Promise Unfulfilled | Rolland McCune

Rolland McCune. Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Evangelicalism. Ambassador-Emerald, 2004. 398 pp.

Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy

Concessions concerning inspiration and inerrancy, especially inerrancy, are where the principal departures of some new evangelicals lie and where the deviations are most visibly pronounced, and destructive. Non-evangelicals have been quick to notice the concessions. L. Harold DeWolf, a liberal from Boston University, in 1960 noted “revisions” in the “fundamentalist” view of inspiration, as did John B. Cobb and William Hordern (neo-orthodox).¹

Fortunately, voices within new evangelicalism itself sounded alarms about the drift and manifest destiny of concessions on inerrancy. Frank Gaebelein, for example, warned: “We must not blink at the evidence that there is current among some evangelicals a subtle erosion of the doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture that is highly illogical as well as dangerous.”² Gaebelein’s red flag went unheeded and inerrancy suffered the fate Gaebelein envisioned. Interestingly, the “subtle erosion” sailed under different mastheads, rationalizing the concessions in a variety of ways, though most included calls for higher scholarship. Some of the rationalizations will be analyzed below.

Inspiration of the Writer, Not the Writings

Dewey Beegle argued that the human author of Scripture partook of inspiration,³ therefore, degrees of inspiration within the Bible exist; i.e., degrees of “inspiredness” of the writers. Beegle even insists that the inspiration of the biblical writers is no different in kind than that of hymn-writers of the church; the difference is in degree.

The only text of Scripture that deals specifically with the object of inspiration is 2 Timothy 3:16: (”All Scripture [graphe] is inspired by God [theopneustos].” Scripture, not the writers, is inspired. Graphe is writing, script, something written down. The writings are the product of the creative breath of God. While one cannot divorce the writer from his produced writing, theologically it is the writing that is supernaturally generated and bears the inherent divine perfections of sacred Scripture. Writing consists of words. Inspired Scripture is therefore the inspiration of words. . . .

The dispute over the object of inspiration is not a minor theological quibble; the answers bear direct debate, specifically regarding the subjectivistic influence rooted in neo-orthodoxy. Once human subjectivism has been introduced into the meaning of inspiration, little or no divine control is left, and biblical inspiration becomes captive to anyone’s concept of the degree of the biblical author’s spiritual afflatus. Psychology, not theology and exegesis, becomes authoritative. Beegle, James Orr, and others led evangelicals down a treacherous path by introducing the subjective idea of the inspiration of the writer instead of his writing. Notions of varying degrees of inspiration and authority within the Bible, levels of truth and error within Scripture, decisions of what is revelational and non-revelational, and the inevitable search for the “canon within the canon” all have their illegitimate parentage in a subjective view of inspiration.

Inerrancy is Not a Test of Organizational Fellowship

In the immediate aftermath of the formal announcement of Billy Graham’s ecumenical evangelism, justification of organizational ties with non-evangelicals appeared in numerous quarters. Questions circulated, probing the definition of a true evangelical, the bases of religious endeavors with liberals, and what doctrines should determine the parameters of cooperation. Some argued that biblical inspiration/inerrancy factors should have no bearing: “If our Lord and Savior has received anyone with open arms, we dare not reject him.” Biblically centered and consistent theology “must never be made the criterion for Christian fellowship. . . . A faulty, imperfect theology will not keep anyone out of heaven.”⁴

Tolerating those who deny inerrancy is a practice that must be tested scripturally. The Bible clearly condemns collaboration with an erring brother (Rom 16:17; 2 Thess 3:6). Deviations from apostolic doctrine (the “tradition”) certainly must include the doctrine of Scripture. Furthermore, if part of the essence of being an evangelical is belief in verbal inerrancy, then it must also become part of the irreducible minimum of beliefs in order for one to cooperate in an organized, ecclesiastical manner. . . .

The Bible is the basis of any other doctrine that may be construed as to fellowship. One cannot hold to the deity of Christ as fundamental, for example, and ignore the only source of the knowledge of that deity. If “evangelical” is given its simplest definition as a belief in the evangel or the gospel of saving grace in Jesus Christ (the euaggelon), then one must include the inerrancy of Scripture as an indispensable item. There is no gospel apart from Christ and His work, and there is no knowledge of Christ and His work apart from an inerrant Bible (1 Cor 15:1-11 [”according to the Scriptures”]; Heb 10:7 [”in the scroll of the book it is written of me”]).

Errant Sources Were Copied by Bible Writers

Some new evangelicals contend that errors inadvertently crept into the Bible when Bible writers used non-inspired sources. Everett F. Harrison, a professor at Fuller Seminary, raised the question, “Does inspiration require that a Biblical writer should be preserved from error in the use of sources?” His answer is ambiguous, but he as much as said that inspiration does not so require.⁵

A major problem here is that this view ends up questioning all the historical books of the Bible and the historical sections of numerous other biblical books. Clearly, some of the biblical authors used non-inspired sources. Moses drew material from the “Book of the Wars of the Lord” (Num 21:14); Joshua quoted the “Book of Jasher” as did David (Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18); the Chronicler used the diaries of prophets to put together his history (1 Chron 29:29); Luke testified to his investigation into the life of Christ and used his research to assure Theophilus of the accuracy of his account (Luke1:1-4); Paul cited approvingly certain Greek poets (Acts 17:28); Titus quoted a Cretan “prophet” (Tit 1:12); and quite possibly Jude drew from the pseudepigraphical book of Enoch (Jude 14). The question is, do quotations from these sources compromise verbal inerrancy? . . .

Just how the Spirit superintended the use of non-inspired sources is not revealed in the Bible, and furthermore, is not germane to the fact of inerrancy.

Inerrancy is Not Necessary in “Peripheral Matters”

Some evangelicals have argued that the purpose of Scripture is to create life, not to reveal truth. As Carnell put it, “The communication of life, not knowledge, is the goal of inspiration” (italics his).⁶ That is, the salvation of sinners is not dependent on accuracy in obscure chronologies or passages not directly bearing on redemption from sin. Inerrancy inheres only in the parts intended to make us wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15). . . .

The most obscure passage in the canon may well have a bearing on the Lord Jesus Christ and His mission in the world. Finitude and original sin prevent one from seeing the full implication of Scripture. If Jesus could see clearly the doctrine of resurrection from the incident of the burning bush (Matt 22:29), how much more is there to be seen in Scripture if only there were the ability? If Christ could upbraid the theologians of His day for missing this important truth from an Old Testament narrative, dare any mortal presume to declare what is revelational or non-revelational, and on that basis decide what is inerrant and what is possibly not in Scripture?

The new evangelical argument also creates an ambivalence to authority within the Bible itself. Some verses have no divine authority because they contain error. Only the salvation texts, called “revelational” or “doctrinal,” have real, binding authority. The selective process creates a “canon within the canon,” and one is forced to weed through the Scripture searching for truth in the midst of error hoping to find the genuine canon and save his soul from eternal perdition. This is hopeless. Further, the argument shifts the real authority to the human mind and away from the Bible’s own testimony concerning its origin, nature, and authority (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:21; et al.). Intellectual autonomy is the scarlet sin of theologians and philosophers. . . .

Wayne Grudem, also a new evangelical, articulates six objections to accommodationism. As to the purpose of Scripture, his conclusion is appropriate: “It is better to say that the whole purpose of Scripture is to say everything it does say, on whatever subject.”⁷

Inerrancy is Not Possible from a Philosophical Standpoint

Some evangelicals conjecture that human language is incapable of conveying absolute truth because, being symbolic or metaphorical in nature, language is relative. No two people understand exactly the same thing by a given word, concept, or sentence. Eugene Nida, for example, says:

The only absolute in Christianity is the triune God. Anything which involves man, who is finite and limited, must of necessity be limited, and hence relative. Biblical relativism is an obligatory feature of our incarnational religion, for without it we would either absolutize human institutions or relativize God.⁸

There are several objections to the idea that human language itself precludes inerrancy. The argument fails to have a truly theistic view of human language. Language is a part of the image of God in man that enables him to receive divine verbal revelation and to communicate with his Maker. God gave language for theological expression. God created human language and created man as a linguistic being. He is the sovereign God; therefore, human language can never successfully frustrate or resist His purposes to communicate inerrantly in human language.

Finitude is an important factor in language barriers and difficulties. God cannot be fully known by the human mind; a complete understanding of God and His ways is not possible for a finite intellect. But it is not clear theologically (or logically) how human finitude necessitates error in verbal revelation. Jesus Christ was fully human (as well as fully God), and He spoke human language. Any questioning or denial of verbal inerrancy because of philosophical problems in linguistics ultimately reflects on God’s supreme revelation in human form-the incarnation. If the human aspect of the Bible inevitably involves error and precludes inerrancy, serious questions arise concerning the person of Christ who also was human. . . .

Richard Gaffin expressed it crisply:

“To call into question the inerrancy of the Bible is to call into question the infallibility of Christ. To put the matter simply: the abandonment of the infallibility of Scripture and of the conviction that it is the very words of God is the abandonment of evangelical theology.”⁹

The argument that human language cannot convey inerrant information is self-defeating. If language cannot convey absolute truth, then the dictum itself is not true. If language is inherently relative, then the principle of the relativity of language is itself relative, i.e., a relative relativism elevated to an absolute relativism by sheer cerebral fiat! Or if no two people understand words exactly alike and this fact precludes errorlessness, then the argument is itself erroneous. All truth statements about anything are questionablea hopeless conclusion. . . .

The men who wrote under inspiration or who gave the Word of God under prophetic consciousness claimed absolute authority for their words. This was true of David (2 Sam 3:2), Isaiah (Isa 1:20), Jesus Christ (Matt 24:35; John 17:8, 14), Paul (Gal 1:8), and John (Rev 22:19), among others. The Bible writers regarded the inspired works of others as absolute and authoritative (Ps 19:7; 119:89, 128; Isa 8:20; Matt 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 7:38; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21). The interesting interchange of “God” and “Scripture” is also instructive (Rom 9:17; Gal 3:8). No error between God and His verbal revelation in Scripture is possible.

Scriptural Accuracy Cannot Be Judged by Present Standards

It is alleged that “missile-launching accuracy” cannot be predicated of the Bible in all its parts. For example, with the value of pi (3.14159), Solomon’s “molten sea” could not have had a diameter of 10 cubits and circumference of 30 (2 Chron 4:2). Robert Mounce, a professor at Bethel College, St. Paul, asks, “Are we to argue deductively that inspiration logically necessitates Cape Kennedy accuracy, or shall we adopt the inductive approach and ask Scripture to define its own terms?” His answer: “Our concern that the Bible be held in high esteem does not allow us the prerogative of propounding a level of missile-launching accuracy, especially when the Word of God itself does not support such a position.”¹⁰ Jack Rogers, a theologian from Fuller Seminary, wrote: “I believe it is wrong to impose our changing twentieth-century standards of science on the Bible in an attempt to make it conform to secular standards.¹¹ . . .

The new evangelical objection to inerrancy on this point rests on a faulty view or definition of truth. As noted earlier, truth is an expression of the mind of God, that which God could say about any and all reality or states of affairs. Intentionalism is not in itself a valid definition or criterion of truth. John Feinberg correctly notes that Hubbard and others have arrived at a meaning of truth by studying the words “truth” and “error” in the Bible and not facing the biblical concept of truth. The latter defines what sort a thing truth really is.¹² A concept or theory of truth is not captured by the study of one word and its antonym.

The intent to deceive is too subjective and elusive a criterion to apply to biblical inerrancy. While all would agree that volition and intention affect the definition of error, errors can be made with or without the intent to do so. Intent cannot be the sole, nor prime, ingredient in defining error. Such a definition is more psychological and subjective than objective. The biblical idea of truth rests on a correspondence foundation, that which corresponds to God’s declaration concerning a state of affairs. Truth and error are theistically determined. Any truth or error is what it is in relation to the self-contained triune God of the Scriptures, that is, in relation to His comprehensive plan, original creation, and present exhaustive preservation and absolute control of the universe.. . .

Finally, it needs to be repeated that Jesus stamped the whole Old Testament as authoritative in all its parts (even an apparently obscure part) (John 10:35). Tedious distinctions on what constitutes accuracy and error in the biblical cultures are simply quibbles designed to evade the clear testimony of Scripture in the interests of agendas alien to the teaching of our Lord. It is the testimony of Scripture to itself through the lips and pens of Jesus Christ and His (Old and New Testament) prophets and apostles that is being impugned.

Arguments for Inerrant Non-Existent Autographs are Useless

Some new evangelicals consider it an exercise in futility to argue for the inerrancy of the original manuscripts of Scripture when they are lost and presumably unable to be retrieved. Mounce asserted: “The concept of an infallible originalinfallible in the sense of perfect conformity to an arbitrary standard which we humans set upis an unreal and ill-advised haven for those who are over-solicitous for the Word of God.”¹³ . . .

As to the absence of the autographs, any view of inspiration faces the problem. It is just as difficult to demonstrate that the autographs had error. Empirical certainty is impossible in any case, and the available empirical (manuscript) evidence as such is inconclusive. Nothing therefore is established by saying that the inaccessibility of the autographs makes an appeal to them useless and/or precludes belief in inerrancy. . . . The old dictum is true that the kind of Bible one believes in reflects the kind of God one believes. . . .

The argument against inerrancy from lost autographs fails to comprehend the providence of God (i.e., secondary causation) in the preservation of the text of Scripture; He did not choose to use miracles (a direct intrusion of His power) for that purpose. Thus there is a great difference between the original inspiration of the text (direct miracle) and its preservation (indirect providence). . . . The argument against inerrancy from lost autographs also fails to realize that while the original manuscripts have been lost, the original words have not. While we do not possess the original codex (manuscript), we do possess the original text (words) in the many manuscripts, copies, translations, and versions of Scripture.

As to the charge that an appeal to inerrant autographs is rather recent, the Rogers and McKim proposal has been shown to be inadequate, prejudicial, selective in choice of evidence, and overall a sloppy piece of work.¹⁴ Augustine, in the early fifth century A.D., wrote: “I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.”¹⁵ Erasmus himself believed in infallible originals.¹⁶ Others in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries agreed, William Ames being a prime example.¹⁷ After extensive documentation, Woodbridge concludes:

The “authentic originals” concept played an important role in the controversies of some but not all Roman Catholics and Protestants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Those scholars who suggest that the idea of a completely infallible Bible in the original autographs is a late nineteenth-century construction would do well to reconsider these controversies.

Inspiration and Inerrancy are Not Tantamount to Each Other

Some new evangelicals assert that the Bible does not teach its inerrancy, but that inerrancy is implied or derived from inspiration -that technically inspiration does not necessarily entail inerrancy or absolute truth. E. F. Harrison noted: “Inerrancy is a conclusion to which devout minds have come because of the divine character of Scripture.” And, “Unquestionably the Bible teaches its own inspiration. It is the Book of God. It does not require us to hold inerrancy, though this is a natural corollary of full inspiration.”¹⁸ . . .

A further refinement of this line of reasoning is the new meaning or connotation attached to the word “infallibility.” In theology heretofore infallibility meant incapable of error. Now it is used in the narrow and restricted sense of “infallibility as to purpose” and no longer “infallibility as to content.” That is, Scripture will infallibly lead one to salvation in Christ and a right knowledge of God because that is its purpose, but it is not necessarily without error in some of its content. . . .

Is biblical inerrancy only a deduction or inference made from the doctrine of inspiration? When the Bible teaches that God, who inspired Scripture, is truth and cannot lie (John 3:33; Titus 1:2), and that Jesus Christ, the enfleshment of truth (John 14:6), pronounced the Word of God as truth (John 17:17), is it mere pious logic that sees the God-breathed Book as inerrant? Hardly. Or consider the divine agent in inspiration, the Holy Spirit; He is called the Spirit of truth (John 14:7; 15: 26; 16:13). John later says explicitly, “the Spirit is the truth” (1 John 5:6). Since Satan is the source of error (1 John 4:6), we are then faced with the nonsensical anomaly that somehow the Bible is the product of the cooperative efforts of the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. . . .

The new evangelical disjunction between inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility is purely a philosophical if not simply a semantic quibble, and has no basis in theology or exegesis. It is manifestly designed to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture concerning its own inspiration and inerrancy.

Phenomena, Not Prooftexts, Form the Basis of Inspiration

The “phenomena” in this argument include all the data, facts, evidences of what inspiration is, how the Bible was used by other Bible writers, prophets, and apostles, etc. It is argued that the doctrine of inspiration must be based on all these phenomena of Scripture, including the alleged contradictions, discrepancies, and factual errors. These problematic data must not be explained away by a predetermined doctrine based on proof texts, so the assertion goes. Instead man must examine all Scripture in an inductive, unprejudiced manner and thus extract a doctrine of inspiration.

E. F. Harrison was one of the first new evangelicals to postulate the “phenomena” theory. Dealing with the question of errant sources used by the Bible writers, he notes, “if the inductive study of the Bible reveals enough examples of this sort of thing to make the conclusion probable [that errors were thus incorporated], then we shall have to hold the doctrine of inspiration in this light.”¹⁹ This follows his earlier conclusion:

It would seem that the only healthy attitude for conservatives is to welcome criticism and be willing to join in it. No view of Scripture can indefinitely be sustained if it runs counter to the facts. That the Bible claims inspiration is patent. The problem is to define the nature of that inspiration in the light of the phenomena contained therein.²⁰

In response to the “phenomena” argument, the phenomena themselves must include the express teaching of Scripture concerning its own inerrancy, in other words, the “proof texts.” Beegle, the champion of the phenomena argument, acknowledges this obvious point. “The proper use of the inductive method demands observation of the . . . claims of Scripture along with the data that fit into the so-called scientific category of human, nontheological history.”²¹ However, this rather self-evident discovery is virtually ignored in his procedure to construct a doctrine of biblical inspiration. A major ingredient in the process of formulating theology simply vanishes in practice. To frame a doctrine around the difficulties and logical extensions it may have is a fallacious means of theological construction. Only with the stability of an established doctrine can its phenomena be meaningfully studied. In the case of inspiration/inerrancy, good theology takes what the Bible says explicitly about itself. On that basis alone can the phenomena be properly evaluated and studied. . . .

Inerrancy is Denied by Hermeneutical Methodology

By the use of redaction criticism principally, which deals with the way a gospel writer edited his material, inerrancy is denied in practice although it may be affirmed as a theological tenet. . . .

Robert H. Gundry made use of redaction criticism to the extent that he denied biblical inerrancy in practice. Gundry concluded that Matthew used the Jewish literary genre of “midrash” which freely changes stories and events in order to get across a message. By this method Matthew changed the story of the shepherds at Jesus’ birth into the wise men who came from the east. In actuality no wise men visited Jesus, but Matthew redacted or edited his source so as to make the shepherd incident tell the message about the birth of Israel’s king in terms of wise men.²² . . .

What is to be said in the face of the problem of hermeneutics vis-a-vis inerrancy? Biblical inerrancy demands a hermeneutic that will not undermine or deny the complete inerrancy and the total trustworthiness of Scripture. A method of interpretation that says the gospel writers reshuffled and modified their sources in such a way as to deny or change the historical setting does in fact undermine the trustworthiness of Scripture. What the Bible presents as historical event cannot be denied its actual historicity without denying biblical inerrancy. Confessional orthodoxy (”I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture”) is not sufficient in itself because mere conscientious sincerity in affirming a doctrine is not enough. The doctrine’s integrity must be maintained throughout scholarly processes and conclusions. Any exegetical or hermeneutical method or conclusion that destroys a clear doctrine nullifies the affirmation of that doctrine regardless of how conscientiously it may have been made originally.

Taken from pp. 165-86 of Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism by Rolland McCune, copyright © 2004 by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and Rolland McCune. Used by permission of Ambassador Emerald International, Greenville, SC 29609. All rights reserved.

1. L. Harold Dewolf, Present Trends in Christian Thought (New York: Association Press, 1960), pp. 45, 55-56. John B. Cobb, Review of The Case for Orthodox Theology, by E. J. Carnell, Interpretation 14 (1960), pp. 94-96. William Hordern, New Directions in Theology Today (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), pp. 80-89. See also the assessment of James Davison Hunter, a sociologist who interviewed students from several evangelical educational institutions (Evangelicalism: The Corning Generation [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987], p. 31). [↩]
2. Frank E. Gaebelein, “The Word of God in Education,” Christianity Today (May 9, 1960), p. 7. [↩]
3. Dewey Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), p. 71. [↩]
4. Paul R. Edwards, “Some Thoughts on Fundamentalist Infallibility,” Eternity (Sept 1957), p. 48. [↩]
5. Everett F. Harrison, “The Phenomena of Scripture,” in Revelation and the Bible, Carl F. H. Henry, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), p. 249. [↩]
6. The Case for Orthodox Theology, p. 100. [↩]
7. Wayne A. Grudem, “Scripture’s Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture,” p. 57. [↩]
8. Eugene Nida, Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions (New York: Hatper, 1954), p. 282. [↩]
9. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Review of Dewey M. Beegle: The Inspiration of Scripture,” Westminster Theological Journal 6 (1964), p. 235. [↩]
10. Robert H. Mounce, “Clues To Understanding Biblical Accuracy,” Eternity (June 1966), pp. 17-18. Ten years later he reiterated his position during the “Battle For the Bible” controversy within new evangelicalism (”Does the Bible Contain Errors?” Eternity [Aug 1976], p. 49). [↩]
11. Jack Rogers, Letter to the Editor, Christianity Today (Mar 5, 1982), p. 10. [↩]
12. John S. Feinberg, “Truth, Meaning, and Inerrancy,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26 (1983), p. 26. For the whole question of the meaning of truth and its role in the inerrancy debate, see further his “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy, pp. 267-304, and “Truth: Relationship of Theories of Truth to Hermeneutics,” in Hermeneutics, Authority and the Bible, Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus, eds. (Grand Rapids Zondervan, 1984), pp. 3-50. See also Norman Geisler, “The Concept of Truth in the Inerrancy Debate,” Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (Oct-Dec 1980), pp. 327-29, and a similar essay in The Living and Active Word of God: Essays in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz, Morris Inch and Ronald Youngblood, eds. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 225-36. [↩]
13. Robert H. Mounce, “Clues to Understanding Biblical Inerrancy,” p. 18. [↩]
14. John D. Woodbridge wrote a scholarly, well-documented refutation of the Rogers and McKim theory entitled Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982). His conclusion concerning their work: “Because they desired so strongly to plead a certain case, they generally sacrificed their claims to even-handed scholarship by discounting out-of-hand contrary evidence, by neglecting a world of technical scholarship bearing on their broad subject, by fixing too uncritically upon a neo-orthodox historiography, and by relying too heavily upon secondary literature rather than examining primary sources for themselves. As a result, their volume lacks that quality of reliability that gives good historical surveys their endurance” (p. 155). [↩]
15. The Letters Augustine, 82.3, quoted by Woodbridge, Biblical Authority, p. 167. [↩]
16. Erasmus complained that “often the authentic and true text has been corrupted by ignorant copyists,” cited by Woodbridge, Biblical Authority, pp. 51; also see his footnote 10 on p. 175. [↩]
17. Ibid., pp. 74, 81-83. [↩]
18. E. F. Harrison, “The Phenomena of Scripture,” pp. 238, 250. [↩]
19. Everett F. Harrison, “The Phenomena of Scripture,” p. 249. [↩]
20. lbid., p. 239. [↩]
21. Dewey M. Beegel, Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility, p. 18. [↩]
22. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 27. [↩]

Like this post? Subscribe to our feed .