http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/a-prophetic-bromide-1/
http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/a-prophetic-bromide-2/
One ofthe problems of dealing with Hays is that while he lumps me in with the generalrun of dispensationalists…
Heneburyis always free to distance his own position from the general run ofdispensationalists. However, it’s up to him to state his own exceptions. That’snot something I can anticipate.
…he willnot permit me to cite his fellow covenant theologians against him; especiallywhen they admit to reinterpreting the OT with the NT, or to spiritualizing thetext.
Quotingcovenant theologians against me is a diversionary tactic. Henebury is debatingme, not Beale or Robertson or Poythress or Riddlebarger. Quoting covenanttheologians who disagree with me does nothing disprove my own position. It’snot as if dispensationalists march in lockstep.
(Num25:10 -13) There is no need to go into minute exegesis of this passage to seethat God freely enters into an eternal covenant with Phinehas and hisdescendents – who happen to include Zadokites! Psalm 106:30-31 recounts…If this is true; that is, if Godmeant what He said in the covenant (and covenants have to mean what they say),then whether or not we can figure out the whys and wherefores, there has to bea Levitical priesthood and temple forever in fulfillment of this covenant. This is stressed further by Jeremiah inJer. 33: (Jer 33:14-18).
Thereare several problems with this appeal:
i)Henebury constantly falls back on his little formula: “if God meant what Hesaid.”
I’mdemonstrated that that formula is ambiguous at best and false at worse. It isunethical for Henebury to ignore counterarguments.
ii) Olamhas a range of meanings. It doesn’t only mean “forever.”
iii) ThePentateuch routinely describes the Mosaic covenant as a series of “everlastingstatutes.” Here are some examples:
And youshall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I broughtyour hosts out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day,throughout your generations, as a statute forever (Exod 12:17).
Youshall observe this rite [the Passover] as a statute for you and for your sonsforever (Exod 12:24).
Then hismaster shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or thedoorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shallbe his slave forever (Exod 21:6).
And theyshall be on Aaron and on his sons when they go into the tent of meeting or whenthey come near the altar to minister in the Holy Place, lest they bear guiltand die. This shall be a statute forever for him and for his offspring afterhim (Exod 28:43).
Theyshall wash their hands and their feet, so that they may not die. It shall be astatute forever to them, even to him and to his offspring throughout theirgenerations. (Exod 30:21).
16 Andthe priest shall burn them on the altar as a food offering with a pleasingaroma. All fat is the Lord's. 17 It shall be a statute forever throughout yourgenerations, in all your dwelling places, that you eat neither fat nor blood(Lev 3:16-17).
17 Itshall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of my foodofferings. It is a thing most holy, like the sin offering and the guiltoffering. 18 Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as decreedforever throughout your generations, from the Lord's food offerings. Whatevertouches them shall become holy (Lev 6:17-18).
20 Thisis the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer to the Lord on the day whenhe is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering,half of it in the morning and half in the evening. 21 It shall be made with oilon a griddle. You shall bring it well mixed, in baked pieces like a grainoffering, and offer it for a pleasing aroma to the Lord. 22 The priest fromamong Aaron's sons, who is anointed to succeed him, shall offer it to the Lordas decreed forever (Lev 6:20-22).
Drink nowine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you go into the tent ofmeeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout yourgenerations (Lev 10:9).
Thethigh that is contributed and the breast that is waved they shall bring withthe food offerings of the fat pieces to wave for a wave offering before theLord, and it shall be yours and your sons' with you as a due forever, as theLord has commanded (Lev 10:15).
And itshall be a statute to you forever that in the seventh month, on the tenth dayof the month, you shall afflict yourselves and shall do no work, either thenative or the stranger who sojourns among you (Lev 16:29).
And thisshall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the peopleof Israel once in the year because of all their sins (Lev 16:34).
And youshall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, untilyou have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughoutyour generations in all your dwellings (Lev 23:14).
And itshall be a statute forever for them. The one who sprinkles the water forimpurity shall wash his clothes, and the one who touches the water for impurityshall be unclean until evening (Num 19:21).
That’sjust a sample. If we think olam means these statutes are absolutelyeverlasting, then there’s no room for the new covenant to succeed and supersedethe old covenant.
Noticethe role of the Branch (i.e. Christ). He “executes” or “does” righteousness on the land (eretz). This agrees with Isaiah 2:2-4 (set “inthe last days”). Micah is verysimilar (Mic. 4:1-7, where we are told that God “will reign over [the Remnant]in Mount Zion from now on [the last days – v.1] and forever.”).
And howdoes that mesh with Henebury’s belief in a thousand-year reign? Thedispensational millennium is not “forever.”
Therighteous reign of Messiah is seen in statements like Isa. 26:9; 51:3-5;62:1-5. The paradisaicalconditions described in Isa. 62:1-5 involve the whole creation, as Hosea 2:16f.and Isaiah 11:6-8 make perfectlyclear (Cf. Rom. 8:18-23).
Which isa reason to assign new creation statements, not to the millennium, which is atemporary phase that’s part of the fallen, old world order, but to the finalstate.
So inEzekiel 37:25-28 we read of God setting up His sanctuary under thesefulfillment conditions…Please do not miss the heavy covenantal emphasis of thatprophecy. The sanctuary is thetemple.
Actually,that passage sabotages Henebury’s argument:
i) In37:27-28, Ezekiel uses two terms that antedate the temple. Both terms go backto the portable shrine in the wilderness. Miskan (“tent,” “tabernacle”) generallydenotes the tabernacle proper whereas miqdas (“sanctuary”) generally denotesthe larger tabernacle complex. Cf. NIDOTTE 2:1078-86; 1130-33. Although miqdascan denote the temple in later OT usage, the term is not specific to thetemple, while miskan is specific to the tabernacle.
Therefore,Ezekiel’s terminology doesn’t single out a temple. The fact that Ezekiel usesfluid, inconsistent terminology underscores the symbolic nature of hisdesignations.
Did Godmake an everlasting covenant of peace with the returnees?
Why doesHenebury assume that God didn’t make an everlasting covenant of peace with thereturnees? Does he think that’s because the returnees didn’t enjoy the sort ofpeace envisioned by the “covenant of peace”?
If so,that’s confused. The fact that the original generation with whom a covenant wasmade didn’t participate in all the benefits of the covenant doesn’t mean Godnever made a covenant with that generation. Covenants are diachronic andintergenerational. Although a covenant may take its inception with a particularindividual or generation, later generations may be the actual beneficiaries.The Abrahamic covenant is a paradigmatic example.
By thesame token, God preserves a remnant in every generation. That’s the thread of continuity.
Did HisGlory return to the Second Temple? No. The temple beingreferred to is the one in Ezek. 40ff., which IS in paradisiacal conditions (ch.47), when God shall dwell with Israel forever (43:7).
We mayadd to this the prediction from Malachi 3:2-3, which speaks of a purifiedpriesthood in what appears to be (contra Steve Hays) a Second Advent context(Mal. 3:1 does refer to the First Advent).
i)Notice how Henebury artificially splits up Mal 3:2-3 from Mal 3:1.
ii) It’sstriking to compare Henebury’s interpretation to that of fellowdispensationalists. For instance:
The NTidentifies the messenger of Mal 3:1 as John the Baptist (Mt 11:10; Mark 1:2)…
Thoughnot totally without distant eschatological import (cf. Mal 4:5), the passage athand is fundamentally to be connected to the first advent. The promise is thatthe way having been prepared, the Lord will come to His Temple (cf. Mt 3:1-3;21:12-17; Lk 2:41-51). The messenger who prepares the way does so as a covenantspokesman, one who reminds his hearers that the long-awaited (“whom you areseeking”) one has come to establish the kingdom of God as the ultimateexpression of the ancient covenant promises (Mt 11:11-13).
Mostspecifically, John’s message and ministry were directed to the religiousleadershp of Judaism, an element that could easily be accommodated under theloosely defined rubric of “Levite.” “Levites” appears to be a general term forpriests here.
Many ofthe priests and other religious leaders believed (cf. Jn 3:1; 19:39; Acts 6:7),and in that important sense became purified and qualified to serve as priestsof a new order.
E.Merrill, An Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Moody 1994),430-31,33.
iii)Henebury likes to quote Jewish opinion. Well, here’s the interpretation of aMessianic Jewish scholar, who is also, I believe, a dispensationalist:
First,we’ll look at Haggai 2:6-9…Where was this glory at the dedication of the SecondTemple? It was nowhere to be seen!…It must be asked, therefore, in what way theglory of the Second Temple was greater than the glory of the First Temple.
Toanswer these questions, we turn to the next piece of prophetic evidence, comingfrom the Book of Malachi…Here we have a more explicit statement: there was tobe a divine visitation at the Second Temple.
We seefrom this passage [Mal 3:1-5] that the Lord (in Hebrew, ha’adon, always used with reference to God inthe Hebrew Bible when it has a definite article), preceded by his messenger,would visit the Second Temple, purifying some of his people and bringingjudgment on others. That is to say, there would be a divine visitation of greatimport that would occur in the days of the Second Temple[emphasis his].
Afterreviewing the prophecy we just read from Haggai 2, we can now put two bigpieces of the puzzle together: the glory of the Second Temple would be greaterthan the glory of the First Temple because the Lord himself–in the person ofthe Messiah–would visit the Second Temple!
M.Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: General and Historical Objections(Baker 2000), 1:75-78.
Now, I’mnot claiming that just by quoting these two scholars, that this ipso factodisproves Henebury. But I did it to make the following points:
a) Onedoesn’t have to be amillennial to agree with my interpretation, and disagreewith Henebury’s. Even dispensationalists can agree with me, in opposition toHenebury’s interpretation.
b)Henebury acts as if special weight attaches to Jewish scholarship. Well, I justgave him an example that takes issue with his own interpretation.
c) I’mnot just quoting scholarly opinion. Both scholars argue for theirinterpretation.
Back to Henebury:
If allthis is not enough we find Zechariah predicting a temple which will be built bythe Branch (Messiah) when He combines the offices of priest and king in Himselfwhen He rules upon His throne (Zech. 6:12-13). And what do we find at the end of the Book? We find, as I have said many times, aDay when the Lord comes to the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:11 anyone?), when thetopography of the land is drastically altered (Zech. 14:4), followingwhich “living waters will flow outof Jerusalem (Zec 14:8), “Jerusalem will dwell in security” (Zec 14:11), andthe nations will come up to Jerusalem to worship the King – who therefore mustbe Divine – (14:16-17), and sacrifices will be offered at the Lord’s house(14:20-21).
As thesepredictions are predicated on what we now know is the Second Coming, clearlythey are in the future and their realization should not be searched for in thepast. The conditions underwhich all this will be done are New covenant conditions (Cf. Zech. 12:9-13:1):
Amillennialistsmight want to turn all of these passages into metaphors (and they do), but theymake perfect sense as they stand. There is no mess. We don’thave all the information, but we have enough. Once amils try to tackle the specifics of these passages,that’s when the train wrecks. So,for the most part, they don’t even try. They just read their interpretations of the NT into them.
Theobvious problem with Henebury’s appeal to Zechariah is that, in context,Zechariah is referring to the Second Temple.
Not inchapter 14 he isn’t. I have shownwhy (cf. Isa. 2:2-3; Zech. 8:3, 20-23; 14:16f.).
The temple built byZerubbabel (Zech 4:6-10). Same thing with Haggai (2:2-4).
A personmay grant that the temple in chapter 4 is the second temple. But I didn’t cite chapter 4. It’s obvious to me that Steve isignoring the details of the passages I did cite.
Ezekielis shown a very detailed and huge temple which cannot be constructed on thepresent Mt. Zion.
Zechariahpredicts a future temple built after Jerusalem has been changedtopographically…
Severalproblems:
i)Dispensationalism combines what Scripture divides while dividing what Scripturecombines. On the one hand, Henebury bifurcates the temple in Zech 4 from thetemple in 6, 8, and 14. On the other hand, he combines the temple in Zechariahwith the temple in Ezk 40-48.
Hedoesn’t show that Zechariah thought he was referring to two different temples.Conversely, Ezekiel doesn’t make his temple contingent on Zech 14:4. Heneburyis making things go together despite the fact that Ezekiel and Zechariah neveralign their material in that fashion.
ii) Howdoes Zech 14:16f. imply a future temple? The Feast of Tabernacles doesn’trequire a temple. It goes back to the wilderness. The returnees celebrated theFeast of Tabernacles before the Second Temple was built (Ezra 3:4,8).
iii) Thereference to warhorses in Zech 14:20 is quite anachronistic if projected intothe distant future.
iv) Whatabout the “drastically altered topography” in Zech 14:4? Let’s begin by quotingthe current standard dispensational commentary on Zechariah:
“Mountain”[Zech 4:7] as metaphor for insuperable opposition or resistance is common inthe OT, especially when it is overcome and reduced to a valley or plain (Isa40:4; 41:15; 42:15; 64:1,3; Mic 1:4; Nah 1:5; Jer 4:24; 51:25-26; Hab 3:10;Zech 14:4-5). Zerubbabel will be able to face this mountain, level it to aplain, and completely achieve the rebuilding committed to his charge.
Coupledwith this [Zech 14:4] is the mountain of vision five (Zech 4:7), that whichbefore Zerubbabel would become a level place. In the latter passage themountain was seen to be an obstacle standing in the way of Zerubbabel toprevent him from discharging the task of temple-building and administering theaffairs of the revived Davidic state. Because of its impenetrability, its sheerhardness, “mountain of bronze” would be an apt description. A problem remainsthat only one mountain appears in vision five, whereas there are two here [Zech6:1] in vision eight. This may be where Zech 14:1-8 fits into the equation. Inthe day of YHWG, Zechariah says, YHWH will stand on the Mount of Olives whichwill split asunder beneath His feet, in effect creating two mountains, one tothe north and one to the south.
Thoughthe scenes are quite different in all three passages, the common imagery andsymbolism cause one to suspect that the author is using stock literary devicesin an integrative way to communicate one overall, consistent message.
E.Merrill, An Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 160, 183.
If themountain in Zech 4:7 is figurative, and if the bronze mountains in Zech 6:1 arefigurative, then why assume the mountain in Zech 14:4 is literal? Does Heneburythink the mountains are literally made of bronze? And note the parallel betweenthe two mountains in Zech 6:1 and a mountain split in two in Zech 14:4-5. We’redealing with a common mountainous metaphor.
v) Thereis also the new creation motif in Zech 14. As the same commentator notes:
Thecoming of YHWH to do battle will bring about cataclysmic changes in the terrainitself, as well as in the patterns of light and darkness and in the seasons(vv4-8)…They attest to His power as the Creator and to the new creation thatwill be founded on the ashes of the old.
This isno mere earthquake in Zechariah, however, but a shaking of the whole universeas YHWH comes in judgment.
Theeschatological day of YHWH is a de-creation in its judgment, but one that givesway to an even more glorious re-creation. A token of that recreation is theissuance of living waters from Jerusalem…
Ibid.347,349,352.
However,the millennium is not a recreation of the old order. The millennium is atemporary phase belonging to the old world order.
vi) Inaddition, Zech 14:4 isn’t the same genre as Acts 1:11. The account of theAscension belongs to a historical narrative. It furnishes an eyewitnessdescription, in observational terms.
Bycontrast, Zech 14:4 depicts the warrior God as a gigantic figure (e.g. theColossus of Rhodes) under whose immense weight the mountain divides: “Parts themountain by the very act of treading upon it” (ibid. 348).
If Zech14 envisions the Parousia, it does so in metaphorical terms–like so much elsein Zechariah’s complex imagery.
Back to Henebury:
I havealready given reasons why the returning exiles would not have thought to takeup the task of constructing Ezekiel’s temple. These include the obvious fact of the sheer size of thestructure, together with the geographical requirements involved.
Exceptthat God promises Zerubbabel and the returnees divine empowerment to completethe task (Zech 4:6-7; cf. Haggai 2:4). Therefore, preexisting logisticalobstacles would be no impediment to building Ezekiel’s temple after the exile.
Then theclear differences between the Mosaic institutions and Ezekiel’s vision.
Whichmay be because Ezekiel’s temple is symbolic. The added fact that Ezekiel’stemple lacks some of the essential furnishings of the Solomonic temple shouldcue us that Ezekiel’s temple is just a symbolic shell. A stage-set.
Finally,the fact that these chapters are prophetic and look to the time when God’scovenants with Israel will be realized under New Covenant conditions:conditions which have not yet been met, but which shall be met “after thefullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:24-27).
Theproblem with appealing to new covenant conditions is that Ezk 48-48 envisionsthe continuance of the sacrificial system, which is classically Mosaic. So youcan’t transport it en bloc to the new covenant era.
If, asSteve Hays says, the people in exile enjoyed better access to God than whenthey were in the land, why rebuild any temple? Hays answers, it is because they were under the Law. But were not the exiles under the Law?
Heneburyis making no effort to present a serious objection. Needless to say, theBabylonian captives were in no position to rebuild the temple. That requires adegree of national self-determination, which–by definition–the Babyloniancaptives did not enjoy. In their captivity, they were not at liberty to engagein sacred building projects. They were under the boot of their heathenconquerors and overlords.
Leviticus26:36 hardly depicts the future exiles having confident access to the Lord.
Heneburyfails to distinguish between apostate Jews and pious or penitent Jews. Indeed,the exile was, itself, a refining process. There was a godly remnant. Ezekieland Daniel are a cast in point. And some former covenant-breakers werechastened by the remedial punishment of the exile.
But whatabout Ezekiel 11:16? Steve writesthat “God tabernacled with the exiles.” This is supposed to prove that God was a moving temple for theexiles. Does this mean the Glorywhich departed the temple in Ezek.10 dwelt with the Jews in Babylon? Duguid, Ezekiel (NIVAC), 151, impliesit, but the temporary sanctuary of v.16 is not the Shekinah, which is whatGod’s presence in the temple meant, so we are not dealing with the same thingin Ezek. 11.
11:16doesn’t have to denote the Shekinah. The Shekinah is a visible manifestation ofGod’s presence. That doesn’t mean God is absent unless he is visibly present.
Besides,temples did not always signify a god’s presence with the people. I showed that from Rodney Stark lasttime.
Stark isa sociologist, not an OT scholar or ANE scholar. Henebury then cobbles togethersome snippets (sheared of context) from miscellaneous scholars. For instance,he quotes some dispensationalists who unsurprisingly support the dispensationalinterpretation. Oddly enough, he also cites Douglas Stuart, even though Stuartfavors the amillennial interpretation.
Hequotes Brevard Childs, but Childs takes the position that Ezekiel containseditorial vaticina ex eventu. He cites Greenberg, but Jacob Milgrom,Greenberg’s collaborator, reportedly thought Ezekiel’s temple was modeled onthe temple at Delphi!
Whatdoes Henebury hope to accomplish by citings scholars who agree with him? (Andnot all the scholars he cites even agree with his overall position.) After all,I can quote scholars who agree with me. What matters is not collectingscholarly opinions, but sifting scholarly arguments.
Thedifferent categorizations of general premillennialists which Steve diverts uswith (there are different kinds of amillennialists for that matter), is whollybeside the point I am making in these posts. They use different hermeneutical approaches as any studentknows. Being broadly“premillennial” doesn’t answer to anything in this thread.
Heneburyis prevaricating. He attributed varieties of amillennialism to the allegedsubjectivity of amillennial hermeneutics. I cited the counterexample ofvarieties of premillennialism. By parity of argument, we should attribute thatto the subjectivity of premillennial hermeneutics.
Iresponded to Henebury on his own terms. As usual, he’s not honest enough to beconsistent.
My mainargument relies upon the weight of the wording of the biblical covenants.
Whywould we impose that framework when a Bible writer is not discussing Biblicalcovenants. That’s extraneous to the text at hand.
Onegigantic “placeholder” or vehicle for the conveyance of a few truths aboutChrist and the Church!
That’sjust another bald-faced lie. As I already explained to him, I don’t refer itall to Christ and the Church. I think some elements were realized in postexilictimes. The exiles were repatriated. They rebuilt the temple. They reinstitutedthe sacerdotal and sacrificial systems.
But italso portends a greater fulfillment. Imagery is inherently flexible.
We knowthe New Jerusalem has no need of the moon, so Jeremiah cannot be referring tothat. Unless, of course, thetroublesome details in Rev. 21 are emptied of significance.
