Machen Day 2012

Published on by D. G. Hart

Social conditions in the apostolic age were exceedingly bad. There were favoured classes, living in vicious luxury, and great hordes of the poor and the down-trodden. There was especially the great institution of slavery, impairing the dignity of free labour, permeating all nations and all peoples, and producing a thousand miseries. Under such conditions the Church might have been expected to come forward with a social programme. Certainly there were great evils to be righted; many institutions of the ancient world were out of accord with fundamental principles of the gospel. As a matter of fact, however, Christianity seemed to exhibit a remarkable patience in its attitude toward the evil institutions of the time. It made no loud demands for social equality; it indulged in no denunciations of slavery; it apparently assumed the continuance of the distinction between rich and poor.

The explanation is to be found partly, no doubt, in the circumstances of the early Christians. “Not many wise after the flesh, not many might, not many noble” were called. Those humble men and women were excused from instituting an social revolution simply because they did not have the power. The acquiescence by the apostolic Church, therefore, in certain imperfect social institutions does not necessarily excuse similar acquiescence today. The Church has now, in the providence of God, become rich and powerful; and with additional power comes additional responsibility.

There is, however, a far deeper reason for the moderate attitude which the apostolic Church assumed toward existing institutions. The fundamental fact is that the Church refrained from a definite programme of social reform simply because she had something far better; she postponed the improvement of earthly conditions in order to offer eternal life. The improvement of conditions upon this earth is in the providence of God a long and painful process; while it was proceeding souls would have been lost; the first duty of the Church was obviously to offer to everyone, man or woman, rich or poor, bond or free, the inestimable gift of salvation. If a man has communion with the living God, all else can wait.

Accordingly, the apostolic Church promised men not silver and gold, the improvement of earthly conditions, but an abundant entrance into heaven. It is this spiritual and heavenly character of Christianity which makes the Christian offer universal. A gospel which promises merely an improvement of the world is dependent upon worldly conditions. If Christianity is merely a happy and successful life in this world, then a man may be deprived of it by disease, or ill fortune, or unjust suspicion, or death. As a matter of fact, Christianity is a life in communion with God, and that can be maintained in poverty and in plenty, in slavery and in freedom, in life and in death. The Christina offer is extended to everyone, and every earthly condition, no matter how degrading or how painful, can be used in the service of God. (The New Testament: An Introduction to Its Literature and History, 368-69)

41 thoughts on “Machen Day 2012”

  1. Very nice quote. “Opiate of the masses!” I can hear the progressives screaming. “Can we not have both the hope for the future and improvements in this current world?” I hear the evangelical activists and neo-Calvinists say. Perhaps Jesus provides the answer in John 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

    Like

  2. Pingback: D.G.. Hart “Machen Day 2012″ (Should the Church Have a Definite Program of Social Reform?) « Literate Comments

  3. Why can’t the church multitask? We tell ourselves we can multitask, but if we are honest we have to admit that we really don’t do it worth a crap. When I was on Facebook and checked it all the time at work my work really suffered (hmm, that might be happening with oldlife.org, too…). The things I have done best in life that I look back on with satisfaction were things I really focused on — studying hard for 6 months to pass the CPA exam, selling books on ebay to pay off my first house (even getting up routinely at 3 a.m.), beating a rival football team in high school after they had beaten us as freshmen, sophomores, and juniors. The point is, for a church to be successful it has to be focused on the mission that Christ has given. To think the church can do more is to diminish its focus on the unique tasks that it has been given.

    Like

  4. Hi Brothers, I am so sick of hearing myself and great guys like Dinesh D’Souza in his books “What’s So Great About America (and about Christianity in a later book)”, and more recent “2016”, trying with limited success, to bring Scripture and common sense to Christian Americans! I agree with those many Christians who say that too many of us are in the category, (Silence is Yellow, not Golden) when it comes to resisting, with VIGOR, Pro Death, Anti Family, neutrality toward 9/11 type Muslims, etc. Love in Jesus, Old Bob

    Like

  6. I love this sentence…

    “The fundamental fact is that the Church refrained from a definite programme of social reform simply because she had something far better; she postponed the improvement of earthly conditions in order to offer eternal life.”

    It is so easy to be short sighted and forget how the gospel is our ultimate hope.

    Happy Machen Day!

    Bobby

    Like

  10. One of the reasons to learn history is to repudiate it. I don’t mean lie about it, as Barron and Peter Marshall do. I mean we learn about the past in order to reject what was done and to try not to do it again. When we find out that Augustine taught regeneration by water and justification by impartation and infusion, we don’t deny that God’s providence predestined what Augustine did. But neither do we take it as a sign of God’s approval or something for us to imitate.

    But being “evangelical” means not having to exclude anything “theological”. So the antithesis is reduced to disagreement about “natural law” and politics.

    “I’m quite happy to acknowledge my Catholic background; at the same time, I’m very comfortable with Reformation theology,” D’Souza told Christianity Today. “I’m comfortable with the evangelical world. In a sense, I’m part of it.”

    D’Souza’s wife, Dixie, is an evangelical, and the family has attended Calvary Chapel, a nondenominational evangelical church in San Diego for the past 10 years. . . .“I do not describe myself as Catholic today. But I don’t want to renounce it either because it’s an important part of my background. He said that his views align with the Apostle’s Creed and C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity.

    “A lot of times, Christians spend a lot of time in intramural type debates and squabbles: Are you a Catholic or Protestant; if you are Protestant, what type are you??” D’Souza said. “I would comfortably describe myself as a born-again Christian, but I don’t feel it is necessary to renounce anything.”

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/augustweb-only/44-21.0.html

    Like

  11. Carl Trueman—-“The King’s College presumably sees issues of authority, the Bible, the interpretation of the Bible, the sacraments, justification, and the church (among numerous other doctrines) as negotiable, as areas where there can be significant disagreement and which are, by inference, only tangential to a Christian view of the world. One is left to assume that this ‘Christian’ aspect of the worldview consists, theologically, in little more than agreement on the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Filioque, and not much else. `Generic and minimalist’ seem scarcely adequate as a description at this point.

    Trueman: “If these issues really are negotiable, then we should all return to Rome. Not to do so is an act of schism, as disagreement over them drove the Reformation in the first place and gave Protestantism its only reason to exist. Francis Beckwith realised this and, with honesty and grace, returned to the church of his childhood.

    Trueman: “What is it that D’Souza offers that is so distinctive? Could it be his commitment to Republican economic and social policies? Is that the essence of the really important world view at the King’s College, compared to which disagreements over the Pope and justification are mere sideshows? If so, we can see this appointment as a certain strand of evangelicalism definitively coming clean. It is not the theological issues listed above that are considered critical; it is rather the political and social vision of thinkers such as Marvin Olasky. Thus the skewed priorities of `the Christian worldview.’

    Trueman: “What is the one thing needful in evangelicalism and her future leaders? Is it for many, perchance, not so much a good understanding of the Reformation but rather a commitment to right wing economic policies?”

    http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/08/one-thing-needful.php

    Like

  12. Andrew Ferguson on the genius of D’Souza

    “D’Souza applies his insight with a clever simulation of the scientific method, insisting on his own clinical detachment at every step. Sometimes he sounds like a lab technician holding up a petri
    dish to a classroom of third-graders. “The best way to verify a theory is to test its explanatory power,” he writes, pedantically. “If the theory can account for Obama’s major policies and .  .  . also explain the little details about Obama, details that otherwise seem puzzling or mysterious, that would give our paradigm a degree of confirmation that very few comprehensive theories enjoy in politics.”

    “Readers will not be shocked that D’Souza’s paradigm easily passes D’Souza’s test, thanks to the author’s misstatements of fact, leaps in logic, and pointlessly elaborate argumentation. The misstatements range from the very small to the very large. As “further evidence that
    this anticolonial reading is on the right track,” he cites Obama’s press conference after the Gulf oil spill. “Time and again,” he writes, Obama “condemned ‘British Petroleum’—an interesting term since the company long ago changed its name to BP. Given our anticolonial theory, it’s no surprise that Obama wanted to remind Americans of what BP used to stand for.”

    Right you are, Holmes! Except .  .  . I’ve read the transcript of the press conference, and Obama didn’t make a single reference to British Petroleum—a name which, in any event, is commonly used by many people of a certain age (including me) who are sworn enemies of anticolonialism. D’Souza makes many errors of this sort, citing facts that aren’t facts in support of an otherwise unsupported conclusion.
    He says that Obama, in his memoir Dreams from My Father, never mentions his father’s drunkenness. Obama mentions it often. Indeed, D’Souza misreads the entire memoir: Far from admiring his father and emulating him, Obama makes his disillusionment with his father one of the themes of his own life story.

    And where facts are missing altogether, faulty reasoning bolsters the case. “Wonder why Obama went to Harvard?” D’Souza slyly asks. “Here is a clue: It is the leading academic institution in America. And here’s another: His father went there.” Forget that neither of these facts is a clue, technically. Surely the first assertion is enough to adequately answer the question without recourse to the second, which is simply gratuitous as well as conjectural. But D’Souza always sees
    absence of evidence as evidence of something or other.

    Will this confusion—the uncertainty over whether Obama is an anticolonialist or a socialist, evil or merely deranged—unsettle the audience that D’Souza writes for? Probably not. A week after its
    release, The Roots of Obama’s Rage appeared at number four on the New York Times bestseller list. Buyers of partisan books know what they like, and D’Souza is happy to give it to them. Yet those readers not yet trained in the Pavlovian relationship between these authors and their eager customers might want to consider how unnecessary D’Souza’s theory and its “explanatory
    power” are.

    Nearly everything that Obama has done as president, including the policies that D’Souza cites as proof of his inherited anticolonial ideology, would have been as eagerly pursued by President John Edwards or President John Kerry. Come to that, many of the policies that D’Souza identifies as anticolonial were advanced by George W. Bush, who doesn’t (I’m guessing) have an anti- colonialist bone in his body. Bush began the auto bailout, approved TARP, vastly increased federal
    spending, expanded entitlements, pushed through a large fiscal stimulus of his own, and often chided Americans for their “addiction” to foreign oil.

    Trained as a young man by Jesuits, D’Souza must be familiar with the principle of Occam’s razor: The simplest explanation is always the best; if it fits the case at hand, there’s no need to go looking for more complicated theories. Yet there’s a cramp in the mind of the committed party hack, a terrible need to believe that one’s adversaries are more ominous or sinister than observable reality
    suggests.

    Andrew Ferguson
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/roots-lunacy_508809.html?nopager=1

    Like

  14. Mark – Basically what D’Souza is saying is he wants to sell a lot of books to politically conservative Christians and doesn’t want to tick any of them off…

    Like

  15. “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But My kingdom is not from the world.” – John 18:36

    D’Souza’s political message is that the present magistrates need to be replaced with other magistrates more to his liking. But when somebody has a kingdom, and then somebody else says he has a different kingdom, isn’t that a statement that there is more than one kind of political kingdom?

    .In John 18;36, Jesus doesn’t simply says that his church doesn’t fight. Jesus says that his servants don’t fight. Jesus does NOT deny that his servants are in the world. But Jesus insists that the power of His kingdom comes not from this world. The power of the heavenly kingdom in this world is from heaven.

    Jesus does not deny that His presence (or that of His kingdom servants) is “political”. Why are Roman politicians killing him? Was the only problem a failure to communicate? No, since Jesus was not attempting to replace existing magistrates with other magistrates, we know that His kingdom on earth is a different kind of kingdom.

    Like

  16. Yes, Erik, I know the pragmatism of best-selling books. When celebrity Reformed writers put out their books on the atonement, they have to be very careful if and when they talk about election. If you want to keep your “ministry” (and houses and cars), you need to keep all your Arminian readers as well. So they talk in code, so the readers who think they believe in election can be ok with the Arminians not noticing subtle references to election.

    Some folks think that’s being “pastoral”. Some think it’s dealing with the reality “which has come about with the passing of time”. There are in fact things that make people mad besides the right to own a gun and confuse the gospel with opposition to same-sex marriage. Election is one of the other things that make people upset. So bestselling “Reformed” writers tend to be a little more sneaky in that area.

    Christ died for believers. Believers in what? Mormon believers? Believers in a creed which has no atonement in the creed?

    Like

  18. mark mcculley: Yes, Erik, I know the pragmatism of best-selling books. When celebrity Reformed writers put out their books on the atonement, they have to be very careful if and when they talk about election. If you want to keep your “ministry” (and houses and cars), you need to keep all your Arminian readers as well. So they talk in code, so the readers who think they believe in election can be ok with the Arminians not noticing subtle references to election.

    Some folks think that’s being “pastoral”. Some think it’s dealing with the reality “which has come about with the passing of time”. There are in fact things that make people mad besides the right to own a gun and confuse the gospel with opposition to same-sex marriage. Election is one of the other things that make people upset. So bestselling “Reformed” writers tend to be a little more sneaky in that area.

    Christ died for believers. Believers in what? Mormon believers? Believers in a creed which has no atonement in the creed?

    RS: Rather powerful thoughts.

    Like

  19. What a powerful Machen quote. I’m tempted to say that Machen really didn’t say more than 2K proponents are saying today. Or is Machen, in reality, a grandfather of “R2K?” The whole notion of R2K has always struck me as prejudicial and question-begging.

    Mark,

    Thanks for bringing up the D’Souza and King’s College piece by Trueman. It offends me that Christian higher education often means a conservative cultural agenda to the exclusion of crystal clear Reformation theology. Reminds me of the sad reports that Dordt College, a CRC affiliated institution, will be hosting a Roman Catholic Mass. The Mass is welcome but confessional Reformed theology is probably intellectually criminal on that campus by now.

    Like

  21. Pingback: Machen Day 2012 via Old Life Blog | Pilgrimage to Geneva

  26. The Mass Dordt is “hosting” is for RAGBRAI (The Des Moines Register’s Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa). Since school isn’t in session yet I would imagine the administration would say that all they are doing is renting out the building. I’m not saying this is right, but it’s a bit different than putting it on themselves.

    Like

  28. If you don’t mind, might as well make it a Machen weekend…

    “What had transformed the weak and cowardly disciples into the spiritual conquerors of the world? Evidently it was not the mere memory of Jesus’ life, for that was a source of sadness rather than of joy. Evidently the disciples of Jesus, within the few days between the crucifixion and the beginning of their work in Jerusalem, had received some new equipment for their task. What that new equipment was, at least the outstanding and external element in it (to say nothing of the endowment which Christian men believe to have been received at Pentecost), is perfectly plain. The great weapon with which the disciples of Jesus set out to conquer the world was not a mere comprehension of eternal principles; it was an historical message, an account of something that had recently happened, it was the message, “He is risen.” (From C and L)

    Like

  29. Dr Hart question.
    Have you paid attention to the recent dust up b/n Anthony Bradley & Doug Wilson? Wondered if you had an opinion of Wilson’s efforts as a historian as well as the place of 2K in this debate.

    Like

  30. Machen, What is Faith, p141—“Men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens…’Making Christ Master’ in life, putting into practice ‘the principles of Christ’–these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one’s obedience to Christ’s commands.”

    Like

  33. Erik,

    Besides what Zrim said, it really seems hypocritical to claim the legacy of the Synod of Dordt and then to host the Mass, period.

    Like

  34. Mark says: Election is one of the other things that make people upset. So bestselling “Reformed” writers tend to be a little more sneaky in that area.

    Mark, are you aware, that the Bible uses the word election in more senses, than just eternal election? Moreover, the majority of times the Bible uses the term election, it’s referring to Israel’s covenantal election. Quick question: When the Bible does it, Is God being sneaky, or are you just confused? When God Almighty sees fit to use *election* in the covenantal sense, do you get upset?

    Like

  35. Well, yes, Doug, I am “aware” of a lot of things. I have read a lot from Doug Wilson, which is how I know he has a false gospel. To be aware and to agree are two different things. I really dislike the common assumption ( I don’t know if you share it) that, if you had only read the books I have read and not been raised in the family you were born in, then certainly you would see the truth the way I do. I don’t agree with the way that Wilson can’t make a distinction between Bible covenants, so that he assumes that two kinds of election in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants means two kinds of election in the new covenant.

    Of course Wilson is not the only paedobaptist to say “the covenant” as if that’s saying the same thing as “the gospel”. Nor is he the only paedobaptist to make a distinction between the new covenant and election. But since mono-covenantalism is his central doctrine, Wilson is more consistent than most paeodbaptists in how this works out in his doctrine of assurance. In this case, being consistent is not a good thing, because Wilson has confused his ecclesiology with the gospel itself, which means that his false gospel is about grace helping people keep the conditions of “staying in the covenant”

    Doug Wilson: “To see election through a covenant lens does not mean to define
    decretal election as though it were identical with covenant election. . But we do not drag
    the decrees down into our understanding of history — we let God unfold His unchangeable decrees throughout the process of all history. The content of the ultimate decrees is none of our current business, although we cheerfully acknowledge that the decrees are really there and that they have an unchanging content.”

    mark: That certainly begs the question ecclesiologically. I suppose it’s big of Doug Wilson to allow God to talk about decretal election. Wilson “understands” that we can’t understand decretal election. He fails to make a distinction between knowing that there is such an election, and knowing who is elect. While the Bible does not tell who is elect, God does reveal that all the elect and only the elect will believe the gospel.

    But Wilson “understands” the gospel as that which does not talk about decretal election. So his gospel does not tell the good news about Christ having only died for the decretally elect, nor does his gospel tell the good news about the decretally elect hearing and believing the true gospel.

    Doug Wilson: “Because of the promises of the covenant, we may deal with election on our end, which is covenant election. The decrees are on God’s end. It is important for us to know that God does what He does on His end, but we only know that He is doing it, not what He is doing.”

    mark: Presumably, Wilson can know if “members in the covenant” on this end are meeting the conditions of “the covenant” well enough to have their infants baptized in the covenant, but this does not mean that he knows yet if any of these parents have eternal life and the forgiveness of sins. I mean, having assurance is nothing but subjective pietism, and threats and warnings are way more useful, at least for those in the covenant.

    Are you aware, Doug, of Englesma’s book on the Federal Vision heresy? Notice I don’t assume you would agree with it.

    Like

  36. According to Romans 9:11, we cannot say grace alone without talking decretal election”.. Of course we don’t have to use those words, but we have to explain that Christ did not die for a group to be named later. Nor did Jesus Christ died for a subset which manages (by cooperating grace) to “stay in the covenant”. Romans 9 is not only talking about the “covenantally elect”

    “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of His call.”

    Both were in that covenant. God’s purpose of election is about God’s decree. We need to see the connection between “not because of works” and decretal election. When evangelicals attempt to leave out the “for the elect alone” and discuss the gospel without talking about decretal election, mostly they end up saying is “not because of works but because of faith alone”.

    Most “Reformed” folks grew up believing in a “faith alone” gospel, and now they still believe in a faith alone gospel but know in addition that the faith came to the elect from God. If the object of the “faith
    alone” is a false gospel which says that Christ loves everybody and died for everybody (in some “covenantal” sense?) and that “faith alone” is some kind of condition of this salvation, then this “faith
    alone” is not in the true Christ but is instead in “faith alone”.

    Romans 1:16, “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.” Evangelicals understand this as teaching that salvation is conditioned on faith alone. Evangelicals don’t understand the gospel. Decretal election is God’s idea. This idea goes along with the idea of not works. Romans 9:11: “In order that God’s election might continue, not because of works.”

    Romans 11: 5, “So too at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. But if it by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise grace would be no more grace.”

    Doesn’t the apostle Paul understand that you can say “not by works “ without talking about decretal election? Why doesn’t he just say: “by faith and not by works”? Why does he bring in this idea of a remnant? And this “remnant” is not the “covenantally elect”. Paul is writing about decretal election in order to explain what he means by faith. Paul does not regard faith as a substitute for works. But
    neither does Paul regard faith as a substitute for Christ’s righteousness.

    Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted unto
    righteousness.

    I know I have too much packed in there. Conclusions, not arguments. But I just wanted us to be aware of what Romans 9:11 says.

    Like

  37. Some more interesting thoughts about election that I have come across in some of my readings lately:

    1) The effect of denying election in the Gospel is to make Christ’s work of obedience not be the only cause of salvation. It makes the work of the Spirit in the sinner causing the sinner to believe to become not a result but a condition of Christ’s work.

    2) This false gospel will end up not glorying in the cross but putting the Spirit’s work in the sinner in the determinitive place. This false gospel, in which Christ’s work is not the cause, will also say that election is not the gospel but only that which makes sinners believe the gospel.

    3) One common dodge of election is to deny God knows about or cares about time. Instead of saying that God is both outside time and inside time, the typical procedure is to deny that God is concerned with order and sequence and time.

    Like

  38. Doug Wilson, Reformed is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant, Canon, 2002, p140—“We should not drive a wedge between special and covenantal elections, for special election is covenantal election for those who by God’s sovereign grace persevere. For those who fall away, covenantal election devolves into reprobation.”

    mark: Doug says we need to learn the distinction, but Wilson says be careful in making the distinction. I suppose the point is that we need to make use of the distinction like Doug Wilson does. Doug Wilson ( along with John Frame) is the one who keeps bringing up the distinction. I of course do not deny that this distinction can be made about ethnic Israel and the Mosaic covenant. Romans 9:6

    Like

  39. In his review of the book Left, Right & Christ: Evangelical Faith in Politics( Harper and Innes), Gamble shows how the “us” gets used in politics.”

    “Innes’s handling of 1 Peter 2 obscures the vital distinction between the church and the world by using the pronouns ‘us’ and ‘we’ and ‘our’ in ways that are correct when applied to the body of Christ but absolutely erroneous when it comes to the American polity or any earthly power. A case in point is his political interpretation of verse 15. “After specifying what government is to do,” he claims,
    ‘Peter states, ‘This is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.’ . But then in the next sentence Innes turns this apostolic command into a civics lesson: ‘God’s will is that you, the private citizen, whether on your own or with others, do good.’ Somehow the Christian has become the citizen and the command to the church has become a principle of public welfare.”

    mark: When need be, every Bible text can get updated (and explained?) by adding the words “the covenant” into the text. Thus “us” becomes the “covenantally elect”. Since “we allow” God and nobody else to talk about decretal election, “we” read Scripture as if every “us” were not the decretally elect but the “covenantally elect”. And then the “covenantally elect” becomes everybody in the room at the time. This is how Norman Shepherd told us (In The Call of Grace, Presbyterian and Reformed) to read the first chapter of Ephesians. And Shepherd was not the first of “us” to want to read “us” that way.

    As Gamble points out, this use of the “us” is not something only done by theonomists. But it’s been turned into an art form by Doug Wilson in his sermon to the absent governor of Idaho on the Christian duty of nullification of obamacare. Even though the governor is not in the room, by benefit of the doubt, the governor has been assimilated into the “us”.

    http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=322&cur_iss=Y

    Like

  40. Hi wide spectrum (views) of real Christian Brothers! May I take you “all the way back” 🙂 to 7/28, through around 40 OLT comments to “Machen Day”? I focus on comment #6 by Andy Schreiber—- “I like Machen AND D’Souza. What’s wrong with that?” Old Bob replies, “Not a Thing, Andy!” I add to the list: I like J. Gresham Machen, Dinesh D’Souza AND my 1950-1954 teacher-profs, students of JGM, Paul Woolley, Cornelius Van Til, Edward J. Young (old earth guy), Meredith Klein, R.B. Kuyper, Ed Clowney, John Murray I also like Francis A. Schaeffer, C.S Lewis, John Frame, Son Tim Morris (Prof. of Biology, Covenant College since 1995). Grandson Michael Morris (Prof. of Philosophy, University of South Florida, PhD, Notre Dame). More— I like Manhattan Declaration signers, Pete Lillback, J.I. Packer, Ravi Zacharias, Al Mohler, etc. I go on: I like Abraham Kuyper, Darryl Hart, Zrim, Richard Smith and especially Jon and OPC pastor Geoff, Truett Kathy, Charles Colson, Larry (?) Alcorn. I like EVERY true Christian brother! I confess I have trouble liking Old Bob Morris, at times! 🙂 “?What’s wrong with THAT?” I do wish more of you fans of OLT would be nicer to each other. And to me! Hasta otra dia! Old Bob

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.