Advice for any budding or weak preachers...
Just a comment. Speaking for 35 minutes and 'sharing your heart' isn't preaching. If you say "turn in your bibles to (whatever passage)" and then don't actually exposit the text, what does that suggest about your view of scripture?
A. It's not perspicuous.
B. It's not sufficient.
C. It's not efficacious.
D. It's not authoritative.
E. It's not that important.
F. All of the above.
G. Who cares? Don't get so worked up about preaching; it's boring anyway!
Oh, and for all you folks who take a pulpit, take note: Phil Yancey and Brian MacLaren aren't deep. They're clever, but wrong. John Eldridge is too...and a flaming open theist. Actually, Phil Yancey is an open theist too. Anyway, if you constantly read clever and wrong literature, you become clever and wrong. Aim for stalwart and truthful, cause I'm so sick of preachers trying to say something 'new' or 'amazing' from the pulpit. These days, I'm simply holding out for something 'true' and 'articulate'...and I'm still holding my breath.
I'll grant that maybe the Bible would be cooler if Max Luccado wrote it, maybe with it being just all simple stories about ducks and whatnot, with each story having a simple moral lesson. Thing is, I don't want to be cool. I stopped trying to be cool in grade 11. Or maybe we should just abandon the concept of lessons altogether (school and learning are BORING, right? Why do we have to do that kind of work on our day off?), have a sing along about how Jesus is my girlfriend and a sharing time where the guy at the pulpit (if you even use a pulpit...they're sooo last Thursday!) is just sharing his heart, because being 'real' is way more important than being 'right'...oh wait. We are. I want to be in California...August 21st cannot come soon enough. Until Next Time,
Whiney McWhine-a-lot
posted by The Armchair Geek at 12:07 PM
17 Comments:
Hi Armchair Theologian,
Sorry to post a topic in an unrelated posting, but I never know if people read back to what's been said before. Mea culpa! Let me know where you'd prefer me to post in the future and I'd be happy to direct my inquiry there.
I've been reading through your comments on the sufficiency of Scripture and must say I'm impressed by the level of thought exhibited. You state your position clearly and with philosophical impetus to support it. It always a pleasure to read a well written treatise.
My questions lay in matters of historical criticism. I'm curious about the presuppositions neccessary to support a statement like "let the more clear passages illumine the less clear passages" (pardom my paraphrase). This hermenutical filter demands a belief in the uniformity of Scripture, or an approach which is rooted in a pre-Enlightenment/historical critical approach to reading the Bible. To believe that specific revelation may be guided by those passages which are most explicit (to explain those which we may percieve as confusing) requires an understanding of the Bible as a uniform and cogent text. To what do we owe this presupposition?
I appreciate the thoughts of Walter Bruueggeman on this matter (a renowned OT scholar, and a firm believer in form and rhetorical criticism), who simulataneously rejects the historical critical method as presupposing the narrative it is searching for, and embraces it as acknowledging the developmental nature of the text. Can we understand the OT, not as a uniform message, but rather as competing claims of the nature of Yahweh? While this may chafe on our rational, Enlightenment-honed minds, I wonder if perhaps a more supple Jewish mind might not find contradiction in this, but rather fulfillment.
I think we can perhaps see evidence of a developing theology within the Old and New Testament. For example, the Christ myth certainly expands and broadens as we move chronologically from Paul to Mark to John. The Christ of Mark who tells his followers not to tell anyone what he has said or who he is suddenly proclaims "I Am the Bread of Life" in John. As understanding deepens and context changes, rival understandings of Yahweh and even Christ unfold. One text can therefor not illumine another because they are intentionally irreconcilable. They compete, rather than harmonize.
Your thoughts on these matters would be most appreciated for your time. Thank you for your consideration (and please exuse any grammatical missteps along the way).
Rob
2:54 PM
Hi Rob, welcome. Thanks for the comments too...glad that I'm putting out "a well written treatise". I'm on my way out to Calgary, so I'll be short with this. I'll answer your questions in point form:
1. For posting big comments/questions, I'm not sure exactly where you should post. You COULD e-mail me if you want, or keep doing what you're doing. Not too much of a big deal.
2. Okay. The presupposition of 'scriptura scripture interpretum' (I.e. the third rule of Hillel; the "clear interprets the unclear" comment) You'll mostly not like this, but I only tell you ahead of time because I'm guessing we're both approaching scripture from a different starting point.
Behond the historical prededent (it IS called the 3rd rule of Hillel because it's the 3rd rule of a several thousand year old set of fairly basic hermeneutical rules), I hold to a belief in the uniformity of scripture becasue I hold to a common authorship of scripture.
In simple terms, God wrote the Bible. The same God that wrote Genesis wrote 1 Kings and Acts and Revelation. Human authors were definitely involved, (and not 'smothered' in the process) but I understand the Bible to be ultimately the product of a divine author.
Secondly, I approach the Bible from a hermeneutical presupposition of trust, not doubt.
I don't presume that everytime I find something in the Bible that I don't understand, it must be an error or some sort of textual corruption. I assume that seeing that I AM the sinful individual (IF the Bible is even true on the fact that I AM indeed sinful), and the Bible is the work of a perfect God, then any 'issues' I have with the text are due to a lack on my part.
I mean, for ANY scholar with multiple PhD's to look at two passages of scripture and say "This passage CONTRADICTS that passage and must be reconciled" is actually a diety claim.
WHAT?
No, I'm serious. If God DID write the Bible, and if God is perfect in knowledge, then for myself (or anyone else) to challenge any passage of scripture is for me to challenge the God who wrote it.
It's for me to say either "God didn't write it" or "God's made an error and I, who sit in an epistemological position ABOVE God, see such error and now declare it to you".
Now I know the objections to these kinds of statements; I hear them constantly.
People will say "That makes no sense! God didn't write the Bible! The authors of scripture simply claimed that they were writing something divine, just like every other person who ever wrote some sort of 'spiritual writing'".
There are lots of other attacks, but you asked about presuppositions. I presuppose that my senses aren't inherently deceptive and I read the Bible, which claims divine authorship.
It's no surprise that many people disagree with me and think I'm nuts. That's fine. It's also no surprise that I'm in the same camp as a few people on this issue. It's not a rational issue; it's a faith issue.
People can read 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 all day long, but at the end of the day, you either take those passages at face value or you don't. Some believe and read the rest of scripure and find Christ, where as some don't believe and find anything but.
9:11 AM
Hi Armchair Theologian,
Thanks again for your prompt and well-stated response. I'm always appreciative for the level of thought and articulation put into your postings.
I did have a few thoughts on your comments that I'd like to share, and would certainly enjoy some further response by you to them.
Perhaps I should begin by creating a hypothetical situation. We'll have to stretch our imaginations here, but I think if we suspend disbelief for a moment or two we'll manage without serious irrepreble harm.
Imagine for a moment that I take out a piece of paper and write at the top of it "The Gospel according to Rob." On the paper I write out a few truisms, including "hate your neighbor", "beat your wife" and "God is angry with Mennonites". At the very bottom, just before I sign my name, I write "This piece of paper is the holy, inspired and infallible word of God. Doubt at your own eternal peril" (going well and beyond the New Testament claim for inspiration, which I'm sure you know uses the Greek metaphor of a sail being pushed along by the wing and is truly more narrative than descriptive). I pass out my piece of paper to friends and family and before you know it I've started my own little group (oh sure, some may call us a cult, but that's hardly fair).
If I follow correctly, our belief in the uniformity and divine authorship of Scripture is based simply on belief. We step out and make a choice to believe that God drafted the sum total of the Bible, free from the cultural and societal demands of its authors and their intended biases. But how is that sort of faith claim any more valid than that of my followers and my Gospel? I have equal authority in my claim (I'm even more explicit than the Bible), I have life truisms to live by (I'm a psuedo-Mennonite myself, having lived in Waldheim most of my life, so I feel I can poke fun without crossing too many boundaries) and I seem to conjure up the same kind of emotions that a more traditional Gospel would. How is any competing faith claim any different?
Answer: we seem to base our faith claims, at least today, on notions of rationality, which tends to trump the Scripture itself. Is "hate your neighbor" rational? Is there a greater principle we hold to? It seems as though we're filtering Scripture through a larger meta-filter than simply "faith." If I simply take the Bible as is, approaching it with a hermenutic of trust (And why do you trust it? What leads you to believe the directives are trustworthy?), how can we state that any other faith claim is invalid?
As for our hermenutical approach to the Bible, we find ourselves faced with a veritable cornicopia of contradictions. We can see this in a number of issues- sexual ethics, role of the nation, treatment of foreigners, etc- and find that we cannot reconcile them. You seem to claim that to say they are irreconcilable is to play God. Perhaps. But perhaps it simply means that we do not begin with the notion that the Bible is the word of God in its complete form. Again, if we did that, simply based on blind faith, why could the followers of Rob not equally claim that the edicts of my Gospel were true, unified, cogent and correct?
What follows is the historical critical method, rooted in the work of Albert Schweitzer, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, and a host of other modern theologians and textual scholars. I'm sure you're familiar with the two source theory for the various Gospels, including the role of Q as a pre-canonical text, but the fundamental principle of all of these claims is that the theology of the Bible develops. The Yahweh of Abraham (who is a very limited, temporal and tribal diety- see his conversation with Abraham outside of Sodom, the argument that follows (Abraham actually wins) and God's need to go see it himself) is not the God of the post-exile. The Elohim of the Northern Kingdom (who is far less monarchial and autocratic) is not the same as the Elohim of Judah (who is far more monarchial- see the competing accounts of the role of Moses in handing down the law- in one version God delivers it himself, while in another Moses acts as the intermediary for him, thus establishing the priestly class). The genocidal God of Joshua is a very different figure than the tender Father of Jesus. Again, we notice that the text develops as the mythology grows (this is most evident in the chrological progression of the Christ narrative from Paul to Mark and on into John- note the Christmas narrative, which is non-existent in Paul/Mark, contradictory in Matthew/Luke (in Luke, Joseph is from Galilee and comes to Bethlehem for the census to see his son born in a stable, while in Matthew, Joseph is from Bethlehem and Jesus is born in a house, only to flee to Galilee to escape Herod) and again disapears in the Hellenistic John. The text is fluid to suit audience, context and culture.
Your thoughts, as always, are most welcome. Thank you again for the discussion and opportunity to consider some of these ideas.
Rob
9:58 AM
You sound like you really dislike your church. Is the preaching really that bad? Why do you keep going?
9:09 AM
Armchair Theologian, I can relate with this post. Albeit very negative, what you had to say explains quite well the teaching and preaching of this day. Yes, too often we get: the coffee shop setting, video and media "enhancements", feel good massages (read massages and NOT messages), a nice warm handshake at the door, top of the line ministries... all that WITHOUT good expository teaching or preaching. The problem as I see it: 1. People don't know what good teaching is or what it should look like. They would rather feel good about what is going on. 2. When people see/hear a good message, they are offended and close their ears and harden their heart. 3. People want to take what they can from church instead of contribute. "Commitment phobics" 4. To love those that hold to "coffee shop" theology.
Final story... a friend asked me one time "what makes a hot-air balloon rise?" I gave him the obvious answer, "Hot air." His reply, "So why aren't you floating away?" In my opinion, some of the replies you get on your posts are from people that should be floating away. Nothing but hot air. This post wasn't the exception...
Even though this post showed your impatience for what is going on... kudos for showing me what patience should look like (putting up with hot air), kudos for getting involved with your local church and the universal church!
10:54 PM
Dear Leenis,
While I appreciate the audacity of your sly and thinly-veiled insult, I'd hope that we could to keep the conversation out of the realm of the juveline and the pedantic mud-slinging that so many of these sites can degenerate into. Adults don't resort to name calling. Adults discuss, debate, retort and consider, in the true spirit of the Hegelian dialectic seeking synthesis of thought. Adults don't throw mud. Let's all play nice.
I should thank Armchair Theologian for putting up with my apparently infantile questions. I would like to think that he's happy to have people asking questions and interested in furthering discussion. Perhaps I was wrong and should address my inquiries elsewhere, but I was happy to find a forum where intellectual people were discussing faith and textual matters. I've always found Armchair Theologian to be rational and balanced, even if we disagree. This is a good model to follow.
Finally, as for the historical critical method being "hot air" (as I evidently float from my chair and on into the stratosphere), I would contend that it is the current avant garde of hermenutics and perhaps the most respected field of textual study currently available. To call that hot air is to disagree with more reputable contemporary scholars than I could literally even begin to list and to devalue the scientific method as a form of discovery. I agree that the historical critical method is flawed (and have mentioned such, on occasion), but to simply dismiss my inquiry without a true response is simply to respond in ignorance. While there may be other options available in the pantheon of hermenutical approaches, the historical critical method is supported by the weight of thousands of scholars far greater than you and I (I say scholars here, not Bible school professors or Bruce Wilkinson). I think it at least deserves some consideration.
Thank you again for the opportunity to post in a a forum interested in the pursuit of truth in an unencumbered area. A true scientific approach to knowledge demands an unbiased and judgement free forum where ideas are considered, tested and weighed without the cumberances of emotion and personal belief.
Let's all play nice.
Rob
1:37 PM
Okay. I'm back from my week off in Calgary. I see there's been some chatting while I was away. Good stuff! So the question is "If Rob writes a piece of literature and claims that it's holy and inspired, then is it?"
Well, how would we approach such a claim?
Well again, I say in advance that you'll not like this. None the less, I'd then reject your writing as not inspired on the basis of two issues:
1. I (and Christendom as a whole) would examine your 'divine writing' and explore it's consistency with the rest of the established cannon of scripture, much like what happened at the Council of Nicea. Is it true? Is it doctrinally pure? Is it widely regarded as 'inspired' by the righteous elders of Christendom? Does it claim apostolic/prophetic authorship? Does it have historical evidence to confirm apostolic/prophetic authorship? Is it known to produce spiritual fruit in the lives of those who abide by it's teaching? Does it glorify Christ? (and it would certainly fail on several of these criteria, though these criteria are NOT a comprehensive list)
2. The canon is closed...so, uh, case closed. There's no more scripture that could be added to the canon, so the Gospel of Rob is out.
And if you would suggest that "the Gospel of Rob" would have been written in the 2nd century or something, it would still be out of the canon of scripture. The argument would go along the lines of "God, in his providence, has already taken care of the canon...and 1700 years ago at that!"
I'm not sure if that answers the question YOU were asking, but that IS my answer. That IS how I would deal with the arrival and challenges of "the Gospel of Rob"...though I do enjoy reading apocryphal and psuedopigraphical literature. Joseph and Asenath is my favorite among the psuedopigrapha. Years ago, I set "the Hymn of Asenath" to music and still sing it often. *chuckles*
And as for the accusation of circular reasoning, I would say that the accusation is unfounded. I don't believe that the bible is true and therefore believe that it is true. I read the Bible's claims of truth and then either believe or disbelieve them. The truth claims of the scripture are propositional truth claims that I START with. Those propositional claims of truth are exactly why I DO NOT have blind faith. I have the strong butress of reason behind my faith. I mean, I can fully reject the claims of scripture...and many (if not almost all) do in fact reject them. So what? Truth isn't established on the testimony of the masses, let alone the scholars.
And why do I trust the scripture? Well, essentially I end up with Solomon's problem of Ecclesiastes:
Either God exists or God doesn't exist. Either life has meaning or life doesn't. But, I know I am alive and I know that death is the common denominator for all.
(Then we kinda throw in a little of Pascal's wager)
And, if death is a common demoninator, does any other religious system offer a reasonable solution? Well, no. Islam, Buddhism, Shinto, Bah'aism, Scientology, Mormonism, Russelism (Jehovah's Witnesses), Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Catholicism, etc. all fall short. Everything I look at has a common denominator:
works based righteousness.
It's there in the 5 pillars of Islam. It's there in Reincarnation. It's there in animal sacrifice in Voodoo. It's there in salvation through Christ and the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
BUT, It's not there in Christianity. I hear about this crazy "Justification through faith, apart from works of the law" and think:
"Well, if Christianity is wrong and everthing else it right, and I am a Christian, then I'm good because all other religious systems have a loophole for good works. BUT, if Christianity is right and everything else is wrong, and I am a Christian, then I'm still good."
And if Christianity claims exclusive truth and exclusivity in salvation, then I either approach it with trust or I approach it with doubt.
I approach it with trust because I know that my understandings of life, the universe and everything are screw-ball and I know how messed up I am. I approach the scriptures with trust because I hope that the God of the Bible will have some answers to my problems, and offer solutions to my problem of sin and guilt.
My question for you is "on what basis do you doubt the Bible so much?"
Also, you say "As for our hermenutical approach to the Bible, we find ourselves faced with a veritable cornicopia of contradictions."
On what basis are you omniscient so that you can comment on all the "contradictions" in the bible? Would not a humble scholar simply admit that there are problems to which the solution is either contested, unclear or unknown? On what basis can you definitively declare something a "contradiction" when it's possibly something that you don't understand or lack the information to resolve/answer? I'm interested in THAT answer, myself.
Again, I would suggest that such commenting is again a diety claim. For you to claim "the Bible has contradictions in it" is to say "I have a comprehensive knowledge of history/politics/physical sciences/etc. and I speak authoritatively in declaring that such-and-such is in direct contradiction with such-and-such".
Why do you try to operate as though you're God Rob? On what reasonable grounds do you approach the scripture from a position of epistemic authority? I would suggest that your own faith in your own infallible reason is the truly blind faith. There is no reason to utterly trust your reason. Isn't it a more rational position to admit your inability to reconcile one body of data with another until you recieve sufficient information to make such an authoritative judgement? Just wondering.
And for the record, I have read a whole lot of Borg, Von Ros, etc. and all their cronies. I categorically reject a lot of their ideas as complete and utter speculation based on unsubstantiated naturalistic presuppositions. I mean, listen to yourself. "The Yahweh of such-and-such is not the Elohim of such-and-such". Only God can comment on who is and is NOT God. Again, your own words betray you Rob. On what basis should I believe that you are God and can straighten our the almighty? I'm sure you think I'm a flaming nutcase whose brain is completely malfunctioning, but can you not see how silly your comments seem from MY world-view?
Oh, and one last thing. Here's a REAL clencher question for you.
***If God is such a freaking weak-sauce sissy that he cannot even write ONE book without it getting all screwed up by the people that he's supposedly made (and immediately lost control over), why would one entrust one's eternal soul to such a corn-few Iowa idiot and give him WORSHIP?***
I mean really! Why would any person who worships such a dampy-eyed pansy of a god even stick around to call themselves a Christian? Why would one pray to a god who's 'along for the ride with us' in this messed up cosmos and doesn't really have meticulous control over everything? Why would one go to church and sing praises to a god who's so weak in the knees and powerless to save?
I cannot understand, for the LIFE of me, why liberals stick around. Why not go off and join a religion with none of the baggage and more perks? Why not join a religion where you don't have to worry about sin because it doesn't exist and we're all "good people" deep down and everyone gets their own planet full of thousands of wives? Why not join a religion where you get to carry a sword and kill someone if you feel that they've insulted your faith? Why not join a religion where you can have orgies as part of worship? Why not go and get laid as part of your 'spiritual duty'? Come ON! Why does such a SISSY god deserve worship? COME ON!
9:17 PM
Oh, and Leenis: Calm down. No need for namecalling too. Relax. Jesus will endure every and all challenges. (And eventually dispense justice..which is his department.)
And Starting Over: I never said it was MY church that I went to with bad preaching.
But even IF it was, one bad sermon isn't grounds to toss my church out the window. I my dislike some things in my church, but there's plenty of things there that I love...like many of the people in my C&C group.
Oh, and Wade: I would imagine that you can link me if you want. It may make more headaches than it's worth, seeing that it could be seen as some sort of official support of my positions on things, but I'm also not hiding from anyone. Feel free to link if you desire. Later...
9:23 PM
Thanks for the chance to chat gentleman. It's been a slice.
9:33 PM
Just as a final thought. I suppose what cuts the most is your insistence on the narrowness of God. I love Jesus very much and am continually reminded of the power of God's grace in my life; it takes a true sinner to know how much he has been forgiven. This does not mean, however, that I feel I can play God by defining what understanding of the truth is correct. The reality is that I am not God and can't play arbitor of his grace. To poorly paraphrase Luther, I'm just one beggar asking another where I can find bread. I pray that as I continue to seek out truth and grace in community, I may find individuals compassionate enough to speak to me in understanding and with civility.
Rob
10:14 PM
Ohh good, I am glad it is not a direct comment on your church. I really believe that someone like you should be doing his absolute best to support his lay people. It would suck if every time you walked into a room they tried to get away from you. They need all the help and support that they can get.
you are right though. There is nothing more dumb then looking up a reference and finding out it does not exist. Kinda blows the whole sermon out the window.
7:49 AM
Sorry if you take things as a slam or anything Rob. I didn't mean to call names or anything. If I came across as too strong or too judgemental, I apologise.
