Name: Stephen

Email:

Posts by stephen:

John Knox Contends

February 13th, 2009

A Brief Study on the Historical Background, Introduction, and Arguments Concerning the First Syllogism (of 2) of Reformer John Knox’s Defense of His View that the Roman Catholic Mass is Idolatry to the Bishop of Durham in 1550

(Quotes from John Knox are taken from Selected Writings of John Knox: Public Epistles, Treatises, and Expositions to the Year 1559).

Now, let’s go smack dab into the middle of the Reformation. Enjoy!

On 10 April 1547, in order to escape possible arrest as a heretic, Knox and his students entered the Castle of St. Andrews, where he continued his teaching duties. Within a few weeks of Knox’s arrival in the castle, the leaders of the rebel group, at the suggestion of their minister John Rough, invited Knox to be Rough’s associate.

On 31 July 1547, the garrison at the castle surrendered to the French, and Knox was condemned to the galleys. During his time as a galley slave, his masters attempted without success to force Knox and his fellow Scots to abandon the Reformed faith. Released from the galleys in 1549, Knox went to England, where he became rector of the parish at Berwick.

His sermons there reflected his growing antagonism toward the Roman Catholic Mass, and as a result of his preaching, Knox was summoned by the bishop of Durham to defend his views that the Roman Catholic Mass was idolatry.

On April 4, 1550, Knox said: “This day I do appear in your presence, honourable audience, to give a reason why so constantly I do affirm the Mass to be, and at all times to have been, idolatry and abomination before God.” Similar to the famous line from Martin Luther, Knox said, “For unless I evidently prove my intent by God’s holy scriptures, I will recant it as wicked doctrine, and confess myself most worthy of grievous punishment.”

Knox began with acknowledging the people’s perception of the Mass as great, holy, and honoring of God. But in his usual scathing way he likened the “great advantage” Demetrius gained in his move against Paul with the great gain the priests have had with the Mass. In an attempt to further awaken the audience of their idolatry, he pictured how shocked the Diana worshippers might have felt when they heard that her honor was in jeopardy when the gospel was preached in Ephesus. But prior to delivering his arguments, John Knox opened in prayer:

“O Lord eternal! move and govern my tongue to speak the verity, and the hearts of thy people to understand and obey the same.”

His defense was presented in two syllogisms, some additional arguments, and some final remarks. The first syllogism was:

The Mass is Idolatry.

All worshipping, honouring, or service invented by the brain of man in the religion of God, without his own express commandment, is idolatry.

The Mass is invented by the brain of man, without any commandment of God;

Therefore it is idolatry.

Knox began in his classic hard-hitting style saying, “For probation of the first part, I will adduce none of the Gentiles’ sacrifices, in which, notwithstanding, was less abomination than has been in the Mass; but of God’s scriptures I will bring forth the witnesses of my words.”

He used the common knowledge of the Gentiles’ idolatrous sacrifices and placed the Mass greater in extent on the scale of abomination. He then moved to the example of Samuel calling Saul foolish, quoting Samuel from 1 Samuel 13 saying, “thou hast not observed the precepts of the Lord, which he commanded thee.”

Knox gives the illustration of Saul’s offense, pointing out that it was not a blatant, gross, heinous crime like adultery or murder, but that it was done in what would seem to be “good intent.” He shows how Saul offered burnt offerings to appease God because Samuel was not present to do so. Enemies were approaching, Samuel was not present, so Saul went ahead and offered burnt and peace offerings to God (although Samuel was the principal prophet and high priest). But since Saul was not of the tribe of Levi, and since only the tribe of Levi was told to make such sacrifices, Saul’s act was a “most high” abomination before God, “as the punishment appears.”

Knox said, “Consider well that no excuses are admitted by God: [such] as that his enemies approached, and his own people departed from him; he could not have a lawful minister, and gladly would have been reconciled to God, and consulted with him of the end and chance of that journey; and therefore he, the king, anointed by God’s commandment, makes sacrifice. But none of all these [excuses] were admitted by God; but Saul was pronounced foolish and vain. For no honouring knows God, nor will [he] accept, without it having the express commandment of his own word to be done in all points. And no commandment was given unto the king to make or offer unto God any manner of sacrifice: which, because he took upon him to do, he and his posterity were deprived from all honours in Israel.”

Remember, John Knox is defending his view that the Roman Catholic Mass is idolatry. Boldly, he uses this example of Saul (and another one) and says to them: “Disobedience to God’s voice is not only when man does wickedly contrary to the precepts of God, but also when of good zeal, or good intent (as we commonly speak), man does anything to the honour or service of God not commanded by the express word of God, as in the matter plainly may be espied.”

Knox uses another example of God’s furious wrath when sacrifices are made to him apart from what he has commanded. He uses Nadab and Abihu the sons of Aaron and their offering of “strange fire” as recorded in Leviticus 10:1-3. Knox explains that the strange fire “was a common fire, and not of that fire which God had commanded to burn day and night upon the altar of burnt sacrifice, which only ought to have been offered unto God.” Just as the audience is picturing God destroying these two men, John Knox shouts, “O bishops! you should have kept this fire: at morning and at evening ought you to have laid fagots thereupon; yourselves ought to have cleansed and carried away the ashes; but God shall behold.”

Knox uses this example to show that Nadab and Abihu the principle priests next to Aaron, their father, were “neither in adultery, covetousness, nor desire of worldly honour, but of a good zeal and simple intent were making sacrifice ­ desiring no profit of the people thereby, but to honour God and to mitigate his wrath. And yet in the doing of this selfsame act and sacrifice were they consumed away with fire. Whereof it is plain, that neither the preeminence of the person or man that makes or sets up any religion, without the express commandment of God, nor yet the intent whereof he does the same, is accepted before God.”

After a number of biblical arguments, Knox ends part one of his arguments saying, “…I think, the first part of my argument sufficiently proved: which is, that all worshipping, honouring, or service of God invented by the brain of man (in the religion of God), without his own express commandment, is idolatry.”

He then goes on to part two, which is, that the Mass is an invention of man. After discussing some objections that assert that the Mass comes from the Hebrew “Missa,” Knox goes on to dismiss them on the grounds that they lack evidence. He then attempts to prove that the Mass came from man, beginning with Pope Sixtus.

Pointing out that the Mass allows the eating of the bread but restricts the drinking of the cup to the clergy, Knox says, “you permitted all to eat of the bread, but of the cup you reserved to you ­ clipped in the crowns [heads] and anointed upon the fingers. And in pain of your anathema ­ of your great cursing ­ you forbade that any laity presume to drink thereof. But tell me, Papists, were the apostles clipped and besmeared as you are? Or will you say that the congregation of the Corinthians were Papist priests? I think you will not. And yet they all drank of the cup, like as they ate of the bread. Mark, brethren, that of Christ’s own words they make alteration.”

John Knox, apparently feeling like he’s beating a dead horse after several lengthy arguments closes part two of the first syllogism saying, “I think it is in vain to labour further to prove the rest of this abominable action to be invented and devised by the foolish brain of man, and so it cannot be denied to be idolatry.” He decides to move to the second syllogism from here wherein he aims to prove the Mass is an abomination before God.

5 Comments "

Francis Schaeffer Explains Raphael’s The School of Athens

November 9th, 2008



“The Renaissance is normally dated at the fourteenth, fifteenth, and early sixteenth centuries, but to understand it we must look at events which led up to this, especially its philosophical antecedents during the Middle Ages. And that means considering in a bit more detail the thought of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Aquinas was a Dominican. He studied at the universities of Naples and Paris, and later he taught in Paris. He was the outstanding theologian of his day and his thinking is still dominant in some circles of the Roman Catholic Church. Aquinas’s contribution to Western thought is, of course, much richer than we can discuss here, but his view of man demands our attention. Aquinas held that man had revolted against God and thus was fallen, but Aquinas had an incomplete view of the Fall. He thought that the Fall did not affect man as a whole but only in part. In his view the will was fallen or corrupted but the intellect was not affected. Thus people could rely on their own human wisdom, and this meant that people were free to mix the teachings of the Bible with the teachings of the non-Christian philosophers.

Among the Greek philosophers, Thomas Aquinas relied especially on one of the greatest, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). In 1263 Pope Urban IV had forbidden the study of Aristotle in the universities. Aquinas managed to have Aristotle accepted, so the ancient non-Christian philosophy was reenthroned.

To understand what result this had, it is worthwhile to look at Raphael’s (1483-1520) painting The School of Athens (c. 1510) to comprehend some of the discussions and influences which followed in the Renaissance period. The fresco is in the Vatican. In The School of Athens Raphael painted Plato with one finger pointed upward, which means that he pointed toward absolutes or ideals. In contrast, he pictured Aristotle with his fingers spread wide and thrust down toward the earth, which means that he emphasized particulars. By particulars we mean the individual things which are about us; a chair is a particular, as is each molecule which makes up the chair, and so on. The individual person is also a particular and thus you are a particular. Thomas Aquinas brought this Aristotelian emphasis on individual things-the particulars-into the philosophy of the late Middle Ages, and this set the stage for the humanistic elements of the Renaissance and the basic problem they created.”

To view Raphael’s masterpiece in full, click here.

No Comments "

Theological Contextualization

November 6th, 2008

A term that is used quite frequently in certain theological circles is the term “contextualization.” Contextualization is a term that describes the process between the exegesis of Scripture and the delivery of its meaning to a receptor culture (i.e. another context). Grant R. Osborne (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen), Professor of NT at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School defines contextualization as “that dynamic process which interprets the significance of a religion or cultural norm for a group with a different (or developed) cultural heritage” (The Hermeneutical Spiral, pg. 318). Much of the novel fascination we see with contextualization has to do with the recent theories put forth and presented by missiologists. But as Osborne points out “it is important to note that what they call ‘contextualization’ is identical to what homileticians call ‘application’” (Ibid. pg. 318).

In this post I hope to use examples of some of the blasphemous theology in Africa that developed from radical nonevangelical hermeneutics in attempts to “contextualize.” Friends, this has been going on for quite some time now - at least a quarter-century, maybe longer. These African examples should awaken us to the severe implications of when the transcendent, supracultural nature of biblical truth is replaced by the primacy of current cultural context. For the record, I am not opposed to contextualization. In fact, I am doing it here, and I can’t remember a time when I didn’t ever do it. The degree that our contextualization retains and preserves biblical truth should be the degree that it is praised and encouraged. And the degree to which it compromises biblical truth should be the degree it is rejected. I’ll put it more forceful and say that it must be rejected.

I plan, and if God wills, to publish some work I’ve done in this field in the future. But today, I want to serve you by discussing some of these African theologies. As we look at these examples, keep in mind that their concepts and syncretism are really no more blasphemous, idolatrous, and demonic than what we see here in America on TV, in our churches, in our homes, and for some (if not most), in ourselves! If you are shocked at how far wrong they’ve gone, then take an introspective perspective and by God’s grace he’ll loosen and unfetter you, and if He wills, release you from your slavery to your apathy.

First, you may recall some of the controversy surrounding Bible translations such as the NIV et al. One issue was with “dynamic equivalency.” This term refers to the translator’s task of translating thought-for-thought rather than word-for-word or literal (formal equivalency). A good example is given by James R. White (Alpha and Omega Ministries) when he points out that “[T]he French have a saying that goes ‘j’ ai le carfard.” The most literal translation would be, ‘I have the cockroach.’” (The King James Only Controversy, pg. 23) White goes on to say that “[s]pecifically, this saying means ‘I am depressed’ or ‘I have the blues.’” In short, a dynamic equivalence translation (or contextualization) is needed in this case in order to preserve the meaning (I’m depressed - not I have an insect) from French to English. He also provides another example from the German language, but you will need to buy the book yourself for that! Of course, he was addressing issues in Bible (language) translations, and we are not. But this, I think, is relevant because the theoretical concept of dynamic equivalency is not limited to use in language barriers, but is applied in modern efforts to contextualize the Christian faith, namely, the gospel.

“The recent missiological debate centers upon ‘dynamic equivalence’ contextualization, which attempts to make the gospel and Christian theology meaningful and relevant in the diverse cultures of our modern world. Many approaches to contextualization have centered upon the contemporary context rather than the ancient text as the generating force” (Osborne, pg. 321)

Charles Kraft, taking a similar approach to Charles R. Taber, says the Bible centers upon the subjective pole of communication (divine-human interactions) more than upon the objective pole of propositional dogma (Christianity in Culture, see chapter ten). Kraft’s entire theoretical superstructure is erected upon this foundation (chaps. thirteen to seventeen). I agree closely with Kraft in that contemporary translations (of Scripture and theology) must achieve the same impact upon the receptor culture as was felt by the original readers, but I side closer with Osborne in that Kraft’s application of dynamic equivalence to the task of communicating theology needs to be considerably sharpened. Osborne notes that “[t]here is too little of the text left when Kraft finishes, too little that is supracultural. The Bible as he sees it is too culture bound, with too little theological truth that carries over” (Osborne, pg. 322). In a sense, this is how i view Keller’s “gospel for the uncircumcised.” (not his overall ministry)

I appreciate Grant Osborne’s boldness in stating that Charles Kraft and other dynamic equivalence contextualizers need a deeper appreciation of the dangers of relativism. Osborne continues to critique relativistic nonevangelical contextualizers such as James Barr who argued that “the Bible is a relativistic book that was written to a radically different culture with a message that cannot possibly be authoritative for the modern person because it is couched in terms that no longer relate to current problems and perspectives (1973:42-23)” (Ibid. pg. 323). Barr’s view represents a decline in the sliding scale of relativism, much more than Kraft, but there is far greater danger ahead.

This brief groundwork was simply to establish the need for concern and return to evangelical hermeneutics. As we’ve seen, relativism and syncretism are firmly in control of nonevangelical contextualization. Osborne says, “Without controls that center upon the meaning of the text, one will contextualize to a religious expression that is no longer Christian…When cultural norms have ascendancy over the text itself, there is no longer theology but only a human-centered anthropology.” Again, much of my critique of Keller’s “gospel for the uncircumcised” can be better understood in terms of these severe statements by our top scholars (Carl F. Henry, D.A. Carson, John Frame, Vanhoozer, John Woodbridge, Moises Silva, Doug Moo, Blomberg, France, Dunbar, Wells, et al.) that all seem to be saying much of the same.

Now to Africa. According to Grant LeMarquand (Wycliffe College, Toronto, Canada), “In contrast to most Western exegesis we find that most African exegesis focuses on the community receiving the text rather that the community which produced the text.”  Immediately we can see how the intended meaning of the authors of Scripture can be so radically obscured to the point where almost any idea can develop and still be called biblical or Christian. Since exegesis of this fashion is only limited by the receptor audience, then it should be no surprise to extrapolate theology through this filter and have as a final product a theology to fit the receptor culture.

Gabriel Setiloane is a good example of a nonevangelical contextualized theology, or as it is called, a “purely African theology.” Setiloane’s view is that African theology should center upon African spiritual concepts and divinity rather than Western religious images. Osborne notes that in Setiloane’s theology, “the individual is presented as a ‘participant in divinity’ (a contextualization building upon animism), and the Christ-myth is expressed via the African Bongaka, or ‘witch doctor,’ who is possessed by divinity.” In researching this myself, I found that Osborne may have made a mistake in equating “Bongaka” with “witch doctor.” It appears that the witch doctor is the “dingaka,” a role in which “Bangaka” is the practice or craft.

According to Gomang Seratwa Ntloedibe-Kuswani’s essay “Bongaka, Women and Witchcraft,” “The arrival of the Europeans and the introduction of their concepts and world-view over Batswana have resulted in the attempt to equate dingaka (plural) to Western trained doctors. It is doubtful if the concepts of the ngaka (diviner-healer) and the Western doctor are equivalent. If these concepts are not equivalent, then injustice might have been done to either or both.” Ntloedibe-Kuswani has made a distinction between two classes of witch doctors (there are more now), a distinction perhaps the European missionaries didn’t understand. The point is that although one class of witch doctor functioned in African communities similar to the way Western trained doctors functioned, the overlooked class - the divine class - cannot be considered equal to a western “physician.” In order to see the full picture we need to follow the distinction and briefly discuss the concept of ngaka. In case you’re wondering where this is going, ngaka is the concept that Jesus the Christ is interpreted through in some African theologies (in America it’s Kierkegaard and other philosophers).

The best way to describe this gap between the Western doctor and the concept of ngaka is the divination aspect of the ngaka’s work. “The distinctive characteristic of the ngaka with power is that he/she is a diviner [Krige and Krige, 1943].” Ntloedibe-Kuswani says, “Batswana see a ‘diviner-healer’ as peculiar in the sense that ‘ga a botse o a bolela’ (he/she does not ask for the problem but he/she tells what the problem is), the source of his/her healing is divine, and that there is faith in his/her work. To quote one of my informants ‘Ngaka ya Setswana e dira ka tumelo’, meaning ‘a Motswana healer works by faith’. It is the divination exercise that creates a gap between the ngaka and a Western doctor. The ngaka’s function is not only healing in the sense of physical illness but also in the sense of spiritual illness. Attending physical symptoms and causes does not complete the mission of the ngaka. Divination is an act in which people are moved by what they feel and believe to be their experience of the sacred or the transcendental power [Werbner, 1989]. It is the divination dimension that brings the ordinary/the profane - the person of the ngaka - into contact with the sacred. Then the ngaka becomes an object or a hierophany serving as a medium of the sacred power.”

It is obvious from a Biblical Christian perspective that the concept and power of ngaka is demonic. Nothing but raw occultism is on display, and this cultural phenomenon cannot in any way re-express the normative biblical content in dogmatic symbols that communicate biblical truths to their own culture. The only useful aspect of this deep-rooted ancestral connection to the spiritual realm through the ngaka is to use it as an example of idolatry and darkness - a repentance item. A friend of mine that went to Africa and interviewed an African Christian pastor told me that the pastor grieved over the situation and summed the whole thing up by saying that step one is for Africans to admit that their ancestors were wrong.

This post was written shortly after I read this.

5 Comments "

The Apostle Paul’s Prayer for the Philippians

November 5th, 2008

Part 1 of a study on Paul’s Prayer for the Philippians.

“I thank my God every time I remember you. In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God’s grace with me. God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.

And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ-to the glory and praise of God.” - Philippians 1:3-11 (ESV)

The love that Paul prays for is not an end but rather a means to an end, namely, that they may discern and approve what is best.  Many times in the New Testament we read of the necessity of love in order for situations in the local church to bear fruit that honors and glorifies God.  We also read of the necessity of love in order for a healthy church environment to bear fruit toward one another (i.e. spiritual gifts).  But this passage provides tremendous insight for the God-fearer that desires to grow and mature spiritually rather than remain stagnant in nominal Christian mediocrity.  It also addresses and puts to shame the folly of those that say that love is all you need, it’s all about love, and various other hippy slogans left over from the sixties.

As D.A. Carson points out in A Call to Spiritual Reformation: Priorities from Paul and His Prayers, a book that I will heavily lean on for this post, “Paul does not expect excellence to be dropped on the church in a package.  He prays that believers may discern and approve what is best, that is, that they may experientially test and thereby approve what is best (pg. 125).”  Carson then asks the question, “But what are these distinguishing things, these excellent things for which Paul prays?”  He goes on to provide three clues given by the text that will help us answer the question.

1. In order to discern and approve what is best, Paul assumes that their love will have to “abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight.” This appears to be the reason why he prays for such love. This indicates that the excellence that he wants the Philippians to pursue is not an excellence so easily discerned and that it must be done by Christians that are characterized by this abounding love. Paul seems to believe that it is necessary to describe this abounding love as “more and more in knowledge and depth of insight.” Carson notes, “Perhaps we will get Paul’s point rather quickly if we replace the phrase with the opposite qualities.” Paul does not pray that their love might:

a. abound more and more in ignorance and insensitivity;

b. abound more and more in stupidity and ham-fistedness;

c. abound more and more in cheap sentimentality and myopic nostalgia.

The ever increasing love that Paul prays for is to be discriminating and constrained by “knowledge” and “depth of insight.”  I agree with Carson here when he says, “Without the constraints of knowledge and insight, love very easily degenerates into mawkish sentimentality or into the kind of mushy pluralism the world often confuses with love.”  One of the recurring themes here at stfmag.com is that Christian love is accompanied by knowledge.  As I previously mentioned, right thinking is right living and right living is right thinking.  If the Christian life was only about the acquisition of knowledge, and if faith was merely mental assent to the knowledge acquired, then love would be of no true benefit - it would only get in the way.  But here in Ph. 1 and many other places in the NT, Paul makes it clear that without this love, all is meaningless.  So, clue number one is that love must abound more and more, not a “so-called” love by itself, but in knowledge and depth of insight.

2. Clue number two is found in the expression rendered “what is best” (v. 10 NIV). Is Paul praying that love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight only? Remember how clue number one began; in order to discern and approve what is best. So the answer would be no - Paul is not praying that the Philippian believers’ love abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight alone. It is so that they may discern and approve what is best! According to Carson, scholars have debated whether the expression (Gk: ta diapheronta) means something like “things that differ” or “superior things.”

a. The first option means Paul wants believers to grow in their love “in order that they may put to the proof things that differ;”

b. The second means Paul wants believers to grow in their love “in order to discern and approve [i.e., to test] superior things, the things that really matter.”

Carson does not believe that these two notions are as far apart as some think.  He says, “Paul’s thought is that there are countless decisions in life where it is not a question of making a straightforward decision between right and wrong.  What you need is extraordinary discernment that helps you perceive how things differ, and then make the best possible choice.  That is what Paul means by choosing ‘what is best.’  His point thus far, then, is that love shaped and honed by knowledge and moral insight is the absolute requirement for testing and approving ‘what is best,’ for developing ‘a sense of what is vital’ (Moffatt).”  So as we desire to grow into Christian maturity, we must recognize that some, if not many important decisions in life will need to be made against a backdrop that is not a clearly right or clearly wrong scenario.  Acknowledging this causes us to be aware that an “extraordinary discernment” is essential in choosing “what is best!”

3. The third clue that will help us understand the content of “what is best,” is the content of the excellent things for which Paul prays. Carson says, “This clue is none other than one of the dominant themes in this entire epistle.” He goes on to note that “Paul does not envisage mere maintenance of the Philippians’ faith, but positive improvement in their discipleship, until it is capped by the perfection effected by the last day, the day of Jesus Christ.” Carson gets this from verse 6 where Paul says that he always prays for the Philippians with joy because he is confident “that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” “Paul’s confidence that the Lord will bring about such growth does not in the least diminish the need for personal resolution to grow.”

“Thus, two chapters later the apostle testifies to his own aim: ‘I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain the resurrection of the dead’ (3:10-11).  Then he explains just where he sees himself in this process: ‘Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.  Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it.  But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus’ (3:11-14)”

Interestingly enough, this section of Carson’s book [Ch. 8] is titled “Overcoming the Hurdles.”  He concludes this section by saying that when we “bring these three clues together, the nature of the excellent things Paul wants believers to pursue, of ‘what is best,’ comes into focus.  These excellent things are nothing less than all the elements characteristic of maturing Christian discipleship, and we cannot discern and approve them unless our love abounds more and more in knowledge and depth of insight.”

Carson goes on to say, “‘What is best’ includes increasing experience of the power of the resurrection and increasing participation in Christ’s sufferings.  Above all, these excellent things result in a growing knowledge of Jesus Christ (Phil. 3:10), in anticipation of the day of Christ when all of God’s good work in us is brought to culmination.”

“The pursuit of such excellence does not turn on transparent distinctions between right and wrong.  It turns, rather, on delicate choices that reflect one’s entire value system, one’s entire set of priorities, one’s heart and mind.  That is why Paul prays that the love of the Philippians might abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight: he wants their hearts and minds to become profoundly Christian, for otherwise they will not discern and approve what is best.”

To be continued, God willing…

No Comments "