My Photo
Location: United States

I am a 1967 graduate of The Citadel (Distinguished Military Student, member of the Economic Honor Society, Dean's List), a 1975 graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (M.Div., magna cum laude, member of the Phi Alpha Chi academic honor society); I attended the Free University of Amsterdam and completed my History of Dogma there and then received a full scholarship from the Dutch government to transfer to the sister school in Kampen, Holland. In 1979 I graduated from the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Churches of Holland (Drs. with honors in Ethics). My New Testament minor was completed with Herman Ridderbos. I am also a 2001 Ph.D. graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (Systematic Theology) in Philly with a dissertation on the "unio mystica" in the theology of Dr. Herman Bavinck (1854-1921). I am a former tank commander, and instructor in the US Army Armor School at Ft. Knox, KY. I have been happily married to my childhood sweetheart and best friend, Sally, for 43 years. We have 6 children, one of whom is with the Lord, and 14 wonderful grandchildren.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

How Do We Do Social Justice? (III)

What Constitutes Social Justice?

Over twenty-five years ago, David Chilton penned these words in the introduction of his response to Ron Sider: “…there are new voices in evangelicalism today, claiming that a truly biblical Christianity demands centralized economic planning and the ‘liberation’ of the downtrodden masses throughout the world. Faithfulness to Scripture is being equated with a redistribution of wealth. Notions of social reform once thought to be the province of aberrant liberals may now be heard down the street in the Baptist church.”[1]

Chilton proceeds to unmask what Sider (and I would also include Campolo, McLaren, and Wallis in this tribe) is really preaching: Revolution.[2] Of course, it is not blatant revolution for that would be far too obvious. No, this crowd is promoting “revolution by installments.”[3] In other words, it’s a kinder, gentler, more subtle form of Marxism under the guise of Christianity. Given the widespread and overarching ignorance of biblical truth in the modern Church, it’s an easy sell, especially among the younger generation. Moreover, “The ‘Christian’ who advocates theft in the name of social justice is in truth calling for the Revolution, whether or not he fully realizes what he’s doing.”[4] In the cases of Campolo, McLaren, Sider, and Wallis, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that all of them fully realize what they’re saying and where they want to go with their “revolutions.” All of these men advocate bigger and bigger government, more taxation of the wealthy (read: redistribution of money), and more welfare for the “destitute.” They have yet to define what these folks look like.

George Grant traces what he calls the “war on the poor” to Lyndon Johnson’s State of the Union message in 1964 when he declared an “unconditional war on poverty.” How can it be, you might ask, that a declaration of unconditional war on poverty has the unintended consequences of actually becoming instead a war on the poor, because that is precisely what happened? The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was to be the watchdog at the welfare trough in Johnson’s “Great Society,” which was his version of utopia. Initially, HEW had a budget of $2 billion to pour into the welfare trough. “Fifteen years later, however, its budget had soared to $180 billion, one-and-a-half times more than the total spent by the Army, Navy, and the Air Force. In fact, its budget had grown to be the third largest in the world, exceeded only by the entire budget of the United States government and that of the Soviet Union.”[5] This should have remedied the poverty problem in the United States, but it actually had the opposite affect. The liberals were forced to rewrite the playbook and it was called A Funny Thing Happened to Me on the Way to Utopia.

As welfare programs increased exponentially and government spending (of our tax dollars) increased twentyfold, some amazing results were calculated and they weren’t encouraging. Before the war on poverty fired its first government subsidized bullet, approximately 13% of Americans were considered “poor.” Twenty years and billions of U.S. tax dollars later, approximately 15% of Americans were considered poor. They must have been taking lessons from our public schools. Here’s another interesting, yet from an economist’s perspective a highly predictable result: Prior to Johnson’s declaration of war on poverty the unemployment rate in the U.S. hovered somewhere around 3.6%. Twenty years later, it “was running at 11.6%.”[6] Hence the adage: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Clearly, the government had entered the welfare fray and the results were predictably devastating. In all the hoopla, Americans had forgotten that the only dependable route from poverty to economic self-sufficiency is always work, family, and faith. Unfortunately, some churches tend to pick up societal trends—knowingly or unwittingly. Interestingly, in the mid-1980s many denominations were in the throes of building mega-churches and didn’t have a lot of residual money to spend on true diaconal needs, since large sums of money were being tied up in erecting large, palatial-like edifices as monuments to the success of that particular church. The Church, therefore, abdicated its diaconal responsibilities to the state, which was all too happy to contribute significantly to the dependence of the poor upon the state for its well-being. The “womb to tomb” mentality produced wards of the state in great numbers, while the Church stood by and watched. Please don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying that the Church did nothing at all during this time. Much good was done, but clearly a paradigm shift was underway.

Somewhere along the way, however, pastors turned into CEOs and their studies became known as their offices. A big church and a big staff were symbols of success. The campus was gorgeous and state-of-the-art, but the biblical requirement to be concerned about the neighbor’s soul got lost in the shuffle. There was still some vestigial remnant that Christians were to be concerned about the plight of the poor, social injustice, and the increasing urban blight, as well as other social issues, but the modern Church had loosed itself from its biblical moorings, even though Scripture was still used.

There was a paradigm shift in preaching as well. The new trajectory was to talk to the unchurched “seeker” in a manner that wouldn’t turn him or her off. Sermons, therefore, became increasingly topical in nature, using screens, Power Point presentations, praise bands, drama, and the like. Not only did the sermons become more topical, they tended to focus more and more on issues raised by Dr. Phil or Oprah than on Scripture. Increasingly smaller portions of Scripture were read in the gatherings and the topics were presented in easy anecdotal story form. My point is this: being unplugged from Scripture, the modern Christian Church has lost its tools of discernment and has wandered off mouthing vague, victo-cratic[7] platitudes that may or may not have anything to do with Scripture.

The economist Benjamin Rogge once wrote, “…the typical American who calls himself a Christian and who makes pronouncements…on economic policies or institutions, does so out of an almost complete ignorance of the simplest and most widely accepted tools of economic analysis.”[8] I would change Rogge’s quotation slightly to read that many today who call themselves Christians have neither a biblical nor economical view of life. This is one reason why people like Campolo, McLaren, Sider, and Wallis get such a wide reading. Ironically, it’s a kind of return to the Dark Ages, except this time the modern Church has various translations and paraphrases and still remains woefully ignorant of even the most fundamental biblical truths.

Robert Frykenberg, a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin wrote in 1981 how insidious Sider’s theology was. Frykenberg penned these words: “But without showing us exactly how the world’s hungry are to be fed, nothing results except the mouthing of pious platitudes and highly emotional exhortations to act. Such well-meaning efforts to help are at best inefficient and wasteful, and, at worst, utterly self-defeating and demoralizing.”[9] This was precisely my point a couple of issues back when I challenged the admirers of and adherents to the social gospel Marxist policies of Campolo, McLaren, Sider, Wallis, and others to show where they had done anything close to serious biblical exegesis to back up their ostensible findings. No response. What they do is akin to the Rick Warren approach: find something you want to talk about and then torture and distort a translation or preferably something from The Message to somehow say something close to what you want to say and use it.

In 1980, Klaus Bockmuehl wrote these prophetic words: “Marxism in the West today has become a potent temptation for gifted, forward-looking young Christians, evangelicals among them. They are fascinated not so much by its radical secular humanism as by its socialism. Because evangelicals have little knowledge of Marxism, they identify Marxism with social reform and regard it as an energetic attempt to realize liberty, equality and fraternity or simply claim that Marxists are ‘for the poor.’”[10] Christian philosopher Ronald Nash observes, “Almost without exception the major evangelical books about social justice that have appeared since 1960 have been authored by writers who reject and condemn political conservatism as a cruel, heartless and uncaring movement totally out of step with an informed biblical view.”[11]

Therefore, “Basic to the theory of the evangelical Christian who finds liberalism or socialism or even Marxism attractive is an appeal to social justice.”[12] Add to this that the word “evangelical” or “evangelicalism” has morphed into anything from Open Theism, feminism, Dr. Jeremiah Wright, or anything else along the spectrum so it has lost any meaning it might have had a while back. Now we have homosensual[13] Christians, shack-up Christians, multiple adultery Christians, Christians with multiple abortions, multiple divorce for unbiblical reasons Christians, and rich Christians who no longer believe they need to obey God and attend Christ’s Church.

