see how my opinion that their approach towards science and Scripture has the effect of a Trojan horse amounts to "slander." Is this where our "scholarship" has come to, that any critical assessment of someone's argument (and I did assess their argument, not their persons) is denounced as uncharitable, unloving, unChristian, nasty, and slanderous? You, on the other hand, did not engage my actual argument at all but heaped personal abuse on me (in addition to the above, I am "irate", "self-assured", "uncharitable," "ungracious," and unloving). I gladly forgive you for doing this to me, since I am in fact a great sinner, but it concerns me greatly that our public discourse on important matters like has descended to the demonizing of conservatives and the heaping of personal abuse in the name of charity and love.
I write this to you with no knowledge of your piety or character but with a sincere desire for your blessing in Christ.
Yours in Him,
Rick Phillips
I would suggest that Bird's hyperbolic use of the terms "slanderous" is pushing things a bit far. Perhaps a more reserved stance is called for?
@Rick Phillips
"Lastly, I am astonished by the naivete of these scholars." That is shooting people down and in ad-hominem attacks.
Rick, by using the Trojan Horse metaphor, you're suggesting that he has a hidden agenda to bring in an atheistic hermeneutic. That seems to be a rather malicious assumption about the guy's motives. I know Dr. Waltke. I sat under him at RTS Orlando, and I can tell you he's a great man of faith, prayer, and devotion, to say nothing of his teaching ability or his scholarship. I can assure you, his hermenuetic has nothing to do with atheistic assumptions. Granted, I don't agree with him on this issue, but come on... a Trojan Horse? Really? It makes for a clever blog title, and it's a great way to scare people, but as far as Waltke is concerned, I'm quite sure the premise of your metaphor lacks any basis in truth.
P.S. I'm not familiar with Enns, so I can't speak to his writings, but it seemed you piled them both together on this issue.
Mr Err,
Thanks for your feedback, but I just don't think that is the case. Someone could express concern about me being naive about something without me feeling personally assaulted. In any case, my purpose was not to trash them as individuals but to express an opinion about what they are teaching. I'll keep your thoughts in mind, though.
Rick Phillips
P.S. I realize that my commenting here invites people to give me their opinion on this matter. But I don't want to hijack Michael's blog, and I'm about to be preoccupied for several days with a conference, so I won't be able to keep up.
Prometheus33,
Let me just assure you that I do not mean to impune Dr. Waltke's motives, or Pete's for that matter. In using the Trojan Horse metaphor I am not suggesting that they are intending to undermine the faith, but rather that the effect of embracing such a hermeneutic is to bring a Trojan Horse into the fortress. That is how I put it: "the hermeneutics behind theistic evolution are a Trojan Horse." But I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. It is very hard to say anything these days that is not completely bland without being accused of character assassination. I would only plead that people discuss the merits of the arguments that are being made rather than leap to conclusions as to the personal motive. But I do appreciate you conveying your thoughts about it to me.
Yours in Christ,
Rick Phillips
Rick,
While I still think your blog title and closing remarks at least insinuate insidious motives on the part of these men, I appreciate the clarification that this was, in fact, not your intention.
p33
@ MrErr and prometheus33
First, MrErr: Phillips would be guilty of an ad hominem argument if he said something like this:
Enns and Waltke believe x
Enns and Waltke are naive
therefore, ~x.
However, that is not what he said. He said that Enns and Waltke are naive 'if they think that their hermeneutical program can so easily be limited to creation accounts.' In other words, the reference to being naive is not an evaluation of their argument(s), but of their posture towards their own hermeneutic. Frankly, I am at a loss to see what this is controversial. I would like to know how they non-arbitrarily restrict or modify their hermeneutical procedures so that the NT record is insulated from being reduced to 'myth.' Simply to say, "well it just doesn't," simply doesn't work. With respect to Enns, and I tried to point this up earlier, if he says Paul was mistaken about Adam--but that's ok because he dind't think 'scientifically--then someone can equally say that Paul was mistaken about the resurrection, or anything else for that matter in the NT that are not immediately verifiable by the methods of science. But that's ok, because what matters is not the history-'historie'--but geschichte, or the kerygma. The kerygmatic Adam is all we need, and the kerygmatic Christ is all we need. It really is naive to think that you can have your cake and eat it too.
@ prometheus33
Phillips is using the Trojan horse as a metaphor, and I believe that you have it backwards. You see, Enns and Waltke are not the Greeks, they are, in Phillips estimation--if I am reading him right--the Trojans! They are inadvertently bringing into the camp that which spell the doom of the people, namely, a methodological procedure that necessarily subordinates certain portions of scripture to the findings of a so-called science that is driven by the engine of methodological naturalism. Science is a descriptive enterprise, not a prescriptive one, by the way. So yes, it is a nice metaphor, and great for a blog entry; it's also apropos in this instance.
Thanks for your response, Roland. Perhaps that was Phillip's intent, which is possibly linked to his comment concerning their naivete. But the metaphor is still unsatisfactory (and quite inappropriate) as it paints these men as stupdified scholars who have no inkling as to potential implications of their positions on this matter. Which brings us to the primary problem with the metaphor - the slippery slope. And that is what Phillip's blog post is all about isn't it? If we allow this, then what? We might lose substitutionary atonement, or the resurrection, or the virgin birth, etc? But we must look at each narrative, pericope, etc separately, and use the appropriate approach to determine our exegetical outlook which includes how literally we take a particular passage? I mean you certainly don't believe that there's a watery dome covering the earth. I'm sure you admit that there is a parallelism present in the Genesis 1 account, right? But which account should we take literally, the one in Genesis 1 or 2?
These questions demonstrate that we have to come terms with the the literary issues present in the text that indicate some figurative language regardless of our view of evolution. If we don't take these issues into consideration then we bring to the table an amputated hermenuetic...(and if only it stopped there). Unfortunately, we will figure out ways to make up for our lack of literary legs which often entails a little anachronistic analgesic and a fundamentalist prosthetic (what a combo those have made over the years!).
Again, I don't buy the evolutionary argument on any front. And I disagree with Waltke's position on this. But that doesn't mean that he's naivley bringing into the camp a Trojan Horse hermeneutic filled with naturalist nerdowells. Rather than this sort of rhetoric, we need to explore the possiblities available to us based, in part at least, on a closer literary look at the text. While I don't know what all of those possibilities entail, I think that's where the discussion should go rather than where it went on Philliip's blog, again which tended toward a slippery slope inciting fear (although I'm not asserting that this was his intent either).
P33,
I hope you see in your response to Roland how easy it is to make personal attacks, at least if they are going to be defined as you and Michael Bird have in my case. You say that I was "inciting fear." That is of course a pretty critical impuning of my intentions and motives in a way that friends of mine might consider vitriolic (yes, I do have friends!). But is it not possible to warn of the logical consequences of an argument without being a fear-mongerer, etc? In pointing this out, I would also note that I am not offended at all by what you said, though I disagree with you. I just want to note that the rules you apply to me would also require your comment to be considered mean and nasty. As for my intention with the metaphor, Roland has it exactly right with my Trojan Horse metaphor: I am comparing Waltke and Enns to the Trojans who unintentionally allowed in an agent of destruction rather than to the Greeks who sent it.
I suppose my parting comment would be that it would be a lot more effecient if we could consider the content of one another's arguments rather than indulge in hyper-sensitive name-calling and hand-wringing over perceived motives. I appreciate that you extended me the courtesy of actually engaging my argument (as I did with Waltke and Enns), even though I don't really agree with you.
Blessings,
Rick Phillips
Rick, yes, it is possible to warn of potential consequences without being a fear monger. I won't concur with your adjective, "logical" here though, because that connotes certainty. And perhaps that's part of the problem here. Had your blog post been presented as more of a warning as opposed to a sounding alarm of imminent danger, I wouldn't have taken such issue. But you're right. I think we need to be careful not to engage in hyper-sensitive debates regarding people's presumed assumptions. Having said that, if we engage in a little more sensitivity is it possible that we can side step these types of debates prior to their inception? I don't know. But I'll consider your comments concerning this issue and regarding my own double standards in my previous post. But please note I did qualify the statement, pleading ignornace as to your intentions. Just as you're asserting yourself via the Trojan Horse metaphor, the affects of someone's rhetoric/beliefs can have consequences as I'm suggesting (with the "fear" comment) your blog may with regards to the general mood of this discussion. Anyway, thanks again.
Rick,
I'm grateful for your comments and the candour in which you write here. (1) A wise and godly friend just emailed me and suggested that I read Prov 26.17 and he's probably right. Still, I am genuinely upset when friends of mine and people I admire are spoken of like this. (2) I think criticisms of Enns and Waltke are fine and necessary, but I like many others perceive that your rhetoric and metaphor ventures into the realm of polemics with a very biting edge. You state that Waltke (I'll focus on him since he's more conservative than Enns) is evacuating the Bible of divine authority and bringing in atheist hermeneutics into the church. The metaphor of a "Trojan" is not neutral or irenic, it is one who smuggles in stuff to destroy and maim! But these are not objective statements of fact, but are perceptions and allegations that bring the reputation of Waltke into disrepute. I believe that your critique is laced with an uncharitable rhetoric for that reason. (3) I am a sinner too Rick. I am an Aussie upstart, taken to smart alec comments when it comes to defending my friends. I will rethink and edit my blog post accordingly. Post or contact me if you still find my post personally injurious or malicious. (4) Can I ask you to extend the same grace to Waltke? I humbly ask you brother to contact Bruce, show him your post, and ask him if he is offended or wounded by your words, and respond to your brother appropriately. Let Waltke decide if you've been unkind to him? (5) I wish you every blessing as you seek to guard the good deposit of the gospel and to seek the unity of the church.
Mike Bird
Michael,
I'm really not all that offended by your criticisms of me. I am really just trying to make the point that we are expending far more energy reading evil motives into what people are writing instead of actually engaging their arguments. This was my problem with your piece -- you never took the time to engage my actual argument but just heaped abuse upon your perception of my motives. My feelings are not hurt -- I do not even know you, after all -- but it just seems out of synch with your emphasis on charity and love. I say this not to pile on you, but just to say that you should not feel the need to change the post for my sake. As a preacher, I learned long ago that I get so much praise and adoration that a little abuse -- just or unjust -- is healthy for my soul. My reputation I leave in the care of my Lord. Whether you thought I did it well or not -- and I will reflect upon your concerns -- my intent was to express concerns over the merits of Waltke's and Enns' actual arguments. When I referred to them showing naivete, I was not regarding them as fools but simply expressing my concern over their approach. Ditto for the Trojan Horse metaphor, which expresses concern not for their intentions (which I assume are good) but over the influence of the hermeneutic being advocated. I realize all too well that people who regard me in a poor light can take those statements differently than I intended them, but there is not all that much I can do about that. The environment is such today that it is virtually impossible to give any kind of negative critique that is not denounced as vitriol. But even as I write this, I don't want to keep complaining and I don't want to give you personal offense: that's where I am coming from and I hope it contributes to our mutual understanding.
cont.
As for Dr. Waltke, I give him enough credit that he expects to have his arguments critiqued, without his feelings getting hurt when someone disagrees with his approach or expresses concern about the implications of what he is saying. Here are some reasons why I have not contacted Bruce and do not presently intend to do so: 1) as a public figure making arguments in the public arena, he surely expects to be critiqued, sometimes unfavorably -- isn't that part of the scholarly process? If I get a negative book review, I don't expect the person to have called me in advance. I'm a public figure doing public work. Positive and negative reviews go with the turf: they are not personal matters at all and do not require personal contact. 2) I still don't see where I was vitriolic or ad hominem, but I will do my best in the future to avoid this impression. 3) I do not have a personal relationship with Bruce Waltke. I took a winter term course with him at WTS, but I don't really know him and he wouldn't remember me. I actually think contacting him would be more harrassing to him than anything else. And, again, I seriously doubt that he is offended by my concerns, however we may disagree. As for Pete Enns, I do have a personal relationship with him, but we are and were very much on opposite sides of the WTS situation and I would not want to risk seeming to provoke personal animosity. Again, he is a public figure doing public work, as I am. We are very seriously at odds over the matters in question and in my judgment they are matters with quite serious implications, which is why I write on them. Scholars and churchmen on different sides are likely to be sharply in disagreement at times. But I can assure you that I would do more than cross the street to help Pete in personal need. I presume he would do the same for me.
Sorry to be so long. I will be totally preoccupied with a conference for the next three days and will not be able to interact. Why don't you go ahead and have the last word on this, and when I am free I can read it. Other than that, I would suggest that we come back after a few days and read all this again to see if there is something to profit from. In the meantime, may the Lord bless you and keep you.
Yours in Christ,
Rick Phillips
Someone could easily respond to Rick’s piece, using a metaphor from early church history, with an article entitled “Attacking Theistic Evolution: The Gospel of Circumcision?” – which I think is exactly the point Waltke is making in his statements.
And to Michael’s concluding point in the OP about why atheists mock us, & the important corollary, why many abandon the gospel, we should all seriously consider the points made by Australian Baptist pastor Murray Hogg in his Origins and the Pastoral Task: The Priority of Love over Knowledge article. In Hogg's discussion about the “weaker brother”, he asks the Apostle Paul’s rhetorical question “because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?”
Steve,
Life's origin is hardly a side-issue like circumcision. The issue, pardon the pun, cuts right to the heart of who we are: is life the product of chance chemistry over billions of years or have we been designed, quickly and accurately.
More importantly, is the act of life coming into existence an act of love (i.e. God being intimately involved so that it is a mistake free and perfect exercise) or is it one long saga of death, struggle and misery where God's hand is absent (i.e. evolution)?
It's not a question of a weaker brother - and you know that! - but true truth. The answer to everyone's question is so important that God made it into the 4th commandment.
*Very* encouraging to my morale to see the graciousness: the grace, infused back into our "in house" debates. They become more than *debates*. So not helpful. What if we tried to understand the reasons behind others' views? What if we focussed on the essentials instead of morphing our spiritual *siblings* into dark forces based on their non-essential beliefs?! Yes! Thank you! Well said, esp. re: essentials and non-essentials.
I do believe in a literal 6 day creation. I have a conviction based on study of the Bible. And the way I state my case is still more important than winning the debate. -Understanding the other person in non-essentials: so hope-instilling for all involved.
"Finally, I'm not worried about atheists mocking Christians by saying, "Ha, they don't believe in evolution". But I am concerned about atheists mocking Christians by saying, "Ha, see how these Christians love one another!" .
Totally.
Can we end this grace meeting with a round of "Grace That Is Greater Than All My Sin"? :-)
The only weakness in Phillips' position is that it comes 400 years too late. The hermeneutical Trojan Horse that he decries was welcomed into the city when theistic heliocentrism was wheeled through the gates.
1. Does the Earth move? Does it spin, does it travel around the Sun, is it wobbly on its axis? What is the truth and what are your grounds for your beliefs on the matter?
2. Is the universe approximately 14.7 billion years old, beginning with an event many call the Big Bang, and are galaxies accelerating away from each other? What is the truth and what are your grounds for your beliefs on the matter?
3. Does evolution by natural selection account for the origin and diversity of the species, both extinct and living? Are human beings descended from a common ancestor? What is the truth and what are your grounds for your beliefs on the matter?
If the Bible is the final authority on these empirical questions, then on what grounds do you affirm any one of them?
Above, Mr. Mathews said, "They are inadvertently bringing into the camp that which spell the doom of the people, namely, a methodological procedure that necessarily subordinates certain portions of scripture to the findings of a so-called science that is driven by the engine of methodological naturalism." But like Phillips, Mr. Mathews is late in raising the alarm, is he not? The 'they' is not Waltke & co.; it is Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Kepler, Newton, and other theists of the Scientific Revolution who subordinated Scripture to their "methodological procedures."
Mike thank you for your posting and for the way you replied to Rick. You offered him a form of treatment I hope he offers to Waltke.
What do you say Rick? Is Christ's love that wide, that deep?
Hey thank you for sharing such a wonderful stuff..great blog.keep posting.
Regards,
Lisa Green
generic viagra
Thanks a lot for sharing. You have done a brilliant job. Your article is truly relevant to my study at this moment, and I am really happy .business logo design
I was seeking at some of your articles on this website and I believe this internet web site is actually instructive! Maintain on posting
toronto limo rentals
I've been using AVG security for a number of years, and I'd recommend this solution to all you.
Post a Comment