JND on Peter being in Rome.
The following identifies, correctly I believe the fact that Peter ,save for Martyrdom , was not at Rome, nor at the very least was not involved with the founding or establishment of the Roman Church.
I may add, though our business is with Irenaeus, Eusebius (2: 25) quotes from Dionysius of Corinth the statement that Peter and Paul planted together the church of Corinth, and then went on to Rome, taught in like manner, and were martyred. Now that Peter and Paul may have been taken to Rome and martyred together, passing at Corinth together too, is very possible, though we have no account of it; but what is said as to the foundation of the church at Corinth or Rome is unquestionably false. Paul, we know from the Acts and his Epistles, founded that at Corinth, Peter having nothing to say to it. And even Paul did not found that at Rome more than Peter, as his Epistle to the Romans shews: Christianity preceded them both there. The Roman church, so far from having a potiorem beginning, was not founded by an apostle at all.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Turning Evangelicals Back to Grace: An Interview with Mark Galli
- Kingdom People - http://trevinwax.com -
Turning Evangelicals Back to Grace: An Interview with Mark Galli
Posted By Trevin Wax On March 10, 2010 @ 3:48 am In Interviews
[1]Today, I have the privilege of posting an interview with Mark Galli, the senior managing editor for Christianity Today [2]and the author of A Great and Terrible Love: A Spiritual Journey into the Attributes of God [3], Beyond Smells and Bells: The Wonder and Power of Christian Liturgy [4] and Jesus Mean and Wild: The Unexpected Love of an Untamable God [5].
Trevin Wax: You recently wrote a cover story [6] for Christianity Today that called evangelicals back to the primacy of grace. Why do you believe this emphasis on grace is necessary during this present time?
Mark Galli: For evangelicals it’s an emphasis necessary in all times. We are a movement whose charism is activism. We gather from our various streams and traditions (Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal, independent, etc.) because we want to join together to do something: evangelize, send missionaries overseas, open urban missions, and so forth. And what a gift this is to the world!
But this strength is also our weakness. It usually begins from a deep sense of gratefulness for what God has done for us–we love because we’ve been loved. But, human nature being what it is, the doing quickly starts to become an end in itself. And then we start imagining that the future of the church or missions or the planet itself depends on our doing. I give lots of examples of this in the October 2009 cover story [6], so I won’t repeat them here.
I will relate one email comment I received after the article came out. I was in conversation with one friend who wrote a book that I feel very much is characteristic of an activism that has left grace behind. He kept insisting that he believed in grace–which I have no doubt about–and that he said so in his book–which was simply not true. When I showed him how little grace appeared as a motive or framing of the book, he responded angrily, “What’s with the grace thing anyway. It’s so vague and jargony.”
When grace is seen as assumed or, worse, “vague and jargony,” I think we’ve got a problem! Without a constant reminder about the priority of grace, we will not only burn out, but our organizations, church and parachurch, will turn into nothing but a glorified social service agencies.
Trevin Wax: Evangelicals are divided over the idea of cultural transformation, namely the amount of influence the church has or should have on the surrounding culture. What are your views on the church and culture?
Mark Galli: James Davison Hunter has just published a book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World [7]. He analyzes the work of everyone from Chuck Colson to James Dobson to Jim Wallis to Andy Crouch, arguing that evangelical views on transforming culture have been naive. Whether you agree with him or not, the book will change the conversation in our movement. An interview with him will appear in the May issue of CT. (So just a heads up to your readers about that.)
My personal view is that it is not our job to transform our culture, let alone the world. Our job is to do the specific thing God has called us to do, whether that is evangelizing the neighborhood, working against the sexual slave trade, relieving world hunger, or whatever. Our job is to do that faithfully and well–and to let God take care of transforming the culture.
Transforming culture is an incredibly complex thing that no person or group can possibly grasp. It’s something that happens, but it happens over centuries. The process is so slow that it is indiscernible to us except in hindsight. I think talk about transforming the world usually fills us with dreams and visions of our own power, when really our vision should be on the people we’re are seeking to love in Christ’s name.
But at CT we recognize that not every evangelical agrees with this point of view! So while you’ll see me wax eloquent (and not so eloquent) on this point from time to time, you’ll also find articles and interviews in CT where the transformation message is repeated.
Trevin Wax: What are your thoughts on the recent announcement of Philip Ryken as the next president of Wheaton College?
Mark Galli: I was surprised at the announcement, given his pastoral (vs. academic) background, and given his strongly Reformed perspective (given that Wheaton is more theologically diverse). But he’s done a marvelous job of answering concerns about these matters, and his initial moves as president-elect have been impressive.
Trevin Wax: How has Christianity Today fared during these days of difficulty for print media and these days of increasing evangelical fragmentation?
Mark Galli: Like every other publishing company, we had to cut staff and pages in 2009. Fortunately, our parent company, Christianity Today International, has been fiscally conservative. So we had funds to help us weather 2009, when we took a big hit financially. With the cuts and a trimmer budget, the good ship CT is no longer listing, and is starting to move forward again. I’m pretty optimistic about the future, frankly.
Trevin Wax: Could you explain your role as editor of Christianity Today?
Mark Galli: I’m responsible for deciding what goes in each issue of the magazine, how it is shaped, edited, titled, and designed. That being said, there is no way that one person can do all this. And while I may have the final say on all these matters, I depend heavily on a very gifted staff to bring their expertise to bear on the magazine. For example, I rarely tell the design team to redo a design–that’s really their expertise, and I’d be a fool to think I could design better than they can.
So much of what we do is collaborative–we’re always in conversation about matter large and small–that it’s sometimes hard to say who actually was responsible for this design or that title or the shape of that article. People regularly compliment me on the magazine, and I regularly say that it’s a group effort from start to finish. We really have a talented staff right now, so it makes my job relatively easy!
Trevin Wax: Where do you see Christianity Today ten years from now theologically?
Mark Galli: About where we are today: a centrist, mildly Reformed publication. That’s been our history for 55 years, and, given the current editorial leadership, I don’t see anything that would suggest we’ll be shifting in the near future.
I like to reiterate, however, that who we are as a magazine and what we publish are slightly different. That is, while our editorial bias is mildly Reformed, we’re always on the look out for Wesleyan authors to contribute their unique perspective in our pages. And while we’re centrist, we like to publish pieces about and by evangelicals more decidedly on the left and right.
In other words, we see ourselves as a magazine where the movement can come and reason together. We have our own biases, and it would be dishonest to pretend we don’t. But we try to remain open to other points of view. It’s not about the biases of the current staff, but about the movement as a whole.
Article printed from Kingdom People: http://trevinwax.com
URL to article: http://trevinwax.com/2010/03/10/turning-evangelicals-back-to-grace-an-interview-with-mark-galli/
Copyright © 2009 Kingdom People. All rights reserved.
Turning Evangelicals Back to Grace: An Interview with Mark Galli
Posted By Trevin Wax On March 10, 2010 @ 3:48 am In Interviews
[1]Today, I have the privilege of posting an interview with Mark Galli, the senior managing editor for Christianity Today [2]and the author of A Great and Terrible Love: A Spiritual Journey into the Attributes of God [3], Beyond Smells and Bells: The Wonder and Power of Christian Liturgy [4] and Jesus Mean and Wild: The Unexpected Love of an Untamable God [5].
Trevin Wax: You recently wrote a cover story [6] for Christianity Today that called evangelicals back to the primacy of grace. Why do you believe this emphasis on grace is necessary during this present time?
Mark Galli: For evangelicals it’s an emphasis necessary in all times. We are a movement whose charism is activism. We gather from our various streams and traditions (Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal, independent, etc.) because we want to join together to do something: evangelize, send missionaries overseas, open urban missions, and so forth. And what a gift this is to the world!
But this strength is also our weakness. It usually begins from a deep sense of gratefulness for what God has done for us–we love because we’ve been loved. But, human nature being what it is, the doing quickly starts to become an end in itself. And then we start imagining that the future of the church or missions or the planet itself depends on our doing. I give lots of examples of this in the October 2009 cover story [6], so I won’t repeat them here.
I will relate one email comment I received after the article came out. I was in conversation with one friend who wrote a book that I feel very much is characteristic of an activism that has left grace behind. He kept insisting that he believed in grace–which I have no doubt about–and that he said so in his book–which was simply not true. When I showed him how little grace appeared as a motive or framing of the book, he responded angrily, “What’s with the grace thing anyway. It’s so vague and jargony.”
When grace is seen as assumed or, worse, “vague and jargony,” I think we’ve got a problem! Without a constant reminder about the priority of grace, we will not only burn out, but our organizations, church and parachurch, will turn into nothing but a glorified social service agencies.
Trevin Wax: Evangelicals are divided over the idea of cultural transformation, namely the amount of influence the church has or should have on the surrounding culture. What are your views on the church and culture?
Mark Galli: James Davison Hunter has just published a book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World [7]. He analyzes the work of everyone from Chuck Colson to James Dobson to Jim Wallis to Andy Crouch, arguing that evangelical views on transforming culture have been naive. Whether you agree with him or not, the book will change the conversation in our movement. An interview with him will appear in the May issue of CT. (So just a heads up to your readers about that.)
My personal view is that it is not our job to transform our culture, let alone the world. Our job is to do the specific thing God has called us to do, whether that is evangelizing the neighborhood, working against the sexual slave trade, relieving world hunger, or whatever. Our job is to do that faithfully and well–and to let God take care of transforming the culture.
Transforming culture is an incredibly complex thing that no person or group can possibly grasp. It’s something that happens, but it happens over centuries. The process is so slow that it is indiscernible to us except in hindsight. I think talk about transforming the world usually fills us with dreams and visions of our own power, when really our vision should be on the people we’re are seeking to love in Christ’s name.
But at CT we recognize that not every evangelical agrees with this point of view! So while you’ll see me wax eloquent (and not so eloquent) on this point from time to time, you’ll also find articles and interviews in CT where the transformation message is repeated.
Trevin Wax: What are your thoughts on the recent announcement of Philip Ryken as the next president of Wheaton College?
Mark Galli: I was surprised at the announcement, given his pastoral (vs. academic) background, and given his strongly Reformed perspective (given that Wheaton is more theologically diverse). But he’s done a marvelous job of answering concerns about these matters, and his initial moves as president-elect have been impressive.
Trevin Wax: How has Christianity Today fared during these days of difficulty for print media and these days of increasing evangelical fragmentation?
Mark Galli: Like every other publishing company, we had to cut staff and pages in 2009. Fortunately, our parent company, Christianity Today International, has been fiscally conservative. So we had funds to help us weather 2009, when we took a big hit financially. With the cuts and a trimmer budget, the good ship CT is no longer listing, and is starting to move forward again. I’m pretty optimistic about the future, frankly.
Trevin Wax: Could you explain your role as editor of Christianity Today?
Mark Galli: I’m responsible for deciding what goes in each issue of the magazine, how it is shaped, edited, titled, and designed. That being said, there is no way that one person can do all this. And while I may have the final say on all these matters, I depend heavily on a very gifted staff to bring their expertise to bear on the magazine. For example, I rarely tell the design team to redo a design–that’s really their expertise, and I’d be a fool to think I could design better than they can.
So much of what we do is collaborative–we’re always in conversation about matter large and small–that it’s sometimes hard to say who actually was responsible for this design or that title or the shape of that article. People regularly compliment me on the magazine, and I regularly say that it’s a group effort from start to finish. We really have a talented staff right now, so it makes my job relatively easy!
Trevin Wax: Where do you see Christianity Today ten years from now theologically?
Mark Galli: About where we are today: a centrist, mildly Reformed publication. That’s been our history for 55 years, and, given the current editorial leadership, I don’t see anything that would suggest we’ll be shifting in the near future.
I like to reiterate, however, that who we are as a magazine and what we publish are slightly different. That is, while our editorial bias is mildly Reformed, we’re always on the look out for Wesleyan authors to contribute their unique perspective in our pages. And while we’re centrist, we like to publish pieces about and by evangelicals more decidedly on the left and right.
In other words, we see ourselves as a magazine where the movement can come and reason together. We have our own biases, and it would be dishonest to pretend we don’t. But we try to remain open to other points of view. It’s not about the biases of the current staff, but about the movement as a whole.
Article printed from Kingdom People: http://trevinwax.com
URL to article: http://trevinwax.com/2010/03/10/turning-evangelicals-back-to-grace-an-interview-with-mark-galli/
Copyright © 2009 Kingdom People. All rights reserved.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Youth Group @ Salem
We spent the evening having the group explain what the Gospel is , and what is the teaching of the bible in contrast with teaching of Romanism.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Antioch School
Started the Pauline course work , wrapping up the Acts, and the Theology of Church planting.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Tabernacle
Continuing the study of the Tabernacle and the Christology connected with it. Starting to do some contruction of the walls. Whose house are we......
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Bucer and Newton and Theological Tact
~ C Michael Patton ~
I have been talking a lot about being passionate, yet cool, calm, and understanding when contending for the truth. I have also said that you can quickly disqualify your voice with rhetoric that lacks tact (especially today). I think we have a lot of people out there who have good theology but terrible tact. Hence, they are simply not effective.
Friends, this needs to change if we are going to have an impact (and this is coming from a Calvinist!).
Here are two great and classic examples about how to handle yourself tactfully in theological discussion. Listen well…
Martin Bucer
“If you immediately condemn anyone who doesn’t quite believe the same as you do as forsaken by Christ’s Spirit, and consider anyone to be the enemy of truth who holds something false to be true, who, pray tell, can you still consider a brother? I for one have never met two people who believed exactly the same thing. This holds true in theology as well.”
This is a good starting point to gain perspective. Remember, there is no one who looks exactly like you do theologically. Be careful here as this type of attitude can quickly exhume your soul from death, but leave every other living person in hell. This is worse than just about anything you could accuse your opponent of. We have answers, but we don’t have all the answers. We have truth, but we don’t have all the truth.
John Newton’s Works; Letter XIX – On Controversy
A minister, about to write an article criticizing a fellow minister for his lack of orthodoxy, wrote to John Newton of his intention. Newton replied as follows:
“Dear Sir,
As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with a natural warmth of temper, my friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours, might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle; but I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a great coat of mail; such armor, that you need not complain, as David did of Saul’s, that it will be more cumbersome than useful; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great magazine provided for the Christian soldier, the word of God. I take it for granted that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For method’s sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public and yourself.
As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: “Deal gently with him for my sake.” The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit), he is a more proper object of your compassion than of your anger. Alas! “He knows not what he does.” But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes, and not his. Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, they who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy: but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose. If peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth. If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling blocks in the way of the blind or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their principles, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.
…
If our zeal is embittered by expressions of anger, invective, or scorn, we may think we are doing service of the cause of truth, when in reality we shall only bring it into discredit. The weapons of our warfare, and which alone are powerful to break down the strongholds of error, are not carnal, but spiritual; arguments fairly drawn from Scripture and experience, and enforced by such a mild address, as may persuade our readers, that, whether we can convince them or not, we wish well to their souls, and contend only for the truth’s sake; if we can satisfy them that we act upon these motives, our point is half gained; they will be more disposed to consider calmly what we offer; and if they should still dissent from our opinions, they will be constrained to approve our intentions.
…
Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who “when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not.” This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, “not rendering railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called.” The wisdom that is from above is not only pure, but peaceable and gentle; and the want of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors. If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth, therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord of hosts, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.”
Folks, it does not get any better than this. These are not postmodernists, relativists, centrists, or weak liberals. These are theological giants of the Reformation period.
Tact, friends. Be irenic with gentleness and respect: we need it.
I have been talking a lot about being passionate, yet cool, calm, and understanding when contending for the truth. I have also said that you can quickly disqualify your voice with rhetoric that lacks tact (especially today). I think we have a lot of people out there who have good theology but terrible tact. Hence, they are simply not effective.
Friends, this needs to change if we are going to have an impact (and this is coming from a Calvinist!).
Here are two great and classic examples about how to handle yourself tactfully in theological discussion. Listen well…
Martin Bucer
“If you immediately condemn anyone who doesn’t quite believe the same as you do as forsaken by Christ’s Spirit, and consider anyone to be the enemy of truth who holds something false to be true, who, pray tell, can you still consider a brother? I for one have never met two people who believed exactly the same thing. This holds true in theology as well.”
This is a good starting point to gain perspective. Remember, there is no one who looks exactly like you do theologically. Be careful here as this type of attitude can quickly exhume your soul from death, but leave every other living person in hell. This is worse than just about anything you could accuse your opponent of. We have answers, but we don’t have all the answers. We have truth, but we don’t have all the truth.
John Newton’s Works; Letter XIX – On Controversy
A minister, about to write an article criticizing a fellow minister for his lack of orthodoxy, wrote to John Newton of his intention. Newton replied as follows:
“Dear Sir,
As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with a natural warmth of temper, my friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours, might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle; but I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a great coat of mail; such armor, that you need not complain, as David did of Saul’s, that it will be more cumbersome than useful; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great magazine provided for the Christian soldier, the word of God. I take it for granted that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For method’s sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public and yourself.
As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: “Deal gently with him for my sake.” The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit), he is a more proper object of your compassion than of your anger. Alas! “He knows not what he does.” But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes, and not his. Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, they who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy: but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose. If peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth. If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling blocks in the way of the blind or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their principles, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.
…
If our zeal is embittered by expressions of anger, invective, or scorn, we may think we are doing service of the cause of truth, when in reality we shall only bring it into discredit. The weapons of our warfare, and which alone are powerful to break down the strongholds of error, are not carnal, but spiritual; arguments fairly drawn from Scripture and experience, and enforced by such a mild address, as may persuade our readers, that, whether we can convince them or not, we wish well to their souls, and contend only for the truth’s sake; if we can satisfy them that we act upon these motives, our point is half gained; they will be more disposed to consider calmly what we offer; and if they should still dissent from our opinions, they will be constrained to approve our intentions.
…
Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who “when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not.” This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, “not rendering railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called.” The wisdom that is from above is not only pure, but peaceable and gentle; and the want of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors. If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth, therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord of hosts, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.”
Folks, it does not get any better than this. These are not postmodernists, relativists, centrists, or weak liberals. These are theological giants of the Reformation period.
Tact, friends. Be irenic with gentleness and respect: we need it.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)