The bottom line though still stands. You claim that Borg, or Brueggeman, or whoever is a respected scholar and trumpet their 'higher critical method'. That's fine and you're welcome to listen to what they have to say...but they're not the ONLY scholars out there. I can trumpet Charles Lee Fineberg, or BB Warfield, or Cornelius Van Til, or whoever else categorically rejected the 'higher critical method' and embraced the hermeneutic of trust.
You're presuppositions of evolution over revelation are as completely unfounded as my own belief in revelation. You have FAITH in the things you believe. I have FAITH too. Let's not let this debate get clouded over.
I, like you, am a beggar looking for bread. I simply don't start with myself, or men in general. I START with God and his revelation. THAT is my epistemic and metaphysical presupposition. I don't have to justify it either, for it's exactly that: a presupposition.
From what I can gather from what you say, you start with a presupposition of mankind being an autonomous thinker. You look at what Borg and Brueggeman (and whoever else) say and weigh their claims on the scales of your reason. I simply seek to point out the inherent contradiction in your own reasoning.
Does it not seem to stand to reason that, in matters of ultimate reality and truth, only God can declare what is and is not the case? If so, then wouldn't any attempt at making such a claim BE an attempt to sit in God's Throne?
If I am wrong Rob, straighten me out. I'm sorry if you take this the wrong way, but that seems to be the only logical conclusion from what I understand your presuppositions to be. I'm sorry if I don't seem compassionate or civil. I'll try to calm down myself and set an example for Leenis.
But the question still stands. Any thoughts?
11:32 AM
Oh, and I don't really understand your comment on the narrowness of God. What exactly does that mean? Please explain.
11:35 AM
So it seems I am ignorant on a few levels. "How?" you may (or may not) be asking yourself. ...I don't take the time to sort through the issues at hand. And, I comment on the things that I observe. Such is the case with my previous comments. In this case I was ignorant about the historical criticism view of biblical interpretation, presuppositions, hermaneutics, contradictions, etc etc. And when I am ignorant about certain topics (like those brought up in this post and comment section) I tend to be very simple-minded and blunt. Call it, if you will, the "lay-person approach." The expert in the fields previously mentioned may find me offensive because of my ignorance.
I have no problem stating my opinions, ignorant and offensive as you may find them. If it smells like fromalin, I assume that a cadaver is near by. If it smells like burning, I assume that there is a fire nearby. If it smells like perfume, I assume that a beautiful woman is nearby. If I am walking in a "no-leash park" and step on something gooey, I assume I have dog poop on my shoes. But in each one of these cases, the expert in each of these fields will see things differently. Even the language they use will differ from the common folk: the mortician can talk technical about death, the fireman about the technical aspects of fires, the "ladies man" about his woman, etc, AND the theologian/philosopher can talk about God and theology so that no one else can understand. There is a seperation between the expert and the lay person.
But in my opinion, the best expert is one that can relate with even the ignorant. I could impress you with all the medical terminology that I have learned. But if I cannot relate and communicate with my patient, what good is the language that I use?
If I read something (as an ignorant) that SEEMINGLY says alot about not too much, I assume that the author has his head in the clouds. In actual fact, the opposite MAY be true. Appartently this approach is offensive to some.
I don't know what the "true spirit of the Hegelian dialectic" is. I guess I am, once again, just plain ignorant. I can be very tolerant of many things. Verbal diarrhea isn't one of those things that I am tolerant of. In this case, I see I have hit a chord. I never expected that someone would take such offense to my comments.
I should have presented my opinion (or apparent truth) in love. So Rob, I appologize. I will try to be more sensitive next time.
Armchair Theologian, it is true that I have stated my opinions without getting all excited like. I am calm. However, it seems I need to be more sensitive at times. It is true... "Jesus will endure."
Sincerely,
Leenis
1:40 PM
Leenis, you are certainly right to be wary of empty pseudo-intellectual pseudo-theological language. That is in fact the game of the "new theology". They attempt with great swirling words to decieve, while they themselves are beinbg decieved. (That last is Paul's position by the way, not my own independent rambling).
As usual Lyndon has cleary and succinctly stated and defended the gospel. Thanks for your encouragement to your fellow believers in Christ.
6:41 AM
Hey C.W.
Heres a quote to ponder, "No one is so terribly deceived as he who does not suspect it". Soren Kierkegaard
3:59 PM
Ironically, that blade cuts both ways...it's interesting how some people think they're slashing their opponents when they're actually comitting seppuku...or something?!
10:35 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home