More than two decades ago Antonio Martino pointed out that the expression “social justice,” “…owes its immense popularity precisely to its ambiguity and meaninglessness. It can be used by different people, holding quite different views, to designate a wide variety of different things. Its obvious appeal stems from its persuasive strength, from its positive connotation, which allows the user to praise his own ideas and simultaneously express contempt for the ideas of those who don’t agree with him.”[14] Similar conclusions led Ronald Nash to say this: “Serious questions can be raised about the evangelical liberal’s grasp of the complex social, political and economic foundations of justice. The liberal evangelical is often inattentive to important distinction in the notion of justice; he fails to see how his claims draw him into an unavoidable and dangerous dependence upon a coercive state; he is blind to the fact that many of his preferred programs to help the poor end up being self-defeating; and he is unaware of the confusion that pervades his interpretation of the biblical teaching about justice.”[15]

It is clear and evident to any and all who have not fallen prey to the trappings of the mega-church and the mysticism of the Emergent church that serious distortions of Scripture and of the care of the poor are rampant in the modern evangelical Church. If you don’t believe me, just pick up Jim Wallis’ God’s Politics or Brian McLaren’s Everything Must Change and it will become crystal clear—that is, if you still possess a modicum of biblical truth in your Christian armamentarium.

[1] David Chilton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators, (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1981), p. 4.

[2] Ibid., 5.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] George Grant, Bringing in the Sheaves, (Atlanta: American Vision Press, 1985), pp. 39-40. Italics mine.

[6] Ibid., 45.

[7] A “victo-crat” is one who is convinced that nothing is his or her fault, but that they are victims of “the system.” Typically, victo-crats expect someone to come along and save them, like, for instance, the government, rather than working hard to relieve their own circumstances.

[8] Benjamin Rogge, “Christian Economics: Myth or Reality?” The Freeman, December 1965.

[9] Robert Frykenberg, “World Hunger: Food is not the Answer,” Christianity Today, December 11, 1981, p. 36.

[10] Klaus Bockmuehl, The Challenge of Marxism, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980).

[11] Ronald Nash, Social Justice and the Christian Church, (Mott Media, n.d.), p. 4.

[12] Ibid., 5.

[13] I owe this concept to Bill Gairdner, who, in his new book, Oh, Oh, Canada! A Voice from the Conservative Resistance, (Toronto, Canada: BPS Books, 2008), made the astute observation that there actually can be no sex in homosexual (pp. 62ff.), since in our biology textbooks words like “sex” or “sexual” have to do with reproduction, which clearly homosensuals cannot do. I highly recommend Bill’s book. Americans and Canadians alike need to read it. Just go to and order your copy today!

[14] Antonio Martino, “The Myth of Social Justice,” in Arnold Beichman, Antonio Martino, & Kenneth Minogue, Three Myths, (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, 1982), p.23.

[15] Nash, SJCC, 6-7.



Blogger Pastor St. John said...

I agree with all you say. Wow!

8:42 AM  
Blogger Randy Buist said...

I agree with all you say too. Just like David Chilton 2o years ago... not.

I read both Sider & Chilton. Chilton is good because it clears our minds of any guilt. Sider is going to hell for trying to care for the poor, forgetting the OT, and for simply being a Communist in Jesus clothing.

So, you're right Ron. In fact, tonight I declare that you are the right in all senses of the word.

On this wonderful Good Friday... Tank driving preacher men on the internet who have studied in far-away-lands should be lauded for all of their intellect and passion for capitalism and God.

After all 'Have No Other gods before Me."... Jesus was draped in an American flag on that cross... yes sir.

Jesus blood lines included rich and poor... more poor... and whores... and not too many preacher men.

BUT you have it all right. 3 Billion peope or so live on this planet, and YOU know GOd better than all of us...

One question on this Good Friday night...

Why the hell are you so arrogant?

The biblical text is clear on pride and arrogance, and you FAIL.

So, how do you call yourself a follower of the triune God, and yet you are SO arrogant and filled with pride and self-righteousness?

9:28 PM  
Blogger Jhonsun said...

Randy, I think that it would have been better if you had simply expressed your own principled views regarding this subject. If you want to criticize Christians for not doing enough to voluntarily care for the poor in this world, I think that would have been a much more edifying discussion than just ranting and mocking. If you had done that, you might have been surprised to find some agreement that you weren't expecting.

If you've read Sider & Chilton, why didn't you try explaining why you believe that Sider is right and construct an argument on that basis instead of just being coarse and making superficially critical statements? You said nothing constructive and (ironically) sounded arrogant and self-righteous in the process. That wasn't even good polemics. Seriously, why even waste your time?

However, if you are suggesting that it is somehow moral for people's money to be taken forcibly by secular governments and spent on a vaguely defined concept of poverty, then I'm having trouble seeing where the virtue is in that. What's so virtuous about voting for the government to spend other people's money in an unaccountable way? What's so moral or virtuous about being forced to give? It seems to me like that's just the other side's mechanism for assuaging their guilt - regardless of whether it yields any results at all (which apparently it doesn't)!

Furthermore, if in the last several election cycles, half or more of this country has been voting for liberal Democrats, the champions of this view of the "social justice" that you seem to be defending,then why don't we see that half of the country setting a wonderful example of voluntary compassion in society? I guarantee you that if they were doing that, the whole idea of politicians running on a platform of the redistribution of wealth would become irrelevant.

12:15 AM  
Blogger Aaron said...

Amen, Matt J.

Randy's snarky contempt eclipses that of which he accuses Ron. And once again, with ample opportunity and numerous invitations from Ron to do so, Randy refuses to favor us with even the beginnings of a biblical refutation.

Call me crazy, but after weeks of similar comments as this one from Randy, it has crossed my feeble mind that perhaps he doesn't actually have such a refutation handy ...

11:05 AM  
Blogger jazzact13 said...

--So, how do you call yourself a follower of the triune God, and yet you are SO arrogant and filled with pride and self-righteousness?--

If you're going to go on like that, you'd better ask that question to whomever looks back at you in a mirror.

10:18 AM  
Blogger Solameanie said...


That was a very sophomoric comment. I am disappointed in you. You are beginning almost to take up the characteristics of an Internet troll. You can do better than that!

2:35 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

I'm not at all certain why you think I said Sider is going to hell. If you read closely, I'm simply making the point that many of Sider's conclusions move in the direction of classical Marxism--and, yes, I believe Sider is more than aware that he is moving in that direction. Simply to have read the books in question isn't enough; you must digest them and delineate their strengths and weaknesses.
As far as some of your other comments go, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude that you were either drunk or on drugs when you made them. Or, perhaps, you just finished some liberal's book on The Ethics of Jesus.
It really doesn't matter how we approach any subject, does it, Randy? If we come at it from Scripture, you want something different; if we quote something different you don't like that either.
I'm not certain what you did Good Friday evening, but I conducted a worship service.
The only way anyone can know God is from Scripture.
There is a decided difference between arrogance and confidence. If you went to the doctor and he diagnosed you with cancer would you fault him because your neighbor said that what you had didn't sound like cancer to him? Would you call your doctor arrogant and ask him if he thinks he can diagnose cancer better than the 3 billion people on this planet?
The study of theology and being a minister of the Word is my life and I've been studying it and doing it since 1973. Why do you have a problem with pastors and theologians drawing conclusions from their work and studies?
Your type of indecision (although you have decided views, it's not cool as a pomo to have any truth claims) and unwillingness to take a stand is precisely what is wrong with the modern Church.
If all truth is relative anyway and the Bible is unclear why are you trying to make your point?

3:05 PM  
Blogger Randy Buist said...

We can argue about Scripture. WE can even start with Scripture. It's a good starting point.

Ron, I would like to have you proof text your following words:

"The only way anyone can know God is from Scripture."

I believe the Heidelberg Catechism says something about the Spirit playing a significant role in knowing God?

~ As for my attitude, I thought it fair to be as sarcastic as I read here. Why is it not fair to for me to unfairly take pop shots as well? I'm in the minority; so perhaps you now realize what it seems like as you arbitrarily take shots at people I know and respect. Is it really fun sarcasm in the name of 'truth'?

But back to the orinal question -- are the Scriptures the only way that we know God?

5:56 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

The scriptures are the only way a person can know God savingly so.
What is your point about the Holy Spirit?
Rom. 1:18ff. makes it clear that there is a General Revelation of the triune God to all, but it only leaves man without excuse.

6:10 PM  
Blogger Randy Buist said...

IF you are correct, will anyone enter the enternal presence of God prior to the Canon being completed?

And, will anyone enter into the presence of God for enternity who did not have the Torah to read? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob? Joseph?

If you are correct, then there are not exceptions. So, are the father's of the faith damned?

We factually KNOW that Abraham's faithfulness was credited to him as righteousness. aka "Being right with God"

So, we factually know that Abraham never read any sort of biblical text and yet he received salvation.

This is where the arguement for the biblical text being the only means of salvation breaks down.

Prior to the reformation, the biblical text was largely unknown. The church preached sermons in Latin. The common people didn't know Latin so they didn't know the biblical text.

They knew the story of God, of the kingdom of God, of salvation by the lives of their parents and grandparents. They knew God as he had lived into the lives of previous generations.

Their grandparents for hundreds of years knew virtually nothing of the biblical text. YET. Were all of these generations of God followers less than faithful? Are these people damned as well?

I believe that a God capable of all things, in control of all things, is capable of saving people beyond the means of a bibliical text.

Perhaps a burning bush?

4:19 PM  
Blogger Solameanie said...


My time is a bit limited tonight, so I trust Ron will respond more in depth. Very quickly, the first place I would point you to is Hebrews, where the writer talks of how God, in these last days, has spoken to us through His Son. His Son is His final, complete revelation to mankind in this age. We come to know His Son through His Word by the power and revelation of His Holy Spirit.

This is not a question of whether the Lord is capable or not of acting separately from Scripture. The problem, in my view, is that too many like to use clever, convoluted arguments as an excuse to discard and ignore Scripture rather than obey it.

As to whether people are damned are not outside of Christ, I think Scripture is sufficiently clear on this subject. So your problem isn't with Ron, me, or anyone else. Your problem is with the Word of God itself. Think about it.

6:09 PM  
Blogger Solameanie said...

I meant to say "or not," not "are not."

6:09 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

I'll respond more in the morning. You really did waste your money on seminary. What you raised is what I'd expect from a first grader, but not a sem grad! Good grief!

10:17 PM  
Blogger Kathy Buist said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12:56 AM  
Blogger Randy Buist said...

I'm looking for your kindness, goodness, honesty and integrity in your answer. That's what I've come to expect from sincere followers of Jesus.


8:56 AM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

When-if-you studied Theology, do you recall a section on Scripture and progressive revelation? Did you ever study how covenantally God's promises were eventually fulfilled in Christ and how all the OT pointed to him? Did you ever read about how God gave his Special Revelation only to his people and not to the Philistines, Moabites, and others? No pagan person or nation was saved by being a "good" person, because there are no good people. In fact, there are no "seekers" except those who are already Christians (cf. Rom. 3:10-13). Christians seek the will of God all others don't.
You still have not responded--what's new?-to the Rom. 1:18ff. text. General Revelation only leaves man without excuse.
Let's start from there and see what happens. Seriously, this is stuff that you should have learned the first week of sem.

8:14 PM  
Blogger Randy Buist said...

In regard to your specific text, there is no right answer other than what you want to hear.

I figure fundamentalists generally play proof text games, but reformers don't generally do so.

We can prove the world is flat if we use one simple proof text.

So, there IS my answer regarding your Romans verse.

As for progressive revelation, while God once used means other than the Scripture, are you suggesting this is now his only means of giving salvation to someone?

And as for progressive revelation, I am glad that you recoginze it as reality.

This also opens the possibilty that women are now called to leadeership within the church when they once were not... :)

And as for your last post, it's still patronizing. I find kinder people at a bar...

Is God a jerk? If we are imperfect images of God, does this allow us to be jerks too?

8:56 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

So let me get this straight: Are you advocating that some people are saved by General Revelation? Yes, I am saying that the only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus Christ as he is presented in Scripture.
Reformed theologians have always recognized progressive revelation. That does not mean, however, that God prohibited women in leadership in the Old and New Testaments, but thinks it's fine now. What a ridiculous hermeneutic!
I personally don't care what you thought of the post. Your arguments are non-arguments. Just go back and read your response. General Revelation = progressive revelation = women in leadership. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
You are the poster boy for what is tragically wrong with modern evangelicalism.

10:48 PM  
Blogger Solameanie said...


I think the charge of "proof-texting" is way overused. Your "answer" completely dodged Ron's question. The fact is that you just don't want to admit that Scripture says what it says, and means what it says.

In terms of progressive revelation, I begin to think you have this confused with "continuing revelation." Would you perhaps be a closet charismatic?

God's Word stands as it is. It will not be altered just to suit the whims of so-called progressives who find more gratification in being liked by a Christ-hating culture than they do in being faithful to God's Word.

Ron has tried several times now to get you to actually engage with Scripture and doctrinal matters. However, you continue to weave and dodge. You really gave the game away in your first sentence. "There is no right answer except the one you want to hear."

Do you think there IS a right answer to anything?

2:07 PM  
Blogger Randy Buist said...

Here's what I know. Ron & friends claim that anyone left of himself moves away from Scripture. How absurd.

I've mentioned plenty of biblical texts only to be told that good Christians treat people like crap all for the sake of truth.

I have yet to find an example of Christ doing this. I have yet to imagine Ron being someone who loves others as they want to be loved.

The fact is: If I had no faith in a living God, Ron would have slammed the door on that idea. He totally disregards people who think much differently.

Case in point -- look at his most recent posts. He is FAR right wing in all of his politics as well as his theology.

I've never tried to engage someone with a doctorate who can call as many names of others as a fifth grader.

You can say this doesn't matter, but Paul writes and writes and writes about how our lives reflect the faith.

So I don't believe one particular verse tells the entire story of Scripture. I asked about how Abraham was saved apart from the text, and he called me names.

I would like to know a few verses where the biblical text claims to be the means of salvation.

While the reformers said Sola Scriptura, they didn't believe that Scritures held salvation. They held a means to salvation.

If you want to be a better reformed theologian, it would be correct to state that the Spirit is our meams to salvation.

If God always calls us, then let's leave it up to God rather than our correct reading of Scriptures.

Scriptures contains everything we need for salvation. Absolutely. But, the Scriptures are not salvation.

I recongize the desire of the right to protect the text. I also recognize the right distorting the beliefs of others to make their case.

Ron's interpretation, accuasations, and commenets regarding the faith of so many recognized followers of the living God simply don't fit within the story of biblical Christians.

To question the faith and integrity of John Wesley or whomever isn't within his favorite theologians?

I'm waiting for him to show the terrible errors of Barth. That would be a fun read.

I submit that all Scriptures are inspired by God. But, I have a hard time with people who are simply mean in the name of Jesus because their thoughts and words don't reflect God.

4:25 PM  
Blogger Kyjo said...


I have a hard time paying you much attention. I have never once seen you actually engage Ron seriously. The most you manage to do is accuse, implicitly and explicitly, anyone of being un-Christlike who doesn't concede the equal legitimacy of your brand of broad Christianity, or who isn't "nice." (And Jesus was always "nice"?) You are guilty of the very thing you accuse Ron of. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple. And Scripture does have plenty to say about that.

6:29 PM  
Blogger Rattlesnake6 said...

I was required to read almost all of Barth's "Kirchliche Dogmatik" so if you are interested, I can provide an assessment of Barth and his theology.
But whether it is Barth, Frei, McLaren, or anyone else, we are allowed to criticize. Many in the emergent church are dependent on many strands in Barth's theology, although I am certain--like that word?--that Barth would speak of the clarity of Scripture, once the Holy Spirit had come--senkrecht--into it.
McLaren and your crowd truly dishonors the Lord because you accuse him of not being able to communicate what he says he communicates: knowledge and truth.
A final comment: who ever identified salvation with Scripture? In the mediate work and workings of the Holy Spirit, the Church has confessed for millennia that the Spirit works through the Bible. You might have missed that class in seminary.

9:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home