The Bible Nerd Podcast

As it turns out, many Christians are confused about how and what happens when a person “gets saved.”

This is Christianese language we’re all used to using, but sometimes, it can be hard to communicate to others what we mean. I’ve dealt with the distinctness of Christian salvation here.

In this piece, I’d like to discuss three elements of salvation. When does conversion take place in a person’s life? What evidence will be demonstrated when this happens? For how long is a person saved?

An unfortunate, yet common mistake many Christians make is expecting others to conform their moral ideals to ours. According to the Bible, this is not possible.

Actually, there’s quite an interesting tension here. Romans 2:14-15 declares that all will be held accountable precisely because God’s moral law has been written on the hearts of all he has created.

In other words, on judgment day, nobody will be standing in moral judgment over Yahweh, their Creator.

And yet, in apparent contradistinction, 1 Corinthians 2:14-16 reads:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

This passage seems to suggest that it’s no wonder the “natural” man doesn’t do things God’s way! To do things his way requires spiritual discernment, which is impossible for the unbeliever.

We often tend to legalism, unfortunately. Such is the human way.

When others don’t think, walk, talk, or act just like us, we treat them as outsiders. They’re not part of the club.

While in a certain sense this may be true, it should not cause us to lose focus on the real goal and approach unbelievers with faulty expectations.

As the old saying goes, “We catch ’em, God cleans ’em!”

When it comes to bringing others to Christ, let’s focus on our task. Our part of the mission is to sow the seed and introduce people to Christ. He takes care of the rest.

Before moving on, let me caveat the above just a bit: I am not saying we should stay out of socio-political issues that derive from a Christian view of morality. For example, I think Christians ought to do all they (ethically) can to lobby for legislation against abortion.

As sad as the case may be, it should not be surprising to us how many wish to celebrate their ability to control life and death. Frankly, they want to play God. Therefore, the best way to contradict their efforts is to bring them to the real God, that they might submit to him.

Everything—and I do mean everything—changes in the person who truly submits and surrenders to God.

Well if everything changes, that suggests there must be some evidence in the life of a person who decides to follow Jesus.

Indeed, this is precisely what we should expect. In a well-known discourse written to the church at Galatia, the Apostle Paul writes the following:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. (Galatians 5:19-26)

I think vs. 24 is a marvelous statement of what it means to turn from death unto life; from unbeliever to believer: And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

The Galatians were confused people on these matters. They were being influenced by a group who taught that salvation required works in order to be effective.

In contrast, Paul and others taught that works were a byproduct of salvation, not something that contributed to it.

So we have yet another arena of Christian theology where the concept of “evidence” comes into play. The evidence that a prophet was from the Lord was simply that the prophecy would come to pass (see Duetoronomy 17). The evidence that Jesus rose from the dead was that his was a bodily resurrection, recorded by multiple eyewitnesses and prophesied by biblical writers of old (see 2 Peter 1).

And the evidence that a person knows the Lord is the manifestation of the fruit of the spirit in his or her life.

It is in this sense only(!) that Christians are licensed fruit inspectors. Since we’re taught...

I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” But what if that were not so? God, our Creator, is beautiful. And so is his creation.

To talk about the objectivity of beauty, I’ve brought on a good friend of mine, nature photographer, and creation enthusiast, Pat Mingarelli. Pat has written articles for us before on the site (here and here) and I thought his would be an awesome perspective to hear on Creation Conversations.

Enjoy this interview as we discuss subjects like objective beauty, how nature gives metaphors about the Person of God, and even some practical tips if you want to get started in nature photography. Don’t miss it!

Mentioned in the Episode:

The Fibonacci Sequence 

Purposeful Overdesign

Pat’s Ministry

Bad art examples:

The post Beauty in God’s Creation w/ Pat Mingarelli appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

The Bible is a book that, oftentimes, lays strange truths before us—at least, truths that are strange to 21st-century eyes.

Reactions to these claims vary.

Some attempt to shirk their responsibility to accept these claims by finding more comfortable solutions. In 1 Samuel 28, did the witch really divine Samuel unto Saul? I have heard lots of benign attempts at understanding this passage, but why not take it at face value?

In the supernatural world we live in (and especially the one the biblical writers introduce us to), it’s absolutely possible that divine, intelligent evil was responsible for the witchcraft the text relays to us here.

What about the “magicians” of Pharoah in the Exodus story?

Could they really have done the things the text claims, or was it more akin to the sleight of hand that can be observed in Las Vegas or on late night television?

More and more, I’ve become convinced that ought not to shy away when we read something strange in the Bible.

Rather, we should embrace it! We should allow it to inform us of what the biblical writers really thought, and how they interacted with their world.

One such strange phenomena is the so-called “great age of the patriarchs.” The Bible reports to us that, prior to the watery destruction of the earth recorded in Genesis 6-8, human beings were living upwards of 1000 years.

This sounds absolutely preposterous to the reader informed of modern genetics.

And, accordingly, attempts to rationalize and/or sanitize these accounts can be found. Perhaps in the ancient Near East (ANE), it was common to use such large numbers to represent other points, more theological or political in nature.

Perhaps the text merely aims to convey a sense of family relationships to us, such that generations could have been skipped, and the large numbers are merely a way of conveying that hidden meaning analogically.

Or, as with the instances above, perhaps the text is merely trying to tell us history in the truest sense of the word.

Perhaps these figures really did live to be almost 1000 years old! What then?

How is that possible given what we know about human history, human lifespans throughout history from other sources, and modern genetics?

First and foremost, let me state upfront that I do think the proper reading is that the ages are meant to be taken at face value.

That is not to say that we must appropriate a sort of wooden literalism to them, though. I’m okay if the flood started in the 601st year of Noah’s life, for example, even though the text rounds out to the 600th year.

What we cannot do is extrapolate these ages to mean whatever we want. We can’t say that this really meant Noah was only 60 years old when the flood started. There is zero indication from the text that such an interpretation would be warranted.

On the contrary, we do have evidence that the biblical authors often used round numbers, and in fact, we know this was a practice common to ANE writers in general.

In our modern world, we often strive for precision, but we must allow the Bible to be what it is. Trustworthy, for sure, but reporting in a way that sometimes deviates from what we might expect.

In the case of the Genesis 5 and 11 chronogenealogies, however, we have lots of detail and very good reason to think the ages reported should be taken fairly literally.

The Bible says it, that settles it, right?

Well certainly I believe that to be true. However, it would only be honest to take the concerns of modern science into consideration.

There is much to learn from modern science. It is not the big bad boogeyman. In fact, it can be used to our advantage.

The face value problem is, then, that most believe modern science has entirely ruled out the possibility of people ever having lived to these incredible ages.

We find no fossil evidence of human beings ever having lived to these ages—a suggestion that is reasonable if young age creationism is true, but hard to believe if humans have been on the scenes for tens of thousands of years.

Assuming the widely accepted long-age timescale, there is no reason to think this was genetically possible either. No time in history would serve to provide the necessary conditions to produce such a drastic change as we see between the antediluvian patriarchs and the post-diluvian patriarchs.

This leads to a reasonable question.

After the flood we observe a number of interesting things.

For one, lifespans seem to radically decrease. While the oldest man to live before the flood was Methuselah at 969 years old, the oldest to ever live after the floo...

The gods are real.

This is a shocking truth most Old Testament scholars have come to understand that has not made its way in the pews.

The gods of Israel’s ancient Near Eastern neighbors were not literally made of stone, gold, or any other material. Rather, they were real spiritual beings that had a dramatic—and demonic—influence in the lives of their worshippers.

If this sounds unlike anything you’ve ever heard, I’m not surprised. However, this idea is not new. It has been buried in the scholarship for decades (or longer).

I’ve alluded to it in recent posts, and since I’ll probably allude to it often, I’d like to offer a concise explanation of the view here.

The Hebrew word for God or gods is elohim. It would be a mistake, however, to associate the word elohim—and therefore, the word “god”—with a particular set of attributes.

This is a wholly Western idea that often colors our reading of the biblical text. The word simply refers to beings of a spiritual nature. For example, the Bible calls Samuel an elohim, after being summoned by the witch at Endor.

In Psalm 8:5, we see the word used to describe what is translated in the New Testament as “angels” (angelous—Hebrews 2:9). Of course, there are deeper layers to uncover.

The term angelous is not describing an ontological status. Meaning, it’s not describing a type of being, rather it denotes a role. The word simply means “messenger.”

What we should not miss is that the word elohim is used often of beings that are not necessarily angels, but neither are they God.

There are many elohim, but there is only one Yahweh. Similarly, Yahweh is an elohim, but no other elohim is Yahweh.

So then, who are these elohim, and what do they do?

Dr. Michal Heiser1 explains:

The gods of Psalm 82:1 are called “sons of the Most High [God]” later in the psalm (v. 6). The “sons of God” appear several times in the Bible, usually in God’s presence (as in Job 1:6; 2:1). Job 38:7 tells us they were around before God began to fashion the earth and create humanity. And that is very interesting. God calls these spiritual beings his sons. Since he created them, the “family” language makes sense, in the same way you refer to your offspring as your son or daughter because you participated in their creation. But besides being their Father, God is also their king. In the ancient world, kings often ruled through their extended families. Kingship was passed on to heirs. Dominion was a family business. God is Lord of his council. And his sons have the next highest rank by virtue of their relationship with him. 2

This is often referred to as The Divine Council Worldview.

In this worldview, there is an entire spiritual dimension—or meta-narrative—behind nearly every Bible story you’ve had memorized from Sunday School.

To be sure, many continue through life never knowing this information, and one can be a committed Christian having no knowledge of this deeper meaning.

Once you see it, though, you can’t unsee it, and for good reason.

This “Unseen Realm”3 is very spiritually significant, and has implications for how we understand the Bible, understand God, and even how to understand ourselves.

This is not high-minded spiritualistic theolo-jargon, but spiritually significant, practical truth that can change everything in our Christian walk.

It’s impossible to understand much about this worldview if you don’t understand the true nature of the events of Genesis 11.

Many rightly consider this event to describe the rebellion of the post-flood culture, where God retaliated by dispersing the people and dividing their language, culture, etc.

In brief, the nations of the world (Genesis 10) were given over to the rule of these gods. Such an event is not made obvious in Genesis 11, but is made cl...

A common feature of the debate surrounding apologetic methodology involves speculation as to the ground of our Christian belief.

We might summarize the question before us this way: Do we believe in Jesus because we believe the Bible, or do we believe the Bible because we believe in Jesus?

Ultimately I’m going to take issue with the way the question is phrased, but since this is how it is usually cast, I’ll take some time to work through those questions, first.

Those interested in this debate usually take a hard position on either side.

If you believe our faith is grounded in God’s Word, you’re likely a presuppositionalist. This view is most often associated with what’s known as “revelational epistemology,” which maintains that the only way anyone knows anything is by revelation from God.

If you believe of our faith is grounded in Jesus himself, you’re likely an evidentialist or classicalist. This position would only require agreement with the consensus of New Testament scholarship that the gospels are reliable primary source documents about the life of Jesus of Nazareth—a belief in supernatural inspiration is not required but is rather something like a side effect of becoming a follower of Christ.

The following quote by Dr. William Lane Craig nicely summarizes this view:

Even taken as ordinary, fallible human records, the New Testament documents have been shown to be reliable with respect to these facts. Too many Christians naively think that unless you presuppose biblical inspiration and inerrancy, the historicity of the life of Jesus goes down the drain. This attitude, far from showing confidence in the Bible, actually betrays a profound lack of confidence in its historical credibility. Without the theological assumptions of inspiration and inerrancy to hold it up, the Bible is implicitly taken to be untrustworthy on this view.

But once one becomes a Christian, then one submits to the teaching of the Lord Jesus. When we see how Jesus regarded the Old Testament, we perceive that he taught it to be the inspired and wholly reliable Word of God. So as his disciples, we should, too. We believe in the Bible because we believe in him.

What’s interesting is that folks on both sides of the debate would surely want to affirm aspects of the other’s view. Certainly we all want to say that we learn things about God through special revelation—and, at the time same time, we all want to say that the gospels are historically reliable documents that teach about the life of Jesus.

So what’s the real issue, then?

As someone with friends on both sides of the issue (I personally find myself somewhat in the middle), it seems to me it rests on the important distinction between logical and chronological priority.

While a broader discussion about epistemology might be helpful here, that’s a bit beyond the scope of this piece.

For our purposes, let’s discuss logical priority vs chronological priority.

The latter is rather easy to grasp. For event x to be chronologically prior to event y, event x must simply take place before event y in time.

Logical priority constitutes x being a sufficient condition for y to take place. Fellow blogger J.W. Wartick has a concise, helpful explanation:

Logical priority, broadly defined, is the way things are ontologically ordered. That is, to say that for two factors, x and y, x is logically prior to y if and only if x takes precedence over y. An example could be to use miracles and God (note this is just for the sake of example, I realize that some would argue miracles can exist without God, but I’m simply using it as an illustration). The existence of God is logically prior to miracles in the sense that if God does not exist, then miracles do not. In this case, God would be x, while miracles would be y. In order for y to be the case, x must also be the case, thus making

Having grown up in church all my life, it was not uncommon to hear warnings against the idea of “change.”

To be clear, I think those contexts were of righteous intent, and even have a Scriptural basis. If one is convinced that God does not change (Malachi 3:6) and God’s Word never changes (Psalm 119:89), one may rightly conclude that there is a degree of unhealthy change.

But that is not to say that all change in one’s position is bad.

Actually, I now believe the opposite to be true. If you’re not changing, you’re not growing.

Passages such as Hebrews 5:13-14 and 1 Corinthians 3:2 strongly suggest that we must go deeper with God’s Word, which will necessarily lead to a growth in understanding and, quite likely, a change in theology.

Assuming now that change can be a good thing, how should we handle it? Have you ever learned something new that rocked your world, and maybe has changed how you read the entire Bible?

I have. Here are two examples.

Molinism is the view that, through divine middle knowledge, God knew logically prior to creating the universe what any free creature would do given a particular set of circumstances.

This view therefore reconciles divine sovereignty and human freedom. It shows that God can so arrange the world as to accomplish his purposes, while not violating the free decisions made by those whom he created.

If you’re interested to learn more of the nuance behind this view, I’d invite you to check out my soteriological position here, or my interview with Tim Stratton here.

Understanding God’s middle knowledge and how it works has been a game-changer in how I read the Bible and work through various aspects of my theology.

This is a view I have recently been exposed to, which has quite literally changed how I understand almost every passage of Scripture.

In extreme brief, the view demonstrates that the “gods” of ancient Israel’s neighbors were not reducible to stone idols. Rather, they are very real, intelligent, spiritual beings who were given rule over the scattered nations at Babel as a judgment for the people’s rebellion.

Some of these beings, much like humanity in Genesis 3, turned wicked and made the free decision to reject Yahweh (see Psalm 82).

The gospel is therefore not merely concerned with the salvation and restoration of our souls from the curse of sin, but is very much concerned with Christ—the Son of the Most High—reclaiming the nations under rightful rule and establishing his eternal family, both spiritual and human.

Unfortunately, this innate resistance to change within certain Christian communities has resulted in many being so paralyzed that they fail to study deeper.

If change is possible and should be avoided, then so should any study which could lead to it.

If that’s you, come on in! The water’s fine! You don’t have to fear. Sure, you might change your theology.

But I’ve already demonstrated that the Bible assumes you will, and should!

If you stay in the same place through the duration of your walk with God, you are not growing, and are therefore functionally denying that the Bible itself can change you.

Here are four super practical steps that will help you navigate the muddy waters of theological change.

Lift the essentials high. Take the time to understand what biblical essentialism is. What things are necessary for you to be considered a Bible-believing, Christ-following Christian? Do not deviate from these, and filter all other theological ideas through them. Good (consistent) ideas stay for further evaluation and integration into the full picture. Bad (inconsistent) ones immediately go.

Read a variety of resources. One writer does not have complete purchase on Christian theology, nor does one group of writers within a closed system. Proverbs 11:14 is a helpful guide. Read varying perspectives, evaluate the arguments, weigh against the essentials, and find somewhere to land.

Bridge gaps and make connections. It’s important that we view the Bible for what it actually is—a human document given by inspiration of God. This means that, all throughout, there are connections to be made and insights to be uncovered that could revolutionize our understanding of tertiary doctrines. Learn to think in terms of the whole instead of the parts when studying your Bible.

The Bible is not a “scientific textbook”—of that, I’m sure.

But it seems to common among critics of young age creation to claim that we think it is. Why is this, and what can we do about it?

In this short episode, I try to lay out the real issue here and give some thoughts around how to respond to this claim.

Enjoy the show!

The post Genesis 1-11 and the “Textbook Myth” appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Due to what I consider to be a misuse of ancient Near-Eastern (ANE) backgrounds among evangelical scholars in recent years, many young age creationists have steered clear of broaching this topic.

This, I believe, is an error.

So the first issue is this: Some scholars and a great deal more popularizers are advancing the idea that the historical background of the biblical writers has so much of an effect on the text that, in some cases, it can mean nearly anything we want it to with respect to certain issues.

Broadly (and doctrinally) speaking, this could come to bear on things like:

The nature, length, and order of creation.

The real meaning of redemption.

Death before sin.

The limits of accommodation.

Biblical inerrancy.

And there’s probably a few more I’ve left out.

However, there’s a second issue: On the other end, this ignorance has led many to almost completely write off ANE associations between Israel and her neighbors. And I’d only be honest in admitting that, at times, I’ve been guilty of this.

The danger is that this thinking robs the modern reader of understanding the world in which the ancient writer found himself.

This may not sound that important to you, but it should. Young age creationists are (rightly) obsessed with making sure the Bible’s historical claims are taken seriously. But how can we understand what those claims are without understanding the biblical worldview?

For me personally, two examples have made this clear.

Understanding Polemical Theology has helped me to make sense of some very confusing passages of Scripture. The shame is that for so long I’ve missed how theologically rich these passages are, now that I have this framework of thought in my tool belt!

The second of these would be Michael Heiser’s Divine Council Worldview. Although not new to Heiser, he is best known for popularizing it. The view basically expands on the nature of the battle going on in God’s world—it is much more spiritual than most Christians—especially Westerners—are willing to make it.

With that said, I was really excited to see an article pop up in my feed that was written by Shane Doyle over at Creation Ministries International (CMI), entitled Ancient cosmology and the timescale of Genesis 1.

Here is the provided synopsis of the article:

Long-age interpreters often argue that the supposed ‘ancient cosmology’ of Genesis 1 implies that its seven-day timespan is incidental to the main point of the passage. This overreads the cosmological statements of Genesis 1, but it also does not follow; just because one ‘challenging’ element of a narrative passage may be incidental does not imply that all its ‘challenging’ elements are. Nor is there enough evidence to show that Genesis 1 derives its seven-day schema from any previously existing biblical or Ancient Near Eastern pattern. The Ancient Near Eastern context does not justify a rejection of the traditional ‘historical week’ reading of Genesis 1.

I liked this article for two reasons: First, I read only one line that contained the sort of derogatory language I am usually critical of CMI for using, and it was actually not that bad. So, Kudos! I really liked this writer.

The second reason is that this writer not only responded to the claim above but was non-dismissive of the importance of understanding ancient things with respect to understanding the Bible.

I would like to see more of this approach by popularizers of creationism. It’s the balance between being totally dismissive because we disagree with what we believe to be some unjustified conclusions/over-readings, and allowing an ancient worldview to properly inform our understanding of the text.

Therefore, rather than to be afraid of this thinking, we should think of it as an ally.

Scholarship can help us to do that.

There are lots of Hebrew/Old Testament scholars who are well aware of and give proper place to ANE backgrounds and the biblical text, but don’t allow the text to improperly inform the doctrines listed above.

Without thinking hard, I can think of at least six or seven, most of whom are openly-affirming young age creationists.

There are two, though, I’d love to highlight: John Currid and David Fouts.

I picked these two for a reason. They each are known for their contribution to biblical historical backgrounds and yet remain committed young...

Have you ever heard the idea that it’s just as ridiculous—if not more so—to believe in a flat earth than a young earth? Or, that these two are somehow claims of equal proportions?

Recently, a blogger who affirms evolutionary creationism took it upon himself (with some help) to produce a parody blog of Dr. Danny Faulkner’s, in which it was implied that the same claims could be made for a young earth as Faulkner makes for a flat earth, thereby refuting his own position. .

I think this notion is terribly false, and is contradicted by at least three lines of evidence. Find out what they are and how to respond to this challenge in this week’s episode!

The post Young Earth Claims ≠ Flat Earth Claims appeared first on Steve Schramm Ministries.

Although it’s not held widely by biblical scholars today, many are compelled to believe that the Bible teaches a view that would reconcile a recent view of humanity with an ancient view of the universe.1

There are numerous variations, but it is most commonly known as The Gap Theory (GT).2

I’d like to devote some time to a version of this which has recently come to my attention, taught by pastor and Bible teacher, James Knox.

I don’t know anything about Knox, so I will do my best to refrain from any generalizations or unfair characterizations of his views. That said, I did find the overall tone of this presentation, well, troubling, and worth teasing out.

He’s a pulpiteer, for sure. He comes across as confident, compelling, and well-argued. Unfortunately, I found that a quick visit to each of his proof texts was enough to cast considerable doubt on his view.

There is, therefore, a lesson to underscore before moving any further: Test everything against the Scriptures, no matter who says it (including me).

It is this very practice that earned the Bereans an eternal commendation inscripturated in Acts 17. A compelling presentation or convincing oration should not produce a higher level of confidence in our minds about its truthfulness, goodness, or validity.

For anyone tempted to disagree, I’d merely ask you to consider how one the greatest orators of all-time—Adolf Hitler—was also one of the greatest menaces of all time. I’m not comparing Knox to Hitler; make no mistake, though—this presentation sounds compelling if you listen.

In fact, I want to be careful to separate this man from his claims, especially since I don’t know him. He opens his presentation with a call to Christian unity, and the clear message that he does not think this is an issue which should divide the church or separate believers.

On that, we can certainly agree.

I do, however, find his exegetical claims wanting, at best. Let’s take a few moments to explore them.

As we’ll examine proof texts for aspects of the theory in a moment, I’d like to provide a quick summary first.

According to the GT, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, there is a nondescript amount of time in which at least three events happened: The creation and forming of a “first earth,” the fall of Satan and his being cast down to earth (and thus the actual entrance of sin into the world), and the destruction of this first earth by some sort of watery cataclysm.

Two general observations are necessary.

First, this is not a view that is explicitly taught by any one portion of Scripture. Proponents must peruse the Bible and piece together this theory by doing some exegetical math, so to speak.

This practice is not necessarily to be frowned upon. One could argue this is exactly what New Testament writers needed to do when seeking to understand how Jesus was, in fact, the promised Messiah of the Old Testament.

Hebrew scholar Dr. Mike Heiser has ably argued that this is what the Apostle Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 2:8. Had Jesus’ arrival been made explicit in just one passage of Scripture, such that there would have been no mistaking it, the “princes of this world” could have thwarted the plan.

The question is not in the validity of this practice (although some genre considerations might make that point arguable), but rather whether or not the texts pressed into service for Knox’s view will support his claims.

Second, one is hard-pressed to arrive at this view merely due to an honest examination of the text. In other words, this view was literally created and is most usually defended to reconcile the findings of modern science with obvious chronological details in Scripture.

Now, I question the basis for GT from the get-go since I think we do have evidence for a young earth from modern science. Regardless, this approach is an invalid starting point for any examination of the Bible.

Our goal is not to massage the words of Scripture and the findings of modern science together in order to form a nice fit.

Rather, it is to understand the meaning of the text, and determine the implications of it. If those implications demand that we reject a certain theory of modern science, so be it. If not, so be it.

One of the issues in biblical studies has to do with systems, programs, and other spurious machinations that are invented to support a presupposed paradigm.

In other words, if an idea does not work across the Revelation in general, it cannot be held consistently in part. Once you understand the real program—the story being told by Scripture, one is hard-pr...