No sea,no sun, no moon. To say that’s symbolic hardly empties it of significance.Rather, it has whatever significance the symbolism signifies.
Heneburyis a Baptist. He interprets the bread of life discourse (Jn 6) symbolically.Imagine a Lutheran debating him on the eucharistic interpretation. The Lutheranwould raise the same objections to Henebury that Henebury is raising to me.
Withoutwishing to be rude, I can respect a man who is honest enough to tell me he isreinterpreting the data through the NT, or that he is “spiritualizing” or“transforming” the apparent meaning of these texts. I can respectfully disagree with Graeme Goldsworthy…
I’m notcourting Henebury’s respect. It’s egotistical for Henebury to imagine that his personalapproval should influence my outlook.
At leastthese men admit to what they are doing. Steve won’t join them but pins his hopes on the hypothesis that theexiles (meaning those hearing Ezekiel) and the returnees interpreted the visionas an emblem; although I don’t see how they could know about the Church!
I neversuggested the returnees interpreted Ezk 40-48 in churchly terms. Henebury isconstantly shadowboxing with opponents other than me, then substituting whatthey say for what I said. Henebury lacks focus.
We’renot told how this temple is built. It is presented to Ezekiel as completed.
So if we’re going by Ezekiel, why assume it’s a future physical temple ratherthan a present celestial temple?
Hequotes Jn. 1:14 and says “Christ embodies what the Temple signifies.” The verse says “The Word became fleshand dwelt among us.” I take thatto mean the Divine One who was with God in the creation became human and livedwith humans. Steve infers it meansthe temple symbolism has become human and been realized. I rate his interpretation as loadedwith outside assumptions.
Theverse doesn’t actually say “dwelt” with us. That’s an idiomatic Englishrendering, but in Greek, John uses a more specific, and evocative term. TheGreek text literally says “tabernacled” with us. Moreover, what tabernacledwith us was God’s glory (doxa) personified. Christ is the Shekinah incarnate,as well as the tabernacle Incarnate. I’m not importing “outside assumptions”into Jn 1:14. Rather, that’s all right there in the text. Makes you wonder ifHenebury ever bothered to exegete Jn 1:14.
Steve’sparagraph is a good sample of the deductive theology of covenanttheologians. They know what theverses say but they don’t believe what they say. They believe their true meaning must fit within theircovenant of grace (which itself is found nowhere in Scripture).
Yetanother bald-faced lie. In all my lengthy exchanges with Henebury, I never usedthe covenant of grace to frame or justify my position.
To giveanother example of dubious use of “visionary genre”: Revelation 12:1-2, 5 isusually said by CT’s to represent the Church (for problems with that seeHere). But Genesis 37:9-10,together with the fact that the Church did not give birth to Christ, surely identifiesthe woman as Israel (cf. Dan. 7:24-27 with Rev. 12:14).
Heneburyutterly lacks intellectual discipline. Instead of responding to my actualarguments, he constantly attacks arguments I didn’t use, firing off rounds intothe bushes. The man has no attention span.
I thinkthat “if the plain sense makes sense, then seek no other sense.”
That’snot a sound hermeneutical principle. The objective of exegesis is to choose thebest interpretation. More than one interpretation of a given text might make sense.More than one interpretation can might be consistent with a given text. That’snot enough. Your interpretation ought to be implied by the text.
Ibelieve the Bible is written for Everyman.
Prophecyis often obscure. That’s why prophets themselves sometimes seek clarification(e.g. Dan 7:15-16,19-20). Or why a character in the vision (e.g. an angel)provides editorial comments on what the seer is observing.
Hence, if correct interpretationdepended on the shifting trends in biblical scholarship we would all be up thecreek without a paddle.
Henebury’sown understand of Biblical prophecy is mediated by dispensational scholarship.
A quicksearch on Google will produce many complaints about Steve Hays from Christiansboth Reformed and non-Reformed, Roman Catholics, and Atheists.
It maywell be that I’d lose a popularity contest with Henebury. It’s quite possiblethat Henebury would win the atheist, abortionist, universalist, theisticevolutionist, open theist, Muslim, Mormon, unitarian, idolater, apostate vote.If that’s the voting block he’s vying for, he’s welcome to it.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder