Reflection on the “Chameleon” Post
Ages ago, as a blogger rookie, this was one of my first posts. I wrote mostly about symptoms back then, and would like to add an addendum to the end that answers the “why?” question in regard to what I have perceived for years in the institutional church…
[Begin transcript]
Wikipedia has this definition of the Chameleon Lizard: “All chameleon species are able to change their skin colors. Different chameleon species are able to change different colors which can include pink, blue, red, orange, green, black, brown, yellow and turquoise. Recent research indicates that they do not typically change their color for reasons of camouflage, but instead use color changes as a method of communication, including making themselves more attractive to potential mates.”
Over the years, I have observed the “Chameleon Christian,” and like the lizard, they seem to be the most common form of Christian species these days, as Wikipedia later states concerning the Chameleon. Also like the lizard, they change colors to communicate favorably and appear attractive. To be more specific, they follow whatever teaching happens to be in front of them at the time. This is a phenomenon that has always been hard for me to comprehend, but no less true. You put John MacAuthor in their church one day, they will follow him. Put Joel Osteen in there the next day, they will follow him and adapt accordingly. Compare this to what Scripture says about the Christians at Berea: “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily {to see} whether these things were so.”
The Bereans wouldn’t even give the Apostle Paul a pass on what he taught. So what are you? Are you a Chameleon Christian, or a Berean?
[End transcript]
I see now that the reason for this is simple; it matters little about the truth within the institutional church, salvation comes by being faithful to the institution itself. In many cases, new leadership will posit doctrine that turns what prior leaders took 20 years to establish completely upside down. Nevertheless, people will remain faithful to that particular church without a whimper. Why?
Because it’s the institution that saves, not the truth taught within the institution.
paul
The Elephant in the Room: The Historical-Redemptive Gospel
Originally published September 3, 2013
How Should We Read Our Bibles?
There isn’t a bigger elephant in the Sunday school room or the sanctuary than the issue of Bible interpretation. The reason for this follows: the method of interpretation that comes natural to us is assumed.
What is that method? This gets into an area of study called hermeneutics (the theory of interpretation), and the two primary theories thereof are exegesis and eisegesis. These are big theological words that the average Protestant is not supposed to know. This is because the Protestant interpretation of the Scriptures is based on authority.
We will get to exegesis and eisegesis, but the crux of the issue is authority. The Reformers came from Romanism and clearly, their interpretive construct was based on authority; i.e., the average parishioner was not free to interpret the Bible and follow it according to one’s own conscience:
Rightfully and nobly did the Protestant Reformers claim religious liberty for themselves; but they resolutely refused to concede it to others. [1]
The very foundation of Protestant interpretation is based on authority; that is, the leaders dictate meaning. Therefore, traditionally, the need for Protestants in general to understand interpretive principles would be unnecessary, and as a result, Protestantism functions that way till this very day. In the early days of the Reformation, private interpretation was outlawed [2]; in our day, education regarding the tools needed to interpret the Bible are merely excluded.
This fact brings us to an interesting word, “orthodoxy.” Traditionally, this word is associated with “truth” as a synonym. This is not the case at all. Orthodoxy is the authority of truth based on counsels of any given sect. [3] The opinions of these counsels regarding the meaning of “truth” are known as “creeds” and “confessions.” These are “truths” (actually, opinions concerning the meaning of any given subject) repackaged for those who have limited understanding, and usually recited and learned through catechisms [4].
Authority Versus Individual Interpretation
Hence, Protestant interpretation is based on authority and not individual interpretation. The structure of this interpretive process is orthodoxy formed through counsels, distributed by creeds/confessions, and practiced through catechisms. In Europe and early Colonial America, it was a matter of civil law, in our day the process is tempered by the freedom to choose your own orthodoxy, but it is still orthodoxy. Once a typical American parishioner chooses who they want to believe, they will follow that leader as an authority. A like tendency caused the Apostle Paul to confront the believers at Corinth (1COR 3:1-9).
Of course, the authoritative method of interpretation is at the root of every cult. Traditionally, when people seek to find God, they begin by finding an authority that they are comfortable with. This is why many people prefer authoritative interpretation in a free society: it allows them to choose their own general truth while leaving the hard task of thinking to others. The Apostle Paul said this would be particularly problematic in the last days (2TIM 4:3-5).
The visible authority structure within the church is known as “church polity” or church government. [5] Again, the whole construct is based on authority. If authority is the interpretive prism, roles in the church are going to be seen as positions of authority rather than gifts. When Christ ministered here on earth, disciples were free to follow Him or not follow Him under their own free volition (JN 6:66-69). Christ made it clear to the disciples that their roles in the kingdom were not that of authority (Matthew 20:20-28).
The word “office” inserted in the English translations when associated with “bishop” or “deacon” were added in to the translations and do not appear in the Greek manuscripts while in other places these roles are spoken of as gifts (EPH 4:11-16). We have been given authority to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom on earth, but that is a vertical authority and not horizontal. Those who protest the gift idea versus the authority idea often cite the following text:
Hebrews 13:17 – Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
The word for “obey” in this verse is πείθω (peithō) which means to persuade by argument. The word “submit” is ὑπείκω (hypeikō) which means “to surrender.” Here is the best rendering according to a heavy paraphrase:
Be persuaded by your leaders’ arguments from Scripture and don’t be stubborn in regard to the truth for this is no advantage to your own spiritual wellbeing. Besides, they have to give an account for how they led you, and let that account be a joyful recital to the Lord rather than a sorrowful report.
Why is this important? Because every person is personally culpable before God for following the truth, not men. Paul was an apostle, yet the Bereans verified what he taught according to their own understanding of Scripture (Acts 17:11). Paul told the Corinthians that he should only be followed as he followed Christ (1COR 11:1). Every individual will stand before God to give an account of the sum and substance of their own lives, not who they followed among mortals.
The Exegesis and Eisegesis of Hermeneutics
The theological word for the science of biblical interpretation is hermeneutics. The first consideration of hermeneutics must be exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis draws conclusions from written text depending on the grammatical meaning and arrangement of words. Eisegesis approaches the text with an interpretive prism. One who uses the exegetical approach will even approach the text to learn how the text itself should be interpreted. Eisegesis assumes one must approach the text with a proper presupposition in order to properly understand it.
Therefore, this takes us right back to the basic question of authority versus the freedom of individual interpretation. Eisegesis will approach the text with a prescribed method of interpretation while exegesis will look for the best way to interpret the text from the text itself. The interpretive prism for eisegesis comes from an authority. The common contention from those of the authority camp is that everybody approaches the Bible with presuppositions, and this is unavoidable; so, it is important to use the right interpretive prism. Since we are supposedly incapable of approaching the Bible objectively, we should bow to their authority in regard to the proper interpretive prism.
Historical-Grammatical Versus Historical Redemptive: The Elephant in the Room
Eisegesis and exegesis really boils down to authority versus individualism, and so does the two major methods of interpretation in the church: historical-grammatical method and the historical-redemptive method. This is where we get into discussion about the elephant in the room. These two devices of interpretation yield completely different results. When we sit under any given teacher, he/she will be using one of these hermeneutics. The two different approaches will sound the same because each uses all of the familiar terms, “gospel,” “justification,” etc., but the terms mean different things in each construct. This is the elephant in the sanctuary and the Sunday school room that no one is talking about.
As suggested by the terms themselves, one interprets the Bible grammatically, and the other interprets the Bible through a Redemptive prism. The latter seems perfectly reasonable: “Isn’t the Bible primarily about Redemption?” The former would judge that assertion by a grammatical evaluation of the text. In other words, conclusions are drawn by the arrangement of words, their meaning, and what those words meant to people in that historical context. This is exegesis.
The redemptive method presupposes that the Bible is a gospel narrative about the works and personhood of Christ. It presupposes that this is the dominate theme of the Bible and everything else in the Bible is secondary and points back to Christ. For example, biblical commands aren’t really meant for us to obey, but rather illustrate the works that Christ has accomplished for us and illustrative of what we are unable to do. This bypasses the normal grammatical interpretation of an imperative expectation, and interprets it as a finished work that God in fact does not want us to do. This is assumed because of the redemptive presupposition. As Neo-Calvinist Paul David Tripp has said, biblical commands must be seen in their “gospel context.” [6]
The Gospel Transformation Study Bible and the Redemptive-Historical Gospel
Dr. Kathleen Nielson, in a promotional video for the Gospel Transformation study Bible, stated that the historical-redemptive theme is not imposed on the text, “it’s actually in there!” This, we by no means deny, but are the works of Christ and His personhood something that every verse in the Bible points to? Nielson, like many from the redemptive-historical camp, use the grammatical approach to determine that something is in the text, and then make that an authoritative interpretive prism.
I have talked face to face with pastors who use this hermeneutic. As one stated to me, “You might have to cover multiple chapters in one sermon in order to see the Christocentric theme God is showing you at the time.” Others are even more direct:
At this time, resist the temptation to utilize subsequent passages to validate the meaning or to move out from the immediate context. Remembering that all exegesis must finally be a Christocentric exegesis.
Look for Christ even if He isn’t there directly. It is better to see Christ in a text even if He isn’t, than to miss Him where He is. [7]
Again, we see that a “Christocentric exegesis,” something that is in the text grammatically, becomes the authoritative eisegesis. And this elephant is a big one, because interpreting the Bible this way is intrinsically tied to the gospel that comes part and parcel with the redemptive method. The historical-redemptive method is a tool for enabling the believer to live by faith alone in their Christian walk. The historical-redemptive method is actually a gospel in and of itself. To interpret the Bible grammatically is to conclude that God actually wants us to exert our own will in response to commands in the Bible. To proponents of the redemptive-historical method, this is works salvation because Christ is not obeying for us in our Christian life. This is what the Reformation motto, “Christ for us” means. The Neo-Calvinist John Piper has stated it this way, “[Christ] 100% for us.” [8] Piper has also said that “necessary sanctification” comes from faith alone in the Christian life (Ibid).
Therefore, according to proponents of the redemptive model, a historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture necessarily leads to works salvation and making what we do in the Christian life “the ground of our justification” (Ibid). For all practical purposes, Paul David Tripp has stated such:
….and the Bible does call us to change the way we think about things. But this approach again omits the person and work of Christ as Savior. Instead, it reduces our relationship to Christ to “think his thoughts” and “act the way Jesus would act.” [9]
Here, Tripp concedes that the Bible can be interpreted grammatically, “and the Bible does call us to change the way we think about things.” Grammatically, one assumes the commandments are to us and that we are called to do them. Again, Tripp clearly recognizes this fact. But what does he say the results are?
But this approach again omits the person and work of Christ as Savior.
What happens if we “omit” Christ as “Savior”? Clearly, Tripp is stating that if we interpret the Bible literally and obey it, we are circumventing Christ’s salvific work. Much more than mere semantics are at stake here. The elephant in the room is absolutely huge! This is about the gospel.
The historical-redemptive method of interpretation is all the rage in contemporary Christianity. Projects and programs that promote this method of interpretation and target all age groups abound. Almost all Christian publishers are on board with the historical-redemptive hermeneutic. The latest project that has been unveiled towards this endeavor is Crossway Publishers’ The Gospel Transformation Bible. It will be available 10/19/13.
The subtitle is, “Christ in all of Scripture, Grace for all of Life.” This is typical of those who promote this method of interpretation and its gospel. Christians will assume that the title only pertains to justification by faith alone, but it doesn’t. “Transformation” or change has to do with the Christian life, and in the subtitle, “Grace” replaces “gospel” to veil the real crux of this doctrine. Basically, it teaches that Christians are transformed by continually revisiting the same gospel that saved them. Not only that, we keep ourselves saved by doing such. This is what is behind the Neo-Calvinist mantra, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” John Piper has said that the question is not only how one gets saved, but how one must use the same gospel that saved him/her to keep themselves saved. [10] Piper has also said that we must “see” the same gospel that saved us over and over again as a requirement to enter heaven. [11]
Note: This is what’s so critical about the Reformed historical-redemptive interpretative model according to many Calvinists, it enables us to fulfill what is “required of us” to enter heaven (Ibid). In essence, once saved, how we read our Bible determines whether we keep our salvation or not. So therefore, those who promote The Gospel Transformation Bible actually see it as a resource for maintaining one’s salvation.
The “Gospel-Driven” Life
The question that is invariably raised is, “How do proponents of the historical-redemptive model explain obedience and the Christian life?” Primarily, they say Christians must “experience” obedience, but must not be the ones who perform it in the Christian life. By revisiting the gospel afresh, the works of Christ are “manifested” in our lives. When this happens, the obedience is experienced by a willing, joyful spirit. As we use the historical-redemptive model to see how sinful we are (a deeper realization of our sin, the realization that originally saved us), and thereby gaining a greater appreciation for what Jesus did for us, we experience “vivification.” This is some sort of joyful rebirth. Proponents of this hermeneutic, primarily those of Reformed theology, refer to this as “mortification and vivification.” A “daily dying and rising,” a “living out of our baptism.” [12] [13]
The Origin of the Historical-Redemptive Hermeneutic
Where did this hermeneutic originate? Even though Martin Luther’s 95 Theses launched the Reformation, the framework of the Reformation’s doctrine and gospel was articulated by Martin Luther six months later. Essentially, Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation to the Augustinian Order in 1518 is the heart and soul of the Reformation. Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion is a greatly expanded treatise of Luther’s framework. However, every fundamental element of Reformation doctrine can be found in Luther’s Disputation, and this by no means excludes the historical-redemptive hermeneutic. [14]
The primary theme of Luther’s Disputation is known as The Theology of the Cross. It was comprised of the glory story and the cross story. Luther believed that salvation must be maintained by an incessant emptying of self. One’s focus must be OUTWARD only. Any semblance of an inward look was the “glory story.” The outward focus on Christ and His works, and nothing about us whatsoever is the “cross story.” A beginning focus on the cross saves us, and a continued focus on the cross story keeps us saved the same way we were originally saved: by faith alone. Sola Fide also pertains to the Christian walk/life. The historical-redemptive model came from Luther’s Theology of the Cross.
Luther believed the outward focus and utter eradication of self leads to a subjective power displayed by the Holy Spirit that we experience. However, we are not to be concerned with it because there is no way for us to distinguish between our own efforts and those of the Spirit. [15] Mortification and vivification can be ascertained in Theses’ 16 and 17 of the Disputation.
Never have Christians been so oblivious to such a critical issue. What we believe about the gospel and how we convey it to the world is at stake. Every Sunday in America, historical-grammatical parents deliver their children to historical-redemptive teachers while clueless in regard to the ramifications. This reality actually creates mixed families and marriages via two different gospels. One spouse buys into sanctification by faith alone while the other one doesn’t. Eventually, you have a mixed marriage.
The issue with these two hermeneutics is not a matter of semantics and preference—these are two different gospels. This issue is the elephant in the sanctuary and the Sunday school room.
ENDNOTES
1. Nabu Public Domain Reprints: The Principles of the Westminster Standards Persecuting; William Marshall, D.D., Coupar – Angus. Edinburgh, William Oliphant & Co. 1873, p. 13.
2. Ibid., pp. 19-22, 28.
3. Bruce Overton: MacMillan’s Modern Dictionary; The Macmillan Co. New York 1943.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid. designated as synonymous with “politic” : the science of government.
6. Paul David Tripp: How People Change; Punch press 2006, p. 26.
7. The Biblical Theological Study Center: A Christo-Presuppositional Approach to the Entire Scriptures; Max Strange. Online source: http://goo.gl/5sGjP).
8. John Piper: Desiring God .org blog: Video, If you had 2 minutes with the Pope, what would you say?
9. Paul David Tripp: How People Change; Punch press 2006, p. 27.
10. John Piper: Desiring God .org blog; How Does The Gospel Save Believers? Part 2. August 23, 1998 Bethlehem Baptist Church.
11. Ibid, Part 3.
12. Michael Horton: The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way; Zondervan 2011, p. 661.
13. Paul Washer: The Gospel Call and True Conversion; Part 1, Chapter 1, heading – The Essential Characteristics Of Genuine Repentance, subheading – Continuing and Deepening Work of Repentance.
14. In its fundamental elements. It was not referred to as the historical-redemptive hermeneutic for many years afterward.
15. Heidelberg Disputation: Theses 24.
The Gospel Theology Project
You have heard of Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology which are theological frameworks that organize Scripture. They supply interpretive presuppositions that clearly lead to certain outcomes. I would argue that these Protestant constructs demand that the Bible is approached with a particular worldview in mind. In other words, it is believed that the average Christian cannot ascertain a proper worldview from which to interpret reality via the Scriptures.
One of the most often heard opinions in Reformed circles is that, “Everyone approaches the Bible with a presupposition and it is impossible to do otherwise.” The insinuation is that Christians are enslaved to their own reasoning and are unable to be objective. This is why the Reformers believed reason was like, to put it in modern terms, handing a child a loaded gun to play with. This outlook comes from a spiritual caste system where academic elitists instruct the laity on how to think and interpret reality.
This past Saturday, my wife Susan and I attended a conference in Columbus, Ohio where DA Carson taught three sessions on suffering. He openly stated that the purpose of the first session was to establish a proper worldview from which to interpret Scripture and life. The following two sessions then affirmed the worldview with Scripture; i.e., the worldview was presented, and then Scripture was used to prove the worldview. We call this eisegesis which comes from a word meaning “into.”
The conference inspired me to formulate an exegetical theology for the home fellowship movement that forms a theological framework FROM the Bible. Exegetical comes from a word meaning, “from” or “out from.” While at the conference I perused through the book store located in the lobby of the host church. I was tempted to buy a particular book and stopped myself by thinking,
“No, if I want to learn about that subject, I will let the Holy Spirit and other run of the mill believers teach me through independent Bible study—enough with orthodoxy already!”
Why do Spirit filled believers equipped with the best study resources ever amassed in human history continue to pay money for experts to think for them? In that spirit, I am starting a project for everyday Christians to work together in the development of an alternative exegetical theological framework. I would like to call it “Biblical Theology,” but that term has already been hijacked. Therefore, I have selected, “Gospel Theology.”
What is the goal, and how will the project work?
I have constructed a blogsite that will only have this project as its single post, and have started the ball rolling with 37 tenets. I have not had time to cite specific Bible verses in support of each tenet, but I will do so as I get time. The goal is to formulate an alternative theology to orthodoxy with the aid of the laity. Merely add to the discussion/debate in the comment section of the post. The site is gospeltheology.weebly.com. Depending on the discussion, tenets will be added or taken away. This is also a great opportunity for anybody to begin learning the weightier aspects of theology through participation.
The fact that I haven’t added the Bible verses at this point should make it fun. Suggest the verses that you think support or refute a particular tenet. Below, at yesterday’s Potter’s House meeting, Susan and I discuss the beginning tenets. The tenets will also be organized into categories later on.
Paul M. Dohse Sr.
Why Young People Leave Church
Young people stop going to church because it’s church. There is a reason church is not in the New Testament. There is a reason church does not show up until the 4th century. People have been trying to fix church for 500 years now; how are we doing? Christianity and church are two different things. Christianity was NEVER an institution with an authority structure. Please do not confuse leadership and fellowship with authority and orthodoxy. Please do not confuse individual temples where the Holy Spirit dwells with an institutional temple of refuge from the wrath of God. The church is a separate model of institutional authority with a gospel that serves that authority. ALL spiritual abuse, I repeat, ALL spiritual abuse flows from the presuppositions of the church’s institutional gospel of perpetual justification.
Church is the problem with church.
paul
What is the Reformed/Calvinist “Noble Lie”?
This post wasn’t on my schedule this morning, but I am nevertheless compelled to start my day by commenting on a link that “Carmen” has sent me. Carmen comments on PPT publically, and I continually get emails along the line of, “Hey, did you see Carmen’s comment? She really gets it.” Not only that, Carmen sends me research that flavors what is written here, and frankly, I fear that a lot of it will be lost in PPT’s 1 TB plus archives.
Therefore, starting with this post, and because she comments publically as “Carmen,” we are going to attach her relevant input on the bottom of posts where applicable to the subject. This will prevent her efforts from being lost in PPT electronic files and my 58 year old mind. This might include one of her comments that often contain research, or research that she sends us.
Furthermore, the research she sends influences the writings here to the point where it is becoming a borderline plagiarism issue. We know that she probably isn’t concerned about this, but we are. Therefore, whenever Pearl or the other contributors want to pad a post with her research, it will be archived along with the post at the bottom starting with this post where you can refer to the link that she sent me.
Let’s now address the link sent: a post on the TGC blog by Colin Smith concerning “change.” Let’s also be clear: Reformed thought disavows the idea that people change. When they write books like “How People Change” by the habitual liar Paul David Tripp, they don’t really intend to teach that people change. This should be obvious, no? How many of these guys have publicly proclaimed on the one hand that, “I am done trying to fix people” while on the other hand speaking of “change.” So, what’s going on?
“Cognitive dissonance!” That was easy. We have to go further than that; we have to discuss the most important element of CD, which is a mental form of ED. CD is functioning by two contradictory ideas or a series of contradictions, and in the case of CD, there is what psychologists call the “consonant” or “buffer.” It is the ideas that attempt to reconcile the contradictions and relieve the anxiety that causes it.
In the case of Reformed thought, the consonant is orthodoxy. What is orthodoxy? It is a dignified form of mythology which shouldn’t need dignifying. Mythology is not a collection of ancient superstitions as many people suppose. Mythology is the teaching construct of spiritual caste. This is the most common philosophy of world history. It presupposes an epistemological pecking order between deity, or a natural force, and humanity. The deity, or force, preselects those who can comprehend reality to lead those who cannot comprehend reality. Sometimes, those who cannot comprehend reality don’t know they can’t comprehend reality and hinder the preordained from bringing order and wellbeing to humanity; we call that “war.”
So, mythology is simply parables written by the preordained to help those who cannot understand reality to understand why they should follow the preordained. Predeterminism is central to this common philosophy and dominates mythology in general. Plato articulated this construct in The Republic this way: philosopher kings, warriors, producers. The producers do not necessarily take mythology literally, though some do (now you can invoke “superstition”); they understand that it is a narrative tool to help the producers understand why they should function a certain way in society. It is no different than the concept of children’s story books, except mythology is for adults. We try to instill principles in children based on what we know they can’t completely understand through stories and narratives—it’s the same construct. Of course there isn’t really a “Little Blue Engine That Can.” The personification of a train is not to be taken literally.
Orthodoxy is the same thing. It is the traditional teachings of preordained “Divines” who write creeds, confessions, and catechisms for the great unwashed masses. In mythology, orthodoxy’s kissing cousin, we have what’s called the “noble lie.” It is the misrepresentation of something cognitive that the producers understand in an elementary way. People don’t really change, but most producers are unable to grasp that, so the goal is to teach “change” in a way that produces the functionality desired by the philosopher kings.
Hence, the meaning of words in the minds of philosopher kings rarely mean the same thing to the producers. Philosopher kings allow the producers to assume they mean the same thing, but they don’t. And it’s not a lie because words that producers understand, and the way they understand them must be used in orthodoxy in order to lead the ignorant to green pastures of wellbeing; it is the noble lie.
And, the break point: the consonant is “paradox,” viz, contradictions only seem to be contradictions because the producers cannot comprehend what the philosopher kings can comprehend. And, this construct is appealing to the producer class for a number of reasons. If you want to see this construct in historical living color, study Nazi orthodoxy during the WWII era. The Bible makes it clear that there are some things God knows that we cannot understand, however, the bible also makes it clear that we are responsible for what we can know, and what we need to do in order to know it. In this construct, people are not responsible for knowing anything and many people like that idea for many misguided reasons not excluding good old fashioned laziness.
So, now we know the definitions of mythology, orthodoxy, superstition, and paradoxy in their true historical context.
The Colin Smith post is just another example of all of this. If you examine his sentence structure carefully, you begin to suspect that he really isn’t saying what he seems to be saying, and that’s the whole idea; he really isn’t saying what he seems to be saying. It’s a philosopher king thing, you wouldn’t understand. Notice that he subtly defines “birth” as an idea that can’t be dichotomized from the growth process. To think of a man as different from a baby is to deny babies because the growth that made the man is dichotomized from the separate concept of “baby.” Reformed elders constantly practice this cultish form of metaphysical two- stepping communication. It’s subtle, and very evil. It is often done by eliminating conjunctions/transitions and thereby making two different things the same. Their deceptive communication techniques are an identifiable system and complex.
Look, I am not going to dissect all of his nuance in the post; there is no need as others in his camp make it clear that people don’t change. Obviously, he is not saying what he seems to be saying, and you are supposed to accept it based on the Reformed CD consonant.
Don’t but it. It’s nothing more or less than Nazi Light.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment