Presuppositionalism Contra “Sound Reason” & “Natural Law”

Disagreeing with Dr. Stephen Wolfe only has the advantage of pointing out the irreconcilable differences between Wolfe’s starting point of Right reason and Natural Law and the presuppositional starting point of presupposing the authority of God and His revealed Word. As such, I don’t expect to reach rapprochement with Dr. Wolfe on these matters. Another thing that should be said by way of introduction is that the differences here cannot be accounted for one of us not understanding the other’s position. I understand the premises of Thomistic Natural Law thinking and I am confident that Wolfe understands presuppositonalism. We just don’t agree with each other.

Below is just a wee bit of more interaction between Dr. Wolfe & myself.

Dr Stephen Wolfe wrote

Scripture is the principal source for theology (and the only source for supernatural theology). But Scripture also contains truths of ethics, household management, and politics (along with rhetoric and other sciences). So, to say “theology is not politics” is not to say that scripture is silent on politics. It means that theology, ethics, politics, etc. are different “sciences” or “systems” — having different origins, principles, means, objects, and ends. To say that political science is “philosophical” means that its truths originate in nature and are accessible (in principle) by sound reason. Scripture teaches the same truths, and thus the same truths are knowable by faith. Supernatural theology is known only by faith. But anything “philosophical” may be known by both faith and reason, because those truths originate in creation, not in Scripture, and thus are proper objects of reason.

Bret responds,

1.) Not different systems since all is dependent upon the same starting point. Scripture teaches that in Jesus all things consist. Therefore, understanding all things requires same starting point (origin), and therefore, not different systems. However revelation is beginning point for different subjects

The way I have tried to explain it is that the revelation of scripture is this great vast reservoir of truth. From this theological reservoir of truth gush forth differing artesian wells. Those wells might be named “education,” “family life,” “economics,” “history,” “arts” “politics,” “sociology,” etc. Each well is distinct but all have as their source theology since nothing can be understood apart from presupposing God and His Word.

Van Til used to explain this by quoting Psalm 36:9.

“In your light, we see light.”

And then went on to say,

“The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication.” (Christian Apologetics, 19-20)

2.) Wolfe appeals above to “sound reason” and of course the question the presuppositionalist asks is “sound reason” by what standard? Below we hear Yuval Noah Harari using “sound reason” to argue that sodomy is consistent with Natural Law,

3.) The appeal to “sound reason” turns “sound reason” into the source of truth as opposed to being the tool by which truth is arrived at. Presuppositionalists also depend upon “sound reason,” but that is not our beginning point. Our usage of “sound reason” has the apriori of God’s revelation. In His light we see light. Actually, Wolfe’s “sound reason” also has an apriori but his apriori is the sovereign autonomous self, who, via his own humanistic light he sees light. Theonomy or autonomy.

4.) So, sans Wolfe, no field ever originates in nature. Indeed, not even nature can be understood apart from presupposing God and His revelation just as “sound reason” can’t be arrived at apart from presupposing God and His revelation. In all things … disciplines … God is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. This is a 180 degree different understanding from Dr. Wolfe’s.

5.) Wolfe writes, “Scripture teaches the same truths, and thus the same truths are knowable by faith.”

Here the question is, “If Scripture teaches the same truth and the same truths are knowable by faith then why do we need natural law?”

I would contend that unbelieving man, having an axe to grind against knowing God and His revelation, suppresses in unrighteousness, any truth that is not convenient for him to know. The truths that are convenient for him to know the unbeliever allows in but only in service of his unbelieving system. This truth that is allowed in to serve his unbelieving worldview is called “borrowed capital.” The unbeliever uses his sound reason to borrow capital to insert into his anti-Christ worldview in order to get that anti-Christ worldview off the ground and running. This is all the unbeliever’s “sound reason” can do since the carnal mind, as Scripture teaches, is at enmity with God.

So Wolfe’s system of “truth” and my system of truth are never going to reach rapprochement. But we can talk to each other thus demonstrating these differences to others who are cued into the conversation.

Turretin, Wolfe, & McAtee …. On the Usage of Theology to Other Systems

Stephen Wolfe posting on X quoting Francis Turretin (whose Dogmatic theology I’ve read),

“Turretin distinguishing theology from the other systems:”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

“Although [theology] does not prescribe to other systems [e.g., politics and ethics] principles and objects, yet it so far rules over them (because it establishes their limits that they neither dare to hold any object opposed to theology, nor to use their principles against it).”

Francis Turretin
Institutes of Elenctic Theology 1. 6.7

We have to note that Turretin is just in error here. The error is found in the fact that all disciplines have foundational issues they have to deal with. Political Philosophy, ethics, economics, arts, education (Turretin’s “other systems”) each and all have to deal with a-priori issues like teleology, epistemology, ontology, axiology, anthropology etc. All of these foundational issues, as taken up by the various disciplines, are only as good as they are consistent with what Christian theology prescribes to these other various disciplines as answers. Let’s take political philosophy as an example. Political philosophy must have a notion of the common good that it is going to serve. What standard for the “common good” will Political philosophy use for its “common good,” except the standard prescribed to it by what God has revealed in Scripture? Certainly, no one is going to argue that “right reason and natural law,” will prescribe a standard for “the common good” in Political philosophy since Political philosophy does not have it within itself, absent revealed theology, the ability to provide a “common good.” If Political philosophy will not use revealed theology to prescribe to it the common good, then Political philosophy will, by necessity be man-centered to in finding some other prescription for the “common good.” All disciplines that are not theology, need theology to prescribe for it, its “principles and objects.” This is why our fathers referred to theology as “The Queen of the Sciences.”

So, theology, contra Turretin, does indeed prescribe to the other disciplines their principles. It is only in Christian theology as drawn from the Word of God where we can find the answers to the questions that the other disciplines must first answer before they can be about their business. Epistemology, axiology, teleology, ontology, anthropology are all principles that the other disciplines must deal with and they can only arrive at a correct position on these issues by looking to theology. If they are incorrect on these issues then the whole discipline will suck.

Take the University as an example here. The original logic behind the University was the fact that there could be sundry disciplines taught thus providing the diversity with the proviso that there would be a overarching unity to those diverse disciplines as provided by the Queen of the Sciences … theology. Originally, it was Christian theology that was to provide the Uni in University. Christian theology was to be the integration point for all truth, regardless of the various disciplines. In such a way the idea of “The One and the Many” was satisfied. Dr. Wolfe is all about the many, but he lacks an Objective One in order to give a “Uni” to his “Versity.”

However, with the passage of time theology has been cast aside and the concept of University has been cast aside for our modern Multi-versities. There is not Uni that is serving as an integration point to all other disciplines.

Two Kingdom projects, whether of the R2K variety or the W2K (Wolfe 2K) variety reinforces this abandonment of the Uni in University in favor of the Multi-versity. With the 2K’s desire to cordon theologically informed truth from the various disciplines such as politics, economics, history, arts, education, etc. what occurs is some other theology entering a vaccuum in order to be the theology that provides the Uni in the University. Most often this Uni is some form of Humanism. However, given the various competing forms of Humanism, Multi-versity is what results.

2K schools of thought will counter by marching out Natural law so as to be the Uni in the University. However, the problem here is that Natural Law has as many readings as Carter’s has liver pills. There is no stability in appealing to Natural Law as the theological point of integration when Natural Law has proven to be a moving target over the centuries depending upon which non Christian philosophical school is in the ascendency. Now, the response here is something like, “Well, we are talking about ‘Christian Natural Law,’ but that doesn’t solve the equation because the same subjectivity arises. Whose Christian Natural Law? Unless Christian Natural Law is based upon Scripture we arrive at Natural Laws that are completely subjective. If Christian Natural Law is based on Scripture then why do we need Natural Law?

2K thinking guarantees the Multi-Versity phenomenon both in the University and in the broader culture. When 2K resists the fact that theology must be the integration point for all truth 2K guarantees a fractured multi-verse where each man interprets what is right in his own eyes

Isaiah 6 – Isaiah’s Cleansing

Isaiah 6:6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth with it, and said:

“Behold, this has touched your lips;
Your iniquity is taken away,
And your sin atoned for.”

We have been considering in Isaiah 6 the basics of Evangelism. We’ve been asking, “What truths do we seek to convey, when talking to unbelievers and believers alike when we are seeking to impress upon them the central truths of belonging in the Christian faith.”

We started this mini-series the the Kingliness of God. We have spoken of God’s Kingliness in a myriad of ways. We have used synonyms like God’s transcendence, His sublimity, His splendor, His Royalness, His Regalness, His sovereignty, His Holiness… all in a feeble attempt to communicate the greatness and grandness of God. We saw that in Isaiah 6:1f where Isaiah enters into the Temple and see’s God high and lifted up. We saw it in the screeching Seraphim crying out the God is HOLY, HOLY. HOLY. We saw it in how God’s train filled the temple. We saw it with the smoke filling the temple.

We said that we must try to communicate as much as we can God in His Kingliness to folks. We said in order to do that we have to be convinced ourselves and the way to be convinced ourselves is read, meditate and pray in concert with the passages that deal with God’s transcendence. We see we can get this into our marrow by reading the greats who wrote on the subject and we said that one way to communicate the sublimity of God when talking to folks is to return the outshining of God’s greatness as located in God’s law.

We then moved on to Isaiah conviction. Isaiah sees God’s Kingliness and the result is his conviction of sin. Isaiah’s conviction of sin is seen in the fact that he is unmanned. He cries out in desperation that he is undone for He has seen the Kingliness of God. He doesn’t need to be convinced of His sin because Isaiah has seen the standard of Holiness and seeing his sin there is only one solution.

That is where we plow new ground today.

Isaiah has seen God in all His Kingliness. He does not need to be pounded with how sinful he is because in seeing God he sees his sin. He sees the distance between himself as a sinner and God’s righteousness and holiness to which he is called. There is no need to lead him in the sinner’s prayer because the sinner’s prayer falls instantly from his lips.

“Woe is me, for I am [a]undone!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King,
The Lord of hosts.”

No man can apprehend the character of God and not understand his or her sinfulness and subsequent need for cleansing. If you’re interested in homiletical precision you’ll note we have moved from the Kingliness of God, to Isaiah conviction of sin, and now we speak of Isaiah’s cleansing and we will finally briefly consider Isaiah’s commission.

Isaiah is distraught. He has seen the Transcendence of God as well a few men ever see God’s Transcendence.  This vision elicited Isaiah’s confession

“Woe is me for I am undone
For I am a man of unclean lips
And I have live among a people of unclean lips
And my eyes have seen the Lord Almighty.”

God is gracious though and He does not leave Isaiah in his nervous breakdown. Instead, one of the Holy attendant seraphim goes to the altar where sacrifices would be offered and takes a coal from that altar of sacrifice and places it upon the very place that Isaiah had said was unclean — his lips.

Let us note several truths from this passage about Isaiah’s cleansing.

First, note that what is happening in this scene is all of grace. The only thing Isaiah is contributing is his sin and even that would never have been confessed if God had not opened Isaiah’s eyes to God’s Kingliness.  So, the first thing we want to see here is that all of what we see here in Isaiah 6 is sola de gloria… to God alone be the glory. God opened Isaiah’s eyes to see God high and lifted up. God is the reason Isaiah confessed his sin. God is the one who cleanses and cures Isaiah of His sin. Isaiah’s confession, conversion, and commissioning is all of God’s grace.

Second, note that God takes the initiative. Isaiah is in a puddle having seen the majesty of God. Finally, it is one of God’s Holy attendant Seraphim who serves in the presence of God that flies to Isaiah. This act communicates divine intervention to relieve Isaiah of his madness. When it comes to grace whether in conversion or commissioning it is God who does all the doing. To God alone be the glory. Isaiah does not ask for some help. God graciously commissions His Holy messenger to relieve Isaiah. Here we see again the sovereignty of God emphasized.

Next note the relation between the coal, the altar, and forgiveness. The altar in Israel’s worship was the place where sacrifice for sin was made. The coal was taken from that altar. There on that altar were the animals brought forth for sacrifice that brought proleptic forgiveness that was both real and yet promissory. That altar and those sacrifices were proleptic and symbolic of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for sinners…. that is to say that the altar and those sacrifices were anticipations of what was going to be done by Christ and a speaking of those future things yet to be done as being presently done.

The altar was the place where atonement was made in Israel. Atonement was when the barrier of sin between God and man is set aside and peace w/ God is found. Atonement bespeaks reconciliation between God and man. Again note it is God who does the reconciling. He awakens Isaiah to his sin, and he provides the only solution to Isaiah’s sin. All Isaiah contributes to atonement is his sin.

When Isaiah has the coal from the altar placed upon His lips Jesus Christ and His forgiveness is being communicated as real and yet future to Isaiah. The coal in Isaiah 6 cleanses from sin and points forward to Christ’s sacrifice which is a unrepeatable cleansing from sin. Note that the hot coal … that is the forgiveness is placed on the very part of Isaiah that Isaiah insists is unclean … his lips. All of this reminds us that the OT is the cradle where Christ is found. None of what is going on here makes any sense unless it is all pointing to Christ. Christ is our altar of atonement and is the alone place where sin can be taken away and reconciliation between God and man found.

Now before we push on, lets pause to collect what we have learned thus far in this series

We have spoken of how glorious God is and by implication we have pushed the idea that we dishonor God by thinking of Him in ways that belittle Him. We have suggested that it might be fitting to pray for a good bit more of the awe-struck in us that we see here in Isaiah 6. The Majesty of God lays so lightly on the 21st century Christian.

We have spoken of how a true understanding of man’s sinfulness only comes in an ever increasing understanding of God’s Holiness and we have mentioned how our culture pushes us towards thinking that man is big and God is small.

We have spoken for the need of cleansing. If we confess our sin He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

We have spoken that Christ is our altar … our forgiveness and that in Christ our sin is taken away and our guilt is relieved. There is therefore no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.

We have spoken of how this passage communicates that in salvation God does all the saving. God opens our eyes to our sin. God provides the relief for our sin. God fills us with a gratitude for our salvation to compels us to service. (Here, I am send me.)

We have spoken of the symbolism of the altar here and the coal taken from the altar and how that communicates Christ in all His redeeming power. We have emphasized that once we are touched with the forgiveness found in Jesus Christ there is therefore now no condemnation. Once forgiven our sin, misery, and guilt are forever removed.

We should have spoken of how ready God is to forgive. Isaiah laments and repents of his sin and God immediately provides deliverance by sending forth His Holy footmen to provide relief. We should never despair that we can out sin God’s readiness to forgive repentant sinners.

The Lord is near to those who have a broken heart,
And saves such as [a]have a contrite spirit.  Ps. 34:18

When it comes to forgiveness it should be said in some translations the passage in Isaiah instead of saying your sins are atoned for instead say “your sins are covered.” The word in the Hebrew comes from the Kippur word group. What is communicated here is the idea of expiation. The translation here could as easily say… “and your sins are expiated.” But of course we don’t use that word any more.

Still, as Christians we should gain an idea of this important word. When God says to Isaiah that your sins are atoned for or covered what God is say is that your sins are expiated. To have sins expiated is to have them covered or removed/taken away from us. Our sins are removed from God’s sight and so we can have peace with God.

Another important truth that is not explicitly stated here is a word related to expiation. It is also a word that we won’t find used much in our english language. That word is propitiation. As we said, expiation is to cover or remove sin. However even if sin is removed/covered we still have to have a remedy for God’s just wrath against sin. Here is where the word propitiation enters. Propitiation has to do with the satisfaction of God’s just wrath against us.

Of course, in the OT the sacrifice in the OT on the day of atonement was both a expiation and a propitiation. In the OT sacrifices sin was covered proleptically and God was propitiated … that is to say the sacrifice satisfied the wrath of God.

Christ’s death on the cross both paid for the debt of our sins and reconciled us to God by satisfying God’s wrath. Jesus was both the expiation for our sin (He took it away … or covered it) and Jesus is the propitiation satisfying God’s just anger against the sinner. His death on the cross supplied the necessary sacrifice to bring us from enemies to children of God (Galatians 4:3-7).

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. – Romans 5:6-11

 

 The consequence of all this is that Isaiah had forgiveness and all have forgiveness who trust in Christ alone.

Something we should be quick to note in this passage. Please pay attention to all the legal categories. We have sin and guilt. This is not only existentially true but it is legally true. Isaiah was legally a sinner and guilty before God and therefore this legal sin and guilt could only be dealt with legally. Sin and guilt are legal. Forgiveness and the removal of condemnation are legal. There had to be satisfaction made. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. In the OT that blood was shed on the Altar and consumed by the fire. In the NT what was anticipated in the OT finds fulfillment in the atoning death of Christ.

God does not just say to Isaiah … “Well, I see you’re really sorry and that you mean it, therefore I forgive you.” No, a price had to be paid. In the OT the price was the blood of bulls and goats. However that was only anticipatory of the blood satisfaction that Christ would render up as eternal satisfaction for our sin.

Christianity is a religion … a faith that can not be understood or embraced apart from an appreciation and understanding of how our culpability before the law was relieved by the one who saved us from our sin as a legal liability against us.

Much of the Church does not want to understand their Christian faith in these categories. And as such, they do not understand what Christianity is. They prefer the talk of “relationship,” or the subjective existential warm fuzzies of the Christian faith, or the idea of Jesus as our exemplar. But any Christianity that doesn’t understand the legal aspect as required and fulfilled by Jesus the Christ is a Christianity not worthy of the name.” Isaiah’s forgiveness points to Christ for us, the hope of glory.

A few more words to round off.

First, keep in mind that the atonement spoken of in Isaiah and throughout Scripture is objective… that is it removes our sin and guilt before God. However, the atonement does not make us subjectively perfect. We still sin. It is the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit that works in us to increasingly become what we have been freely declared to be due to the work of Christ’s atonement. There is a two-fold work in the cross. One is to reconcile us to God because of expiation and propitiation. The other is the ongoing work wherein the Spirit of Christ because we are God’s Cross redeemed people work in us sanctification — Christ-likeness.

All of this explains why Isaiah is left to demonstrate his gratitude by saying “Here I am, O Lord, send me.” Isaiah understood that his atonement was complete. There was nothing he needed to add or could add to the forgiveness of that coal being placed upon his lips. The only response Isaiah could offer up is a gratitude that would take him on a task that could only be borne out of a ongoing sense of gratitude for his forgiveness.

Isaiah was told his ministry would be barren in terms of results. If he was going to keep going on the stamina would have to be provided by his gratitude to God for so great a forgiveness.

Do we understand how much we have been forgiven?

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

From the Mailbox – Do We Really Need to Rehabilitate Hitler & Nazis?

Hi Pastor Bret,

I saw a comment by Snidely Whiplash on Truth Social (I saw you responded with “good argument”) that I couldn’t really figure out. I asked about it in the thread, but he hasn’t responded yet and probably won’t as it has been a couple of days and it is likely buried under lots of other comments he gets.

I understand everything up to the metaphor he uses: “Or you can take their weapon from them, grind it into powder, and force them to drink it.”

I don’t have a problem with people who wish to correct the historical narrative about Hitler in comparison to the other leaders of his day (FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, etc.), but that is a matter of scholarship and education.

What I don’t understand is the political tactic of rehabilitating Hitler, National Socialism, Nazi Germany, etc. I don’t see how maximizing Nazi good and minimizing Nazi evil; or trolling the opposition by flinging Nazi symbols or figures or books and what not into their face, presents a clear path to victory. Where does Scripture indicate that the people of God should embrace rather than refute malicious propaganda? Did the early Christians call themselves cannibals because the pagans did? Atheists? Fornicators? They usually turned such arguments against their accusers. I get that not all the Nazis did was evil, but when people think of Nazis they only think of their evil, which is the point of using the term disparagingly. The only analogy I can think of (I said this in my question) is blacks calling themselves niggers to co-opt whites calling them that. But what has it gotten them? Those who have taken up this identifier have tended to drift into the worst of black culture, and not anything redeemable.

What is worse, there do appear to be people (who knows how many) that aren’t just interested in the ideological battle, but want to rehabilitate political policies of National Socialism, Norse paganism, etc. who are happy to latch on to momentum gained by Christians capable of building something much better without that slag (as it seems the Ogden men are doing on the ground in Utah).

I know it wasn’t your post, but I thought you might have some insight, especially as a minister who has fought many battles against the religious and political Left.

Best,

Hello Alexander,

Thank you for writing.

When Snidely wrote,

“Or you can take their weapon from them, grind it into powder, and force them to drink it.”

I took that to mean that we can take the accusation of “racist” or “anti-semite” from our enemies, grind it into powder, and force them to drink it.” In my understanding that would be done by forcing them to realize what social order our enemies have created by making a shibboleth out of the catcalls “racist,” and “anti-semite.”

Maybe you are not aware but just recently here on Iron Ink I wrote on the folly of “rehabilitating Hitler.”

Continued Observations on the Protestant Regnant Folly’s Nazi Fever

The fact that I added “good argument” was centered on the idea that accusations of being “Nazi” shouldn’t make us quiver and shake if only because we both know it’s not true that we are “Nazis”, and because we know that “Nazi” is being used as a illegitimate way to “win” an argument. Personally, I think the best way to respond to being called a “Nazi,” is by simply casting it back in their teeth by calling them “AntiChrist,” or “destroyers of the West,” or, even “Marxist pigs,” would do fine. Certainly, we have to agree that something has to be done to take the sting out of these silly accusations that the Commie left throws at us.

I end here by saying I am beginning to appreciate the tight spot the Germans of the 1930s was in. Their only real options were Communism, National Socialism, or carrying on with the Weimar Republic – a Republic that was a unmitigated disaster. I can truthfully say that if someone put a gun to my head and said, “you have only two choices… Communism or National Socialism,” I’d choose National Socialism. Fortunately, I don’t have a gun to my head and I’m still holding out hope that a social order based on Biblical Christianity that teaches a plurality of governmental centers that don’t allow for the state becoming God walking on the earth (as was found in both National Socialism and Communism) may yet win out.

Thanks for the question Alexander. I hope it answered your question.

The Discovery of Long Lost Diary Entries by John Witherspoon

Newsflash ….

Long missing diaries of Presbyterian Rev. Dr.  John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence and tutor to many of the founding fathers, have recently been discovered and they reveal that he and fellow Presbyterians in their work to revise the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1788 were aiming at a social order that would allow Satanism to be entitled to the same protections as Nicene Christianity.

Rev. Dr. Kevin De Young and historian Dr. Darryl Gnostic Hart have been proven right after all as they have insisted that the 1788 revised version of the WCF was a complete change in the WCF and not merely an alteration to speak to the times as others like Rev. James Baird and Rev. Zach Garris  have argued.

Below is the page from Rev. Dr. Witherspoon’s diary that is the most explicit on the subject,

Diary Entry
28th May 1788:

This day the brethren have at last ratified those most excellent revisions to our Westminster Confession, stripping away the old magisterial language that once presumed the civil sword should defend the true faith alone. How my heart swells with pious satisfaction! No longer shall the civil power presume to judge between doctrines, but shall stand impartial as a good republican umpire.

I confess a quiet, almost mischievous hope takes root in my bosom. With these changes, the same broad mantle of protection that now covers Nicene Christianity—its creeds, its sacraments, its solemn assemblies—must, by the inexorable logic of our new principles, extend even unto the most contrary persuasions. Let the votaries of the Prince of Darkness gather in their own conventicles, chant their inverted prayers, and raise their black standards without fear of the magistrate. If the civil authority may not suppress error in the one direction, how can it consistently do so in the other? Satanism, too, shall enjoy the full blessings of toleration under this free government we have laboured to erect.

Truly, the experiment is bold. May Providence smile upon it—and may the Devil prove a gentleman who keeps his part of the bargain.

Rev.  J. Witherspoon

Kudos to Kevin De Young and Dr. Darryl Gnostic Hart for continuing to insist that the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches political polytheism.

Hat Tip – Mickey Henry