Archive for the ‘C Michael Patton’ Category

Special Creation is a Key Part of the Gospel – not a "Taint"

March 29, 2013

Special Creation is a Key Part of the Gospel – not a “Taint” (to build on my previous post). Special creation is something frequently mentioned by both apostolic-era preachers and apostolic era-books.

Stephen’s Sermon
Acts 7:48-51
Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things? Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Judged by the standard of short-term pragmatism, one might argue that Stephen’s sermon was not very effective (he was killed at the end of the sermon). Then again, Paul (then Saul of Tarsus) apparently was there witnessing it and was later converted.

And Paul himself made special creation a prominent part of his messages:

Paul’s Sermon in Lycaonia
Acts 14:15
And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:

Paul’s Sermon on Mars’ Hill
Acts 17:24-26
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

And Paul did not hesitate to mention it in his letter to the Corinthians:

Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians
1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Moreover, the doctrine gets top billing in both John’s Gospel and the book of Hebrews:

Book of John
John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Book of Hebrews
Hebrews 1:1-2
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Hebrews 2:10
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.


Some of the Counsel of God is a "Taint" to the Rest?

March 29, 2013

Michael Patton seems to be continuing his downward spiral. In a new post, he writes:

The historic message of the Bible needs to take precedence over the theological nature of the Bible. And here is where I feel we Evangelicals, in our zeal and love for the Bible, taint the Gospel with unnecessary additions. These additions, more often than not, drag us down rabbit trails where we can end up losing Jesus altogether as we defend against thousands of claims of Bible contradictions.

This is really unbelievable. The theological nature of the Bible, outside some core represents a “taint” that risks “losing Jesus”? Contrast that with:

Acts 20:27
For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

Deuteronomy 8:3
And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Psalm 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

And what do the Scripture teach about Jesus?

Hebrews 1:1-2
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Much more could be added, but inspiration and special creation are two of the things that Scripture teaches us about Jesus Christ. So, Patton should not consider these theological points either “unnecessary additions” or a “taint.”


Mr. Patton, Your Anecdotes don’t Provide a Biblical Argument

March 25, 2013

Sadly, Michael Patton has decided to double down on his attack on the fundamental importance of Special Creation and Inerrancy with a new post titled “FORGET ABOUT EVOLUTION AND INERRANCY (FOR A MINUTE).”

Patton doesn’t offer any Biblical or even logical argument for his position. He just provides two anecdotes of people who were allegedly persuaded to set aside their concerns about evolution or inerrancy and consequently became Christians. Patton writes:

These two stories are illustrations of the importance of keeping to the “make or break” issues of our faith when sharing the Gospel. The issue of origins and inspiration and inerrancy are very important. We eventually need to discuss them. But they are not ”make or break issues.” And they can be used to sidetrack the Gospel into endless and fruitless debate. They can often keep you from getting to Christ. The two people above may have never really heard an actual argument for the Gospel. They were both intellectual types who were ready to debate so many things that did not matter. I don’t need to convince an unbeliever that the Bible is inspired or inerrant. The issue of evolution does not matter if it is only keeping you from sharing the Gospel. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes people will have legitimate hang-ups about these and other things that need to be dealt with. But sometimes we need to deal with them by explaining that they have no bearing on whether Jesus rose from the grave. Once we establish Christ’s resurrection, you can get back to those things. But in our apologetics, we need to do everything we can to get to the historicity of the resurrection.

That’s very clearly an appeal to expediency and pragmatism. But the argument lacks the necessary foundation to be anything more than an assertion and two anecdotes.

For example, Patton hasn’t provided any revelation from God in support of his conclusion that special creation and inerrancy aren’t make-or-break issues.

Likewise, Patton has not actually engaged in scientific experiment – providing controlled comparisons between consistent, uncompromising evangelism and evangelism of the kind that Patton seems to prefer.

All that said – as with the previous post, not everything Patton says is wrong.  It can be useful to get people to stop focusing on the excuses they are making for not addressing the central gospel issues of creation, sin, and redemption (accomplished and applied).

In fact, there are non-compromising ways of handling those excuses.  I recall reading Eusebius responding to an objection that Jesus was raised from the dead too soon – the sign of Jonah was “three days and three nights,” whereas Jesus was risen before Sunday night.  He simply and quickly identified the absurdity of the objection (see how), without setting aside things like Biblical inerrancy.


Michael Patton – Wrong 6 out of 8 Times

March 21, 2013

Michael Patton’s recent post, “Eight Issues that Do NOT Make or Break Christianity” is not his finest moment. Of the eight positions he picks, six are issues that go to the fundamentals of the faith, to wit (using his numbers):

1 . Young Earth Creationism

You don’t have to agree with every argument or every position from Answers in Genesis, but special creation as a matter of historical fact is a fundamental aspect of the Christian faith and a doctrine plainly taught in Scripture.

2. The authorship of the Pastoral Epistles

The pastoral epistles clearly state their authorship (see vs. 1 of each of them). It may not be a fundamental of the faith in itself, but it is a plain teaching of the text.

3. The inerrancy of Scripture

The Scriptures are the Word of God. God does not make errors.

4. Whether the flood covered entire earth

The Scriptures plainly teach that the flood did cover the entire earth. While this issue is not as fundamental as special creation, the significance of the Noahic covenant is very significant.

6. The inspiration of Scripture

The doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures is fundamental to the faith and is plainly taught.

8. The theory of evolution

Rejection of the theory of evolution is necessary in view of the plainly taught doctrine of special creation.

The only two points on which Patton was correct were:

5. The character witness of Christians

Christianity is about Christ, not about his followers. We are not disciples of anyone but God. If we were disciples of someone else, that person’s character could be in question, but we are not.

7. The unity of Christianity

Christian unity will be complete in the kingdom to come. It is incomplete now for many reasons, but chiefly because God has chosen that it will be incomplete now.

Oh, and even about the two he gets right, on #7 he claims:

It is important to note that all of orthodox Christianity has always been united on many things. There is a certain perspicuity (clarity) to the Scripture which has brought about this universal unity. We call this the regula fide or the canon veritas. It is simply an expression of orthodox belief, arguing that there are certain beliefs shared by all Christians, everywhere, at every point in history. There are too many things to list, but in essence we all agree on the person and work of Christ.

Obviously, I don’t speak for Patton or whatever group he associates with, but for us (as for Thomas Aquinas) “only canonical Scripture is the rule of faith.” There are many plain teachings in Scripture, to be sure, and generally speaking true believers agree on them (although human tradition is a powerful distorter). But Christianity unity is chiefly about unity in Christ – in the fact that we each have union with Christ through faith in Him. Thus, by faith we are the body of Christ, a fact we celebrate when we remember the Lord’s death until he comes.

Note well – I’m not saying that Christians must have a correct understanding about the six things above in order to be saved. The way to be saved is by trusting in Christ alone for salvation, as he is presented in the Gospel. People can be saved with numerous doctrinal errors, even about very important points on which compromise is impossible.

Patton writes: “I have seen too many people who walk away from the faith due to their trust in some non-essential issue coming unglued.” Of course, as a Calvinist, I’m well aware of the fact that people who walk away from “the faith” do so either on a temporary basis (as I hope and pray is the case for Jason Stellman) or because they were never one of us.


Response to C. Michael Patton on the Divine Decrees and Hyper-Calvinism

January 8, 2010

C. Michael Patton has a new post entitled, Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding. Unfortunately, Patton’s post actually promotes a misunderstanding and confuses a few categories.

First, the promotion of a misunderstanding. Patton states: “Supralapsarianism literally means “before or above the fall” (supra=”above”; lapse=”fall”). This is the form of Calvinism that is often called “hyper-Calvinism” (“hyper being an adj not a noun) because of its radical nature. It is held by very few Calvinists, and does not represent so-called “Evangelical Calvinism.””

While it is sometimes called hyper-calvinism, that description is inaccurate. It is also inaccurate to refer to supralapsarianism as having a “radical nature” and while Patton may have met few supralapsarian Calvinists, I have met many. One of the most prominent supralapsarian Calvinists was William Twisse, who served as the Prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly.

While hyper-calvinism (properly defined) is contrary to evangelical Calvinism, supralapsarianism is perfectly consistent with the Gospel. Hyper-calvinism, properly defined, is a position that combines incompatibilism and divine sovereignty. In other words, like Arminians, hyper-Calvinists (properly defined) deny that it is possible for men to be responsible and for God to be fully sovereign. However, instead of denying that God is fully sovereign, hyper-Calvinists deny that man is responsible. Thus, they generally do not proclaim the gospel and do not preach that is the duty of sinners to repent of their sins and trust in Christ.

There are also a number of non-technical definitions of hyper-Calvinism, such as those set forth in Phil Johnson’s primer on hyper-calvinism (link to his primer). Phil Johnson there proposes a five-fold test of hyper-calvinism. Johnson’s five-fold test relates to forms of Calvinism that have particular scruples, such as scruples relating to using the expression “common grace” (opponents say we should use the term “grace” only of saving grace), “free offer” (opponents say we should not call the gospel an “offer”), or “love of God for the reprobate” (opponents say we should not refer to God’s dealings with the reprobate in terms of “love”). While I don’t think calling folks that have such scruples “hyper-calvinists” is very productive (in fact, it tends to generate lots of unnecessary strife among Christian brethren), none of those scruples is inherent in supralapsarianism.

Phil Johnson’s article also notes the following definition of hyper-calvinism (I provide his citation and his editorial note in brackets]:

    1. [Hyper-Calvinism] is a system of theology framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners . . . It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect. . . .
    2. It is that school of supralapsarian ‘five-point’ Calvinism [n.b.—a school of supralapsarianism, not supralapsarianism in general] which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will of God and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of sinners, notably with respect to the denial of the use of the word “offer” in relation to the preaching of the gospel; thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them; and it encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect. [Peter Toon, “Hyper-Calvinism,” New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1988), 324.]

This dictionary definition provides what I’ve termed the “proper” definition as the first definition. The second definition is like unto it, and its qualification is emphasized by Johnson. As the second definition indicates, hyper-calvinism (properly defined) is normally a subset of supralapsarianism. While there is nothing intrinsic to supralapsarianism that leads to hyper-calvinism, hyper-calvinism’s emphasis on God’s sovereignty and hyper-calvinism’s lack of consideration of man’s responsibility tends to lead to adopting a supralapsarian order of decrees.

Unfortunately, Patton seems incompletely familiar with the theological usage of the term hyper-calvinism. Thus, he has sadly mislabeled evangelical and confessional Calvinists like Twisse as “hyper-calvinists” without an adequate justification.

Second, the confusion of categories. Patton states:

Most Calvinists have a theology that makes it very clear that God is not responsible for the creation of evil and did not institute the fall in order to accomplish his purpose of reprobation. In other words, he did not create people for hell.

There are several category problems here.

First, “evil” is an idea, not a thing. In its primary sense, evil describes every moral action or omission that is contrary to the law of God. In its secondary sense, evil describes those creatures who do evil or who are inclined toward evil by their nature. Talking about God “creating evil” is to reify evil. God does not do evil, but some of his creation does. On this, all Calvinists (including Supralapsarians) agree.

Second, God is not morally accountable for the evil deeds of his creatures. On that, all Calvinists agree as well. If Patton means by “responsible” that God is morally accountable for the evil deeds of his creatures, all Calvinists (whether supralapsarian or not) agree that God is not. However, if Patton means by “responsible” that God ordained the evils deeds of his creatures (including the Fall), then all Calvinists (whether supralapsarian or not) agree that God has done so. He’s “responsible” in the sense of having ordained that it would occur, though not “responsible” in the sense of being culpable for the wrongdoing.

Third, the supralapsarian position may indeed make the decree of the fall a means to the end of the destruction of the reprobate. However, the supralapsarian position also makes the decree of the fall a means to the end of the glorification of the elect. Furthermore, most of all, the decree of the fall is a means to the end of the glory of God. After all, that is the purpose of the fall in every legitimate form of Calvinism: God’s decrees are all ultimately about God bringing on honor and glory to himself. They sometimes involve men but they are not anthropocentric. The primary end of the fall for supralapsarians is not to send folks to hell, but to bring glory to the Creator.

Fourth, God’s decrees should not be confused with the execution of those decrees. God’s decree of creation was for his own glory. The purpose of the decree within the order of decrees is perhaps disputed among the various -lapsarians, but as to the action itself, it was carried out with full knowledge and intention of what has and will transpire. One cannot be a Calvinist and an Open Theist. Instead, we declare that God created the wicked for the day of evil (whether that refers to temporal evil or eternal judgment makes a difference only on an emotional level). You don’t escape the universality of God’s providence by going infralapsarian.

Patton further states:

In the end, according to supralapsarians, God is glorified in his decree both to elect and to reprobate.

That’s the case for all Calvinists, not just supralapsarians. All of God’s decrees bring God glory. If an infralapsarian wishes to claim that in his position there is no specific decree of reprobation, we simply note that this is a matter of labeling. Even an infralapsarian election of men from among the mass of fallen humanity inherently involves the passing over of the others within that same mass.

In conclusion, I do appreciate Patton’s attempt to add clarity to the distinction between the infralapsarian order of decrees (held by the real Francis Turretin) and the supralapsarian order of decrees (held by William Twisse, among others). Both views are well within the bounds of Calvinism, and both are held by Evangelical Christians. While hypercalvinists may also accept the supralapsarian order of decrees, it is as unfair to refer to all supralapsarians as “hyper-Calvinists” as it is unfair to refer to all Calvinists as “hyper-Calvinists.”

Yes – Every Sin Deserves the Eternal Wrath of God

August 19, 2009

Mr. C Michael Patton has a rather disappointing post up in which he denies that every sin deserves an eternity in hell. He calls this idea “stupid” and declares that it “trivializes sin and makes God an overly sensitive cosmic torture monger.” “Stupid” is a bit extreme for something that’s a part of the doctrinal standards of most Reformed churches in the Scottish tradition. To say that it trivializes sin is absurd, and to accuse God of being an “overly sensitive cosmic torture monger[er]” is blasphemy.

First, the traditional historic Reformed position on the matter:

From the Westminster Shorter Catechism
Q. 84. What doth every sin deserve?
A. Every sin deserveth God’s wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come.[175]

[175] Matthew 25:41. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: Galatians 3:10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Ephesians 5:6. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. James 2:10. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

From the Westminster Larger Catechism
Q. 152. What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?

A. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty,[982] goodness,[983] and holiness of God,[984] and against his righteous law,[985] deserveth his wrath and curse,[986] both in this life,[987] and that which is to come;[988] and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.[989]

[982] James 2:10-11. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

[983] Exodus 20:1-2. And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

[984] Habakkuk 1:13. Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he? Leviticus 10:3. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace. Leviticus 11:44-45. For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

[985] 1 John 3:4. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Romans 7:12. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

[986] Ephesians 5:6. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Galatians 3:10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

[987] Lamentations 3:39. Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins? Deuteronomy 28:15-18. But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store, etc.

[988] Matthew 25:41. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

[989] Hebrews 9:22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 1 Peter 1:18-19. Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

Second, a response to Mr. Patton’s arguments.

Mr. Patton’s main argument is based on his failure properly to understand the atonement. Mr. Patton makes a comment suggesting that he holds to a view of penal substitution: “Many of us believe that Christ’s atonement was penal substitution.” He then, however, goes on to outline a scheme of the atonement that is essentially merely a commercial transaction: Jesus had to suffer thus-and-such an amount to atone for thus-and-such an amount of sin. That’s not the position of penal substitution. Penal substitution says that Jesus suffering was the same punishment (death) that was accepted in place of the death of the sinners. It is not the same in the person being punished nor is it the same in the precise nature and duration of the punishment (was humiliated culiminating in Christ dying on the cross, being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time – whereas sinners deserve to remain under the power of death and in suffering for eternity). Christ’s death on the cross was accepted by God in place of the eternal suffering of the elect. There is a commercial aspect to the work of Christ (to be sure) but Christ’s death was not a purely commercial transaction.

Mr. Patton’s secondary argument seems to be based on two ideas. One idea is the faulty notion that if every sin deserves eternal punishment, then all sins are equally heinous. We may readily dispose of that idea by noting that the punishment in hell may very well have degrees of severity. Thus, while all of the denizens of hell will be punished forever, some may be punished with greater severity than others. Dante provided a colorful illustration of this concept in his work.

The second idea of Mr. Patton’s secondary argument seems to be the idea that actually no sin deserves God’s eternal wrath and curse, but rather that sinners in hell will commit an infinite series of sins, which will lead to an unending succession of individually finite punishments. There’s nothing in Scripture to suggest this (from what I’ve read) and there are passages of Scripture (such as the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and the comment that “all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed”).

Will men in hell still hate God? Perhaps so. God does not promise to regenerate the nature of those who go to hell so that they will turn from hating God to loving God. Will they continue sinning and racking up more condemnation for themselves? Perhaps they will! But every sin is an offense to the dignity of an infinite God and demands eternal condemnation.


N.B. Mr. Patton’s approach (which I’ve also heard from William Lane Craig) does find a way to defend hell without claiming that any one sin deserves eternal punishment. My problem with it is that it’s not biblical, not that it’s not helpful in arguments with atheists.

C. Michael Patton discussion Sproul on 6 Day Creationism

May 22, 2008

Even while astrophysicists are rejoicing at the observation of the birth of a supernova, a much more interesting cosmological discussion is being had by C. Michael Patton over at Parchment and Pen (link).

The author explains that apparently noted Reformed author R.C. Sproul has taken (in 2006) a stand in favor of the traditional, literal six day creation account. The reason is obvious: if you read the text exegetically, there is no other conclusion you can come to.

I realize that, as Sproul notices, there are other possibilities for interpretations of Genesis 1 vetted: but none of them can stand on an exegetical method. Thus, those who advocate other views really ought to try to come to grips with the fact that they have not derived their view from Scripture, and consequently that they should perhaps rethink their view.

Objection 1: The Day-Age and/or Gap Theories are not Inconsistent with the Text

I realize that the immediate objection from those who hold alternative theories of the text will be that their theories do not conflict with the text. They may argue that they can build a consistent interpretation of Genesis 1 (and the rest of Scripture) based on their theory.

We Answer:

Yet those theories are not derived from the text. Indeed, such a “not inconsistent with” standard is the standard used by “traditionists” for every novel doctrine that they wish to impose. It is not a valid way of doing textual interpretation. That one can interpret the text of Genesis 1 in some non-exegetical way, and then craft an answer (using similar mechanisms) for the rest of Scriptures does not surprise us. It simply shows a willingness to make the theory fit — it does not demonstrate the theory actually fitting. It does not let the text speek for itself.

Objection 2

The other main objection we are wont to hear is “the Bible is not (at least primarily) a Science textbook.”

We Answer:

We agree, but distinguish. While the Bible is not primarily a Science textbook, the Bible is an historical source. While it certainly is treated as though it were “Science” in the popular media, Cosmology is an historical study – and claims (such as the claims that the recently observed supernova birth is 80+ Million years old) about cosmology are historical claims.

Natural sciences, by definition, exclude the supernatural. Thus, it is more proper to turn this objection on its head and respond that Science is not primarily an historical method. This is especially true when it comes to miracles. From the Bible, we know that miracles do occur. The account of the world’s and man’s creation in Genesis is portrayed in supernatural terms. God spoke – and it was so. Thus, we should not expect purely naturalistic investigations to jive with the account of Creation, just as we should not expect purely naturalistic investigations to jive with the account of the Resurrection of Christ, or the Virgin Birth.

Praise be to God, the Maker of Heaven and Earth!


%d bloggers like this: