Over at Called to Confusion, Sean Patrick recently asked where we can find the church of Rome. Here's a street map:
http://travizzt.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/circles.jpg
Monday, January 17, 2011
Dying young and living large
Many men treat the death of the young as uniquely tragic. I’ve heard ER physicians (on TV) say that they go all out to save the life of a young patient.
The thinking behind this is that the young have so much to lose. If they die young they will miss out on life. All that wasted potential.
And there’s no doubt something to that in its own right. But on comparative terms, how does that make the death of the young more tragic than the death of the old?
If the young lose their potential experience, don’t the old lose their actual experience? While the young lose their future, the old lose both their future and their past. What’s the value of having a full life if you lose it all at death?
Of course, the question is also bound up with your view of the afterlife. If there is no afterlife, then young and old are both in sinking ships. One sinks faster than the other. That’s all. The elderly catch up with the prematurely dead. That's all.
Like the Titanic orphans. They survived while others perished. But death caught up with them, sooner or later.
And even in this life, people above a certain age have very different perspectives on their past and future years. On the one hand are the folks who feel that one life is not enough. So much to do, so little time. So much they’d like to see and hear and taste and touch and read and smell, but time is running out. They are desperate. They hear the clock ticking. Louder and louder! What they’d give for just another ten good years! They feel rushed. Cheated. They have to choose between one thing and another when they’d like to sample both. Should they try something new, or revisit something old? Can’t do both. Not enough time.
And, indeed, one life can only scratch the surface. Moreover, in this life, at least, we can only experience events that happen to fall within our lifetime. In principle, there’s far more to experience, but we can’t travel back into the past, or into the future. We can’t repeat the same day in a different place.
On the other hand, you have folks for whom life is basically over before it’s half over. I’ve seen my share of middle-aged couples who are bored to death (pardon the pun). They went through the checklist of life. Dated. Married. Had kids. The kids are grown. Now what?
They have time on their hands, but they don’t know what to do with them. Haven’t we all seen people like that?
Take a guy who works a job he hates for 30 year just to get a pension. He works rotten hours. It’s all for the pension. He’s marking days off the calendar until he retires. Can hardly wait.
Then, after he retires, he’s oh-so fidgety. Bored to tears. Still gets up early, out of habit.
He and his equally bored wife may fly down to Vegas to gamble. Or go on a cruise, where they eat too much, play games, make idle chit-chat with other equally bored, middle-aged couples.
From a Christian standpoint, the afterlife is meaningful for both the saints and the damned. It is meaningful to the saints because they are restored and fulfilled. All that’s best in this fallen world was just a shadow of what awaits them in the world to come.
Damnation is also meaningful, although that’s a bit paradoxical. The life of the damned may be meaningless to the damned. Indeed, that’s no small part of the punishment.
But it’s meaningful that there are consequences for what you are and what you do. Even dire consequences are meaningful in that ominous sense.
Why Do Christians Hold Such A High View Of The Apostle Paul?
I often see skeptics ask why Christians hold such a high view of Paul. Why do they consider him an apostle? Why do they think his letters are scripture?
The fact that these skeptics would ask such questions suggests that they don't know much about Christianity or the evidence for it. It makes you wonder why they're so active in posting objections to Christianity in online forums. Maybe they should spend more time trying to understand the religion before they criticize it.
Here's a summary of a few of the relevant lines of evidence related to the status of Paul:
1. The experiences of Paul suggest that his claims to apostolic authority are credible (for example, his seeing the risen Christ and the miracles he performed afterward). See here.
2. The other apostles held the same sort of view of Paul that Christians hold today. He had a close relationship with the other apostles, as reflected in his letters, Acts, and other sources. It's doubtful that the other apostles would think so highly of him if they disagreed with his authority claims. 2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul's letters as scripture.
3. Paul's apostleship and the scriptural status of his letters are accepted early and widely across the Christian world. For a discussion of the significance of that fact, see here and here. Some of the early sources who make such high comments about Paul had been disciples of one or more of the other apostles (e.g., Polycarp) and/or came from and/or were in contact with an apostolic church associated with at least one of the other apostles (e.g., Ignatius).
The fact that these skeptics would ask such questions suggests that they don't know much about Christianity or the evidence for it. It makes you wonder why they're so active in posting objections to Christianity in online forums. Maybe they should spend more time trying to understand the religion before they criticize it.
Here's a summary of a few of the relevant lines of evidence related to the status of Paul:
1. The experiences of Paul suggest that his claims to apostolic authority are credible (for example, his seeing the risen Christ and the miracles he performed afterward). See here.
2. The other apostles held the same sort of view of Paul that Christians hold today. He had a close relationship with the other apostles, as reflected in his letters, Acts, and other sources. It's doubtful that the other apostles would think so highly of him if they disagreed with his authority claims. 2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul's letters as scripture.
3. Paul's apostleship and the scriptural status of his letters are accepted early and widely across the Christian world. For a discussion of the significance of that fact, see here and here. Some of the early sources who make such high comments about Paul had been disciples of one or more of the other apostles (e.g., Polycarp) and/or came from and/or were in contact with an apostolic church associated with at least one of the other apostles (e.g., Ignatius).
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Was Jesus a good samaritan?
Randal Rouser has been challenging Christians to read Peter Singer’s “solution” to world poverty and take it to heart. Rouser is very judgmental about the lifestyle of the average evangelical:
And yet rather than read that paper and Singer's other work on the plight of the world's poor, self-righteous suburban evangelicals continue to drive their big fat SUVs, tithe 4% of their income (on average) and stand in judgment of his views on abortion. What damnable hypocrisy.
So let’s take him up on the challenge, shall we? I’m going to quote from two of Singer’s representative articles on global poverty. I’ll excerpt what I take to be his core arguments:
Chinwendu's tears
It looks like Randal Rauser is now accusing me of the following:
Do you agree with me as well that it is inappropriate to put a picture of my daughter on the triablogue website? I love to debate, and I have had all sorts of people on my website, but nobody ever went so far as to drag my daughter into it.and
Yesterday on the Triablogue website an individual posted a picture of my daughter and wrote something about an 8 year old being lobotomized. Apparently nobody thought that was inappropriate. It was only after I made a request that the picture was taken down. I have now removed all pictures of my family from my website. I have never experienced such hostility from anyone before.and
I certainly didn’t anticipate anybody doing that, let alone a fellow “brother in Christ”. Imagine what fun they could have with a child that has a disability.By way of response:
- Just so people know, this is the post to which Rauser is referring.
I've already replaced the original photo with another photo. (Originally, there was a photo of Rauser in what looked like a plush and trendy setting. Rauser was holding what looked like a coffee mug. If I recall, his daughter was on his lap. Update: Of course, Steve rightly points out in the combox: "I'd add that Randal is the one who identified the girl as his daughter. What's obvious to him isn't obvious to a bystander.")
- Not that it's likely Rauser will believe me, but I wasn't intentionally "dragging his daughter" into the debate. Rather I used the picture because I thought the posh setting fit well with the image of a sophisticated suburban progressive Christian professor sipping his cafe latte and so forth. For better or for worse, his daughter didn't cross my mind at all.
- At worst, he might construe it as an unintentional or inadvertent swipe at his daughter. But why immediately jump to this conclusion? Does Rauser give me the benefit of the doubt, especially as a "fellow brother in Christ"? Nope.
- Ironically, I notice Rauser gives a lot of the atheist commenters on his website far more leeway than he does conservative Christians. He's so inimical toward us, yet so welcoming and friendly toward many atheists.
- As has been the case throughout this whole debate, Rauser's reaction is once again over the top - e.g. "nobody ever went so far as to drag my daughter into it," "I have never experienced such hostility from anyone before."
Calm down, R-dawg. Please, chill. Relax. Chillax. I ain't skewering your kith and kin, yo.
Although I'll admit I am skewering your strange brew of café Christianity au progressive, espresso Christianity con Rauser, passionfruit blendedRastafarianRauserian Christianity, or whatever people wanna label it.
BTW, perhaps Rauserian Christianity deserves a spot on this liberal and progressive minded list.
- Again, such a reaction (or should I say overreaction) shows Rauser's knee-jerk imputation of poor motives to "a brother in Christ." But is this in keeping with Rauser's own call for a higher standard in tone and discourse? Is Rauser displaying the sort of tone etc. that Rauser demands others, particularly other Christians, display toward him?
- In case this is what he's trying to imply, I didn't remove the picture out of a request from Rauser. Rauser never contacted me - or, as far as I know, anyone I know - and asked me to take down the picture. A friend pointed out the comment, I read it myself, and then I took down the photo out of courtesy to him.
- Mind you, I don't think it's unethical or immoral for me to have posted the picture in the first place. After all, it was a picture that was on Rauser's own website which Rauser himself had originally put on his own website. It's not as if I somehow hacked into his home network, downloaded private photos of his family, and subsequently posted them online. No, all I did was take a photo that he had already made available in the past on his own public website, and reposted it in my post. It's a public photo which Rauser himself (or someone who manages his website for him) made public.
BTW, sheeple Frege (mind if I call you Gottlob?) made a comment which seems to assume the photo in question was a private one: "If you disagree, then send Randal pictures of your family and let him post them in his own satirical articles."
(On an entirely different note, Frege also wrote: "[A commenter with the moniker] Some1 doesn't realize their IP address is logged...coward." I'm not "Some1." But I should point out that it's possible "Some1" could be using an app for online anonymity such as Tor to avoid this. Not to mention, unless Frege is his real name, by Frege's own lights, does this mean Frege is cowardly hiding behind a moniker? If Frege is his real name, then why not his full name - is Frege behaving cowardly by failing to disclose his full name?)
- I think Rauser's example about the lobotomized eight year old being "inappropriate" is rather ridiculous: "Yesterday on the Triablogue website an individual posted a picture of my daughter and wrote something about an 8 year old being lobotomized. Apparently nobody thought that was inappropriate."
First, there's no necessary connection between "a picture of [Rauser's] daughter" and "an 8 year old being lobotomized." If Rauser is drawing the connection, and pronouncing it "inappropriate," then I'd think it reflects paranoia more than reasonableness.
At the risk of stating the obvious, what I posted was a parody. A parody of what Rauser himself wrote. As such, it's closer to, say, someone taking issue with Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" because it involves cannibalism. "Gasp! How could Swift joke about babies being eaten?! How utterly inappropriate!" Alas, I didn't expect a progressive Christian to be so uptight. But maybe it's the stuffy prof in him speaking.
Plus, I could make the same allegation of inappropriateness about what Rauser originally wrote and on which my satire was based. Here's what Rauser originally wrote: "her legs had been amputated and somebody had rammed a large blade up her vagina." So, if what I wrote was inappropriate, then wouldn't what Rauser first wrote be inappropriate as well? How is "an 8 year old being lobotomized" inappropriate, while "legs . . . amputated" and "a large blade [rammed] up her vagina" appropriate or at least less inappropriate?
However, if you ask me, I'd think anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension ability would understand that what Rauser originally wrote was itself meant to be an evil in the context of his story about Dr. Z, just like what I parodied was meant to be in the context of my story about Prof. R. It's not as if either one of us is striking an approving stance or somehow endorsing these things even in the context of the story or satire.
- Finally, this is the original post on which I based my parody. Please check it out first, then check out my parody.
Now please check out commenter Chinwendu's comment:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 11:16pm
On the one hand, Rauser chastises me for posting a picture of him and his daughter.
Dear Dr. Randal Rauser, greeting to you from Little Congo. I am Congolese and mother to Abweti, the young girl in you pictur. She is carrying her half brother, Abidemi. This her father son. I write to you to say I have wet eyes and hurt heart to see you post a pictur of my daughter in your battle of the head with you enemy. I do not think approprate to do this. I lived through our war and was treat vary badly by men of Pascal Lissouba, but I should say I never been treat this badly. Shame on you.
But on the other hand, Rauser himself posted a picture of what appears to be a young Sub-Saharan African girl or woman and likely either a younger sibling or her own child (son or daughter). Given that Rauser or someone on his website has either named or left named the jpeg file "A-victim-of-the-civil-war-in-the-Congo.jpg," I'll presume the individuals are from Congo.
So I ask: why is my posting the picture I posted wrong while Rauser posting the picture he posted fine?
Moreover, I could similarly say of Rauser, in his use of the woman and child from Congo picture: "Imagine what fun Rauser could have with a child that has a disability." Would Rauser sanction this sort of "tone" let alone statement?
As Steve pointed out, Rauser is a playactor.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Tossing his toys
Dominic Bnonn Tennant briefly sums up what's been happening with the Randal Rauser debate (which, BTW, includes a progression retrogression with Rauser's shifting the argument he's been having with us from content to tone, which in turn is ironic since Rauser himself calls for a higher standard in discourse but later alludes to a neo-Nazi skinhead movie character in reference to Pastor Dustin). Bnonn then refocuses the debate by asking Rauser to respond to three questions. Anyway, check out the post here.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Accessorizing atheism
Randal Rauser says:
A substance dualist might argue for their view that the human agent is a soul by arguing that we have free will and free will requires a non-physical agent to intervene in the chain of material causes.
http://randalrauser.com/2011/01/im-good-enough-im-smart-enough-and-doggone-it-who-cares-if-people-like-me/
This misses the point in two key respects:
i) The issue isn’t physicalism v. dualism, per se. The issue is what underwrites the end-result.
What does substance dualism amount to in atheism? A human being is still the byproduct of a mindless process.
To take a comparison, suppose I’m having a business lunch. In the middle of lunch the waiter passes me a note which says, “Call home.”
I will leave the table and call home.
Suppose I’m playing a game of scrabble, and on one throw the letters spell “Call home.”
I won’t call home. I attach no significance to that outcome.
What’s the difference? You have the same result, but the process makes all the difference. Although the sentences are identical and, in that respect, equally meaningful, the note is a message whereas the scrabble pattern is not. The scrabble sentence is accidentally or coincidentally meaningful. It’s not a genuine message or communication. In that respect, it’s no different than gibberish. The result of random chance.
Likewise, unless human beings are the product of a wise Creator, human life doesn’t have the same value. It has no inherent dignity.
ii) Randal also disregards the issue of the afterlife. If human beings don’t survive the grave, then that, too, radically affects the value of life.
Take one of those European villages that hasn’t changed very much in 800 years. Folks have been living in the same cottages and townhouses for 800 years. But while the buildings are the same, the residents are not. Every 100 years, give or take, you have a total replacement rate.
Not only does this apply to individuals, but to an entire set of relationships. Parents, grandparents, children, spouses, siblings, lifelong friends–and even their pets. When they all die, that entire cumulative network of mutual affections and shared memories dies with them. Lost forever. A total loss to all parties concerned.
That’s the standard atheistic narrative. And it you take that to heart, it makes a huge difference to your outlook on life.
Newcomb's Paradox, Particular Redemption, and Sincere Offers
James Anderson has a creative response to the common objection that there is an inconsistency between particular redemption and the sincere offer of the gospel.
The playactor
According to Randal Rauser’s latest post:
We can approach the many comments from the Triablogue Posse to my Dr. Z case in terms of tone or content. In this post I’m going to focus primarily on the tone.
Okay, so how does he set the tone?
I must say Dustin looks very angry in that photo. It is not the general impression I’d want to convey. (Indeed, it looks rather like Edward Norton in “American History X.”)
He sets the tone by comparing Pastor Dustin to a skinhead.
This is yet another instance in which Randal unwittingly illustrates the human capacity for self-deception. Randal entertains the self-image of kind, caring person.
Yet the acid test is how he treats people he dislikes. And in his exchanges with the “Triablogue posse” he never fails to flunk that elementary test.
He's only loving to those with whom he's simpatico. He loves his own kind. He loves people like himself.
But the moment he has to deal with someone like Dustin or Bnonn, he proves himself to be a bigoted hatemonger.
Progressive Christianity
For some reason, it was the eight year old that did it. When she was brought in a specific segment of her mind had been lobotomized and somebody had embedded in its place a mind-controlling cortical microchip. As Prof. R cradled her head in his knees it was clear that they could do nothing for her but deliver her a dose of anti-sedative and anti-cataleptic medication to help alleviate the high amplitude, low frequency electroencephalogram (EEG) wave patterns in her trance-like state. Perhaps it was because she was eight, the same age as his own daughter. Perhaps it was the blank automaton look in her eyes. Perhaps it was the unforgettable screams of her desperate mother. But through it all he felt his progressive faith splintering.
Later that night he sat up with a colleague sipping a cup of orange mocha frappuccino. Suddenly the tears started rolling down his cheeks. He turned to the other man, an academic dean and fellow progressive Christian. And with his face wet with tears he whispered hoarsely, "I don't know if Peter Singer, Noam Chomsky, Peter Unger, and Norman Finkelstein demonstrate more moral integrity on a whole plethora of issues than most Christians I meet anymore!"
In that moment Prof. R did not believe the progressive Christian proposition, "Peter Singer, Noam Chomsky, Peter Unger, and Norman Finkelstein demonstrate more moral integrity on a whole plethora of issues than most Christians I meet." According to some people, the mere existence of charities like Oxfam and UNICEF is sufficient to say that Prof. R is, in that moment, wickedly suppressing the progressive beliefs, values, and agenda that call out to him. From where exactly? The high and mighty ivory tower of academia?
(Original here.)
Dubious doubts
THE PRAYING MANTISS SAID:
But one’s understanding of God may be mistaken.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/01/do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do.html#7802648112697861736
Of course, we can turn that around. For I may mistakenly believe I’m mistaken. Therefore, the hypothetical risk of being mistaken must be counterbalanced by the corollary risk of mistaking a mistake. I can erroneously think I’m right, or I can erroneously think I’m wrong. The abstract possibility of error is a two-edged sword.
It's Never Been This Bad Before?
We're often told that the political atmosphere is more hostile today than ever before. Michael Brown recently linked to a good video on this subject.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Christina Green
Many pundits have seized on the murder of Christina Green as the most tragic event in the tragic Arizona massacre. For many, the death of the young hits hardest because they had so much to lose. They had a whole life ahead of them, until that was cruelly taken from them. The wasted potential.
But by the same token, where is the same lament for a life cut short by abortion?
But by the same token, where is the same lament for a life cut short by abortion?
ANNOUNCEMENT: Worldview Night 1-27-2011
Thursday night, 1-27-2011 Shepherd's Fellowship will have its second "Worldview Night" by viewing a debate at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. And no, Dusman will not be participating in this one. I'm too busy with ministry right now.Theme: Ratio Christi of UNCG and the UNCG Atheists Agnostics and Skeptics will be offering a panel discussion exploring the different concepts for grounding morality. Does the Christian or Atheistic worldview better account for morality, and which offers a better understanding of how morality works in our world? What are the problems and benefits of the different worldviews? These just some of the areas to be explored.
Location: The event will be held in the Elliot University Center (EUC) in the EUC auditorium from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. The auditorium is on the middle floor of the EUC to the left of the information desk, if you are facing the information desk. Here is a map of the location and parking for those traveling onto campus for it.
http://maps.google.com/map
Format: This is being called a panel discussion but will be structured like a debate, with each panelist giving an opening statement then each side having time to question and lead discussion with the other. After that there will be time available for each side to give a closing statement. Finally at the end there will be time for audience questions and answers.
Representing Ratio Christi will be:
Adam Tucker: Is the UNCG campus director of Ratio Christi and a student at Southern Evangelical Seminary.
Bill Pratt: Christian apologist who blogs at toughquestionsanswered.org
Representing the UNCG Atheists Agnostics and Skeptics will be:
Joshua Deaton: Got his first degree in political science from UNCG and is currently working on a second degree in biology. He studied to be in the ministry and his studies lead him to be an atheist.
Robert Eldredge: Current President of the UNCG Atheists, Agnostics and Skeptics Robert got undergraduate degrees in Philosophy and Political Science from Guilford College and is currently working on a Masters of Public Affairs degree from UNCG.
Remembering Roger Nicole
Here are John Frame's reflections on the passing of Roger Nicole (posted with permission):
Roger loved the Lord, was uncommonly gracious to all. Everyone was his “dear brother.” We loved him dearly and will miss his kind presence.
Remembering Roger Nicole
This morning, the email announcement came that Roger Nicole had passed away, yesterday, Dec. 11, one day after his 95th birthday. He was a great man. A Swiss Baptist, he studied at Gordon-Conwell (I think before they added Conwell) and doctored at Harvard. He taught at GCTS for many years, leaving there maybe twenty years ago to teach at RTS. He was unhappy with the administration of GCTS. When I met him in 2000, he greeted me very warmly, said that his years at RTS were the best years of his career. I would say the same about my ten years here.
He taught and wrote about all theological topics. The atonement and biblical inerrancy were his particular specializations. He also had some neat lectures on the five points of Calvinism. He always thought of great ways of illustrating theological topics. Some years ago he spoke at CPC, comparing the fall of man to the fall of the two towers of the World Trade Center.
After I arrived at RTS, when he was in his eighties, he fought one more battle, to rid the ETS of Open Theists. He liked my work on that and visited my office often to share his thoughts and writings on the subject.
Annette, his wife, died maybe five years ago. He lived at an assisted living place in Altamonte. This past year he recovered from a fall and surgery. His mind was often sharp even in his last week, but he went in and out of mental coherence. Dan Wright, our former reference librarian, was Roger’s best friend, stayed with him constantly at times.
My statement on Roger Nicole’s Passing
December 16, 2010
I am so thankful for Roger's ministry. For many years I had read his works and heard of his great teaching, but I did not meet him until 2000, when I became his colleague. He greeted me warmly on my arrival at RTS, said that his years at RTS were the happiest of his professional life, a sentiment that is now mine as well. Though he was well into his 80s when I met him, he was engaged in a full-scale project, the elimination of open theism from the Evangelical Theological Society, a project I supported. He came by often during those years, and we had many discussions of his writings and mine on the subject. Though this was indeed a theological battle, both his friends and opponents commended his graciousness and kindness. Roger always listened, tried to find common ground, tried to express love and respect to his opponents. Though I was in my sixties, I looked to him as a father in the faith and as a model for my own spiritual walk. We did not always agree, but Roger was always my chief example of how to disagree without being disagreeable.
May God comfort his family, all our colleagues and friends with the sure hope of the resurrection. Indeed, Jesus lives, and so shall we.
May God comfort his family, all our colleagues and friends with the sure hope of the resurrection. Indeed, Jesus lives, and so shall we.
~
John Frame,
Oviedo, Florida
Do as I say, not as I do
Randal Rauser has done another post defending the innocence of atheism. A few comments:
1. In his methodology, experience trumps Scripture. Of course, that doesn’t surprise me. That’s what I’d expect from Randal.
2. But at the risk of stating the obvious, God is the world authority on human nature. There is nothing illegitimate about my interpreting human behavior in light of God’s interpretation. To the contrary, that is far and away the wisest course of action.
Of course, if you don’t believe the Bible is God’s word, then that changes the presumption. And at that point you’re groping in the dark.
3. At the same time, it’s terribly gullible to merely judge men’s motives by their self-witness. Men have a vast capacity for self-deception. Indeed, the Bible has a word for that: hypocrisy.
The hypocrite is nota calculating conman. To the contrary, the hypocrite may be utterly convinced of his stainless rectitude. There’s a total disconnect between his self-image and reality.
I’m reminded of a book by Peter Schweizer entitled Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.
In fact, Randal is, himself, a textbook case of self-deception. He fancies himself a tolerant, empathetic individual Yet he unconsciously stereotypes those who disagree with him. He can’t resist drawing invidious comparisons between his own enlightenment and those benighted Christians on the right who just don’t know any better. They must be “angry” or “indoctrinated.” He prides himself on “critical introspection,” but he only applies that analysis to his theological opponents.
Many men are poor judges of their own character. And, ironically, some folks with the lowest morals have the highest self-esteem.
4. The question of whether a true Christian can suffer a crisis of faith is a red herring.
5. He says “I begin the book with an amazing scene from Woody Allen’s ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’ in which the uncle of the protagonist, a pious Jewish man, says he would choose God over truth. Yikes. No thinking Christian could (or should) ever say such a thing. No thinking person of any stripe should. If I’m wrong I want to know about it.”
Of course, that’s a false antithesis. At the same time, it betrays the superficiality of his outlook.
Truth only matters if God is real. Apart from God, truth is not a virtue. Indeed, when you lose God, you lose truth. For truth is grounded in the mind of God.
"Developing a Frame work for the doctrine of Scripture"
In case some people aren't already aware, there's an interview with Prof. John Frame about his recently published book The Doctrine of the Word of God in the Jan. 3, 2011 issue of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's "Towers."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)