Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Beheading Hodges' Hydra - Part 3 of 3

This will be the final article in this short series that has reviewed the latest article by Zane Hodges. Part 1 addressed the errors Hodges makes in his article regarding his critics. Part 2 explained the errors his article makes regarding the Gospel of John. Here in Part 3, I will discuss the errors in Hodges' article regarding the apostle Paul and "the gospel".

First, Hodges states that most people think that the term "'gospel' defines what a person must believe to have eternal life", and goes on to assert that this is NOT the case. Greg has already done an excellent job of refuting this unfounded assertion of Hodges in a series found here, so I won't take much time to revisit all his points. I just want to highlight one glaring contradiction to this assertion of Hodges regarding the term "the gospel". In order to claim that the term "gospel" does NOT define what a person must believe to have eternal life, Hodges, et al. must completely ignore 1 Cor. 1:23, where Paul states that "we preach Christ crucified". Paul indicates that this message of "Christ crucified" (and his resurrection, implicitly, since crucifixion by itself was an obvious shame problem that would never have won anyone by itself, it was the resurrection that vindicated the shame of the crucifixion) was actually a stumblingblock and foolishness to his hearers. In the Hodges framework, if the cross or resurrection is a "stumblingblock" to someone believing in Jesus for eternal life, we should put it on the "back burner"! This is antithetical to Paul, who maintained that he would ALWAYS preach "Christ crucified", despite the difficulties such a message presented to his hearers. Surely if Jesus' death and resurrection were only one of many ways a person can be convinced of the "real" saving message (that of eternal life through Jesus, according to Hodges), Paul would have abandoned such a problematic message and used a more favorable approach. Yet here Paul stubbornly says he will just keep on preaching these specific details ("Christ crucified" and the resurrection). Choosing between Zane Hodges' method of evangelism and Paul's method of evangelism is an easy choice to make.

Second, Hodges says that because Paul uses the term "gospel" in 1 Cor. 15 to refer to MORE than what must be believed for salvation (although I dispute even that, but granting at this moment for the sake of argument), then that completely refutes the idea that "gospel" does at times mean "what the lost must believe to be born again". Hodges seems to think that using the term broadly in one place means it can never mean something more specific! If I say, "I love kids", "love" there has a certain meaning. But if I say, "I love MY kids", I've used the same term ("love") but in this case it has a much more specific meaning. He ignores the fact that the same term can be used in a variety of ways, sometimes broadly and sometimes specifically. One usage of a term in a certain way does NOT automatically refute other usages of the term.

Third, the point above assumes for the sake of argument that "gospel" in 1 Cor. 15 really does mean more than what the lost must believe for salvation, but that is definitely NOT a given. Hodges weakly attempts to defend such a position with 2 reasons. First, Hodges tries to say, regarding the list of items in 1 Cor. 15:1-8, that "all these items were of 'first importance' in Paul's gospel" (emphasis in original). Unfortunately for Hodges, this presents a conundrum for him. Does Zane Hodges find Jesus' specific appearance to James (part of his enumerated list) as "first importance" in the message Hodges presents to the lost? Hodges tries to say that if we say that Paul is referencing the saving message here, then we must include everything there in the requirements for belief. Hodges obviously does NOT think these things are necessarily part of the saving message, yet he does think that all these things are of "first importance" and SHOULD be preached. So if he thinks WE need to be "consistent" in saying that if some of it is "gospel" then all of it is, then he also needs to be consistent in saying that if some of it is "of first importance" then all of it is. He should be preaching Jesus' appearance to the 500 all the time just as he says he preaches the cross and resurrection all the time. If Hodges truly believes that Paul is giving each of these items equal value and importance, then we would expect to see Hodges saying that the appearance of Jesus to Peter is something of "great importance" and that he "always preaches" it, just as he claims is true about the cross and resurrection of Jesus. But of course we don't see this from Hodges or any other CG advocate. Hodges is simply being hypocritical then, and realizes himself that each of these items are not on an equal level of importance. Clearly, this is just a desperate attempt to discount what is a very strong biblical argument against the "crossless" gospel that Hodges promotes.

The second weak attempt of Hodges to defend his position that the "gospel" in 1 Cor. 15 is more than what the lost must believe for salvation relates to Paul's purpose in writing the chapter. Hodges says that "Paul is defending the truth of the resurrection" and that "[t]he items he lists are chosen for that purpose". (emphasis in original) The problem with this is rather obvious, so much so that this point seems even weaker coming from a seminary professor. Just because Paul is defending the truth of the resurrection doesn't categorically exclude the items he lists from being part of the gospel! Verse 1 of 1 Cor. 15 makes it plain that Paul is recalling "the gospel" that he had preached to them in the beginning. There is no reason that Paul could not have included all the points of the gospel, and also added on to it other evidences (the various appearances) that would have been helpful toward defending the resurrection specifically. This is in fact exactly what we find. Considering that Jesus had to die in order to be resurrected, it would actually have been quite natural for Paul to include this in his list. Plus, again, he had already stated in verse 1 that he was recalling the gospel which he had originally preached to them to start the church in the beginning. To say that Paul's defense of the resurrection in chapter 15 necessarily means that his list could not include the gospel is "ridiculous error" and not worthy of a seminary professor.

Finally, it is the height of irony that Zane Hodges is now saying that "the gospel" does not define what the lost must believe to be saved. Such a statement from him causes one to wonder what exactly he meant then when he wrote the book The Gospel Under Siege. Does that book claim that the entire Bible is under siege, since the GES teaches that "the gospel" can refer to the good news of the entire Bible? Surely not. Perhaps Hodges has merely changed his mind on the issue, but the impetus for such a change would seem to be a particular theological view (the new "crossless" gospel). Rather than allowing his theological view to be changed and formed by Scripture, Hodges is changing Scripture according to his theological view.*

In summary, the latest article by Hodges defending his "crossless" gospel has been shown to be lacking in many areas. Hodges fails to even correctly represent his critics, let alone adequately answer them. He ignores essential cultural understandings of the time of John, and must resort to desperate (and failed) measures to try to remove the saving message from Paul's "gospel" in 1 Cor. 15. This reductionist "gospel" of Hodges is not only crossless, it is impotent and non-saving. I pray that exposing these errors will help keep others from accepting and/or promoting Hodges' new and unbiblical view.

*Hodges has changed other Scriptures to support his view as well, including the terms "the Christ" and "the Son of God". Greg Schliesmann exposed and refuted this major error in his article, "The Christ Under Siege".


  1. As I was reviewing this article this morning, I thought of what I think is a better example of the problem with Hodges claiming that if Paul used the term "gospel" in a broad sense in one spot, then Paul always means the term in a borad sense.

    In the article I used the illustration of me saying, "I love kids" vs. me saying "I love MY kids". That is adequate, but I think a better illustration would be "my family". "My family" could mean my immediate family, my immediate family while growing up, my side of the family (e.g. my parents, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc.), my in-laws, everyone who is related to me including my side AND my in-laws, etc. I might say, "my family does it this way", and I could be referring to my entire side of the family, such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. But if later I said, "I'm going on vacation with my family", I could be referring only to my immediate family. Yet it would still be valid for me to use the same phrase in one place more broadly than another. If someone were to come along 2000 years from now and read my writings, and realize that one time I meant a broad group by the term "family", and then assumed that every time I said "family" I never meant any more specific group, they would be quite confused about my life.

    So quite clearly, people use terms broadly sometimes, and more specifically at other times. What makes the difference? Context.

  2. Hi Rachel,

    You said: "Yet here Paul stubbornly says he will just keep on preaching these specific details ('Christ crucified' and the resurrection)." This statement is only partially true. We know from 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 and Acts 13:26-41 that the apostle Paul preached more than simply "'Christ crucified' and the resurrection" - Paul also preached the burial and appearances in "the gospel". This fact is affirmed by a wide range of scholars as I have documented in several articles at my blog FREE GRACE FREE SPEECH.


  3. JP,

    You quoted me as saying,

    "Yet here Paul stubbornly says he will just keep on preaching these specific details ('Christ crucified' and the resurrection)."

    Then you said,

    This statement is only partially true.

    No, that statement is totally and completely true, no "partially" about it. Paul did indeed preach other truths as well, but in context I was speaking of 1 Cor. 1:23 where Paul says, "we preach Christ crucified". I explained in my article that this also implies the resurrection due to the extreme shame accorded one who had been crucified - w/o the resurrection no one would have believed in a crucified Messiah.

    So, no, JP, my statement wasn't just "partially true", it was completely true. I said "here" (in context meaning "here" in 1 Cor. 1:23) Paul stubbornly says he will just keep preaching the specific details of Christ's death and resurrection. And JP, this is one of those instances I mentioned at your blog where "the gospel" is made synonymous with Christ's death, yet conspicuously there is NO mention of his burial or appearances. Maybe one day you'll at least try to answer why that is, but somehow I doubt it.

    Paul also preached the burial and appearances in "the gospel". This fact is affirmed by a wide range of scholars as I have documented in several articles at my blog FREE GRACE FREE SPEECH.

    No, actually, it's not, unless you equivocate on the use of the word "gospel". You have yet to provide a direct quote from even ONE of your scholars as to their agreement that Paul (or anyone in the Bible) requires the lost to believe Christ's burial and appearances in addition to his death and resurrection for salvation. I've repeatedly asked you for such a quote, and all you can do is pull a playground stunt and insist that I find a quote from them that says they DON'T believe that!

    JP, newsflash: Your view is fringe, so fringe in fact that you're the ONLY ONE who holds it! Therefore, no one has specifically said anything against it because they haven't had a need to. And frankly, they still don't need to, because your case is so weak you couldn't even withstand the first wave of questions.

    JP, this comment here was an obvious attempt to just make a comment in order to promote your own blog, specifically your own little hobby-horse about the gospel. I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't even read the whole article. I gave you the benefit of the doubt with your snarky comment under Part 1 of this series about me somehow "needing" to use Scripture. Then when I did make extensive use of Scripture (as well as scholarship that you are apparently TOTALLY unfamiliar with) in Part 2, you made no comment whatsoever! Then here in Part 3 your only comment is to promote your own blog! Looks kinda fishy, don't you think? Like maybe you were really just trying to find anything you could use to get attention directed to your own unique, novel, and incorrect view of the gospel?

    Don't do it here again.

  4. For those unaware, a few days ago I kindly began to interact with JP about his supposed "groundless" gospel which he has written several articles about at his blog. Pretty much NO ONE has engaged JP on this issue at all, despite his many attempts to draw attention toward it. Most have specifically decided it is just not worth it. So the fact that I even read his articles and interacted with him at all, let alone kindly and sincerely asking a few questions to begin with just to get a full understanding of his view, should have caused JP to be very welcoming.

    Yet quickly it became apparent that JP has NO solid basis for his unique view whatsoever, and is not interested in any kind of meaningful dialogue. JP maintains that the lost are required to believe in Jesus' death, burial, resurrection, and appearances (1 Cor. 15) in order to be saved. I disagree on the burial and appearances aspects. However, I gave JP the benefit of the doubt (again), realizing that I could be wrong and maybe JP had something valuable to say. So I checked out his articles.

    From the beginning, JP insisted that I provide my "exegesis" of 1 Cor. 15. I did so, and he didn't agree, and pointed me to a footnote of his as explanation. I read the footnote (which was a bit convoluted and detailed), and summarized it in my own words in my next comment to JP, then explained why I disagreed with it.

    JP ignored my explanations and continued to insist that I hadn't done any "exegesis"! I answered again, explained my reasoning for how I arrive at "my" gospel, and also explained how I see 1 Cor. 15. Additionally, I raised some significant questions about JP's view.

    At this point the conversation totally degenerated, because JP simply had no answer either for my points for my view NOR for my points against his view. His only resort was to imply that I had misrepresented his arguments (by saying that I had only interacted with "[my] interpretation" of his arguments, when he had never corrected any of "[my] interpretation"), and to repeat his insistence that I give him my "exegesis" (which again, I'd already done).

    Then, the most appalling thing occurred. JP said, "If you are going to interact further in any of my threads, please quote my articles in each of your comments." What!! If I want to comment in ANY of his threads, I have to quote his articles in EACH of my comments?!? What kind of requirement is that?? I have never heard of such a thing. This is beyond ridiculous. He also said right before that quote, "You are not interacting with my article." Huh?? "Your article" is precisely what we were discussing. The reason I didn't quote your article is because you are so wordy. You need to learn how to be more concise - at least try to give summary statements of your points somewhere. And anyway, the point is I have posted a zillion comments on many blogs, and no one has ever cared whether or not I actually quoted the article itself or not. I can interact with the article's topic and points just fine w/o quoting the article itself. And oh by the way, I might not have quoted the article, but I DID quote your comments numerous times. Clearly, this "quote my article" thing is merely a smokescreen to divert from your complete and utter failure to think through your own argument and provide a solid basis for it.

    For those interested, please go read our exchange at JP's blog, under his "Tragedy of the Groundless Gospel" series of articles. Our exchanges took place under Part 2 and Part 4. I encourage anyone to read it because it is so obvious how unable JP is to defend his own argument. But as a sort of summary, I will post the last comment I made to JP in my next comment here (trying to break up these comments so they're easier to read). I'll also have a few more things to say after that.

  5. Here is the last comment I made to JP at his blog:


    Sounds like I'm right then, that in reality very few or possibly none of these scholars actually agree with your conclusion regarding the burial and appearances. That is why you are forced to retreat to your 'give me Greek or else' position.

    I don't need to give you any more 'exegesis' of this passage to support my position. I've already explained how I believe a knowledge of the content of the gospel is arrived at, and at my blog I've explained in detail why culturally we would not expect to find a neatly enumerated list of precisely what the lost must believe for salvation. Your view here presents a challenge to my view, so all I need to do now is point out the problems in your view, which I've done. I don't need to provide a lengthy article with 20 quotes and 30 footnotes to show that you're wrong.

    I have pointed out (and your scholars agree) that kai hoti introduces the content of the early church creed, which doesn't necessarily mean all of that is 'the gospel'. You have failed to explain how you know that kai hoti means the content of "the gospel", and you have failed to provide even a small minority of scholars who agree with you that the burial and appearances are required. You have also failed to explain why it is that the death and resurrection are mentioned and/or discussed so often without the burial and especially the appearances, and how that fits well with your view that the burial and appearances are just as required to be believed as the death and resurrection. You have failed to explain why the burial and appearances, events that did NOT accomplish anything at all for us soteriologically, would need to be believed for salvation. You seem to be the only one here 'repeating arguments' and 'ignoring points'.

    (JP said:)

    After you deal with the exegetical points these scholars have made, then we can move on and discuss other arguments.

    JP, this is the point: there are no exegetical points that these scholars made that I need to deal with! All they've said is that kai hoti introduces some content like quote marks, and THAT is why most scholars think this was an early church creed. There is nothing else for me to say about this. Meanwhile, there is plenty you could be saying to address the problematic aspects of your view (see above). Your silence is deafening."

    (end my original comment)

    JP, two final responses. First, the gospel may be a creed but a creed isn't necessarily the gospel. See what I mean? I already explained this, but I'll say it one more time. Your scholars say that kai hoti introduces a creed. This creed does indeed contain the gospel, a creed can (and usually does) contain MORE than the gospel. All the scholars affirm is that this list was an early creed. That doesn't mean that the whole thing was the gospel, in fact being a "creed" (which tends to encompass more than just the gospel), it probably did contain more than the gospel.

    Second, you said your silence isn't deafening because you've already written a bunch of articles. Problem is, none of those articles have addressed the problems with your view that I've pointed out. And you've had plenty of opportunity to answer them, yet you continue to ignore them. My point was that your silence in regard to answering the problems with your view is deafening.

    Now, JP, again, you have completely failed to provide any kind of defense for your view. All you have done is put up smokescreens and diversions and parade your elitist mentality for all to see. Since you cannot answer any of my points, and you have displayed rudeness and extreme behavior, I see no reason to continue attempting to discuss your articles about the "groundless" gospel. And because of your ridiculous "requirement" of me at your blog, I refuse to post at your blog again.

    Furthermore, you are still welcome to post here about anything you wish, except for the "groundless" gospel. Any comment of yours at this blog that is related to that issue in any way will be edited or deleted. Good day.

  6. Rachel:
    You wrote, "JP, newsflash: Your view is fringe, so fringe in fact that you're the ONLY ONE who holds it! Therefore, no one has specifically said anything against it because they haven't had a need to. And frankly, they still don't need to, because your case is so weak you couldn't even withstand the first wave of questions."

    A statement that expresses why I refuse to waste any time addressing it.


  7. One final note to JP.

    You have claimed that all the scholars you quoted agree with you about the required content of the gospel (although at first you acknowledged that they all DISagreed, then said you were JOKING about that!). I have challenged you to produce even ONE direct quote from any of the scholars in your articles that show they agree with your conclusion about the gospel. You have not done so, and obviously you cannot, as you tried to tell me to find a quote showing they DISagree with you. Your tactics are so transparent.

    Look, I'm not going to do your homework for you. You are the one claiming they agree with you. If you cannot produce evidence that shows their agreement, your claim is invalidated. So since you clearly have no such evidence, then your claim is already invalidated.

    Nevertheless, just for fun, I actually did find that one of your scholars disagrees with you. It was the first one I checked out, so I didn't see the need to look any further, feeling pretty confident that they will all agree with me and not you.

    But this one not only shows how one of your scholars disagrees with you, it shows either your lack of true research or your outright dishonesty in use of your sources.

    In your Part 4, you say that J. Hampton Keathley "affirms that the content of Paul’s glorious Gospel is expressed exegetically by the four parallel hoti content clauses in 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5". You quote Keathley from this page as saying, "In
    1 Corinthians 15:1-8, the apostle Paul summarizes the most basic ingredients of the gospel message, namely, the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of the resurrected Christ. Note the four clauses introduced by that in bold type in verses 3-5 below:

    15:1 Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, 15:2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 15:3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 15:4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve…

    These verses, which were an early Christian confession, give us the heart of the gospel and show that the resurrection is an integral part of the gospel. Note that Paul described this as 'of first importance'—a phrase that stresses priority, not time. The stress is on the centrality of these truths to the gospel message."
    (emphasis in original)

    Now, Keathley does not explicitly say here that all 4 items must be believed for salvation, but his statement there could conceivably be construed to be in agreement with you. But what does Keathley really think about this passage?

    To find out, we don't need to look any further than Keathley's very next paragraph. In the paragraph immediately following what you quoted, Keathley says,

    "Actually, the central ingredient of the gospel message is a two-fold confession: (1) Christ died for our sins and (2) He was raised on the third day. The reality of these two elements can be verified by the Scriptures (cf. Ps. 16:10; Isa. 53:8-10) and by such awesome historical evidence as the empty tomb and the eye witnesses. Thus, the other two elements mentioned here accomplish two important facts regarding the gospel. The fact that He was buried verified His death, and the fact that He appeared to others verified His resurrection." (emphasis in original)

    So Keathley makes clear that he believes it is only the death and resurrection that are actually part of "the gospel", that which must be believed for salvation. Keathley also declares what is agreed upon by the vast majority of scholars, that the burial and appearances serve to verify and authenticate the gospel of Jesus' death and resurrection.

    So JP, there ya go. There's a direct quote from one of your scholars who agrees that kai hoti introduces something spoken (an early creed/confession), but DISagrees with you that all 4 are required content for saving faith. In fact, Keathley agrees with ME that only the death and rez are required, with the burial and appearances functioning as important evidences (but NOT essential facts to be believed) to the facts of the gospel.

    JP, your "groundless" gospel is unfounded, unsubstantiated, indefensible, and impossible to find declared by ANYone but you. I will not waste my time devoting any more space or thought to this issue.

  8. Rachel/Stephen:

    JP wrote this at his blog, "I would like to take this opportunity to publicly and directly appeal to my brother in Christ. ...in some respects I am glad you are drawing attention to the groundless gospel controversy. However, if you are going to talk about me, please also come to my blog and talk with me. I have repeatedly asked you to discuss these issues with me openly on my blog, and you have repeatedly refused.."

    JP gives some of the very reasons why I choose to ignore his unique views. I will not be a part of his effort to draw attention to it. He is craving attention, he is pleading for someone to engage him so that he can propagate his views. I, for one, will have none of it.

    Rachel, you wrote, “JP, your ‘groundless’ gospel is unfounded, unsubstantiated, indefensible, and impossible to find declared by ANYone but you. I will not waste my time devoting any more space or thought to this issue.”
    That sums it up- and because JP bans anyone who does not hold to his strange thinking, his blog is going to be a very lonely place.


  9. I agree Lou. I hoped my interaction with him would have been more productive but his stream of unreasonable assertion made that impossible. From pretty much the get-go of our discussion, started by Rachel, he was writing checks of assertion that his bank of evidence couldn't cash.

    Also, I told him near the very beginning that I was not yet ready to engage him on the details of his groundless gospel but he twisted my reasonable explanations and kept trying to force a confrontation. I'm not opposed to confrontation, sometimes it's necessary, but I won't enter into it until I'm ready and no amount of badgering was going to rush me.

    I don't dislike JP, and I have no hard personal feelings, and I admit to having made some mistakes in our dialog but honest dialog was simply not possible in JP's kangaroo court.

    In light of JP's behavior I can see why many are simply unwilling to even attempt to interact with JP on this at all, let alone on his blog. He uses deceptive tactics to create an illusion of support for his position such as very selective quotes of scholar's that supposedly agree with him, but they really don't -- Rachel's documented example above is just one glaring example. There are other examples as well of exactly this kind of carefully selected (mis)representation of those who supposedly support his view. He has at least one video of Gary Habermas' "exegesis of 1 Cor 15" but I watched it and Gary isn't talking about the content of saving faith at all, he's talking 1 Cor 15 as it relates to the evidence of the resurrection being a real event, and I agree completely with it. Understood in the context which Habermas presents it, the video supports our conclusions much more than it does JP's... yet there it sits on JP's sidebar as-if Gary Habermas supports his ungrounded conclusions.

    My opinion is that JP has allowed knowledge and/or previous praise to puff him up. His e-mails used to have a signature in which he claimed he was "editor in chief" of his blog. EiC of an informal blog? To the best of my knowledge he has since stopped that but it was the first sign to me that his ego was growing desperate for acknowledgment.

    His sidebar has a section with quotes from people praising some of his previous posts -- even comments from you and I which I find saddening but laughable in light of current developments. It reveals to me yet one more type of the subtle twists on reality that he is willing to resort to to create the illusion of legitimacy for his views, views which those quotes were not supporting but he has stripped them of context and neither does he link to the full context in order that the quotes may be readily evaluated. Basically, JP is dishonest and his very selective quotes prove that to any reasonable person who cares to check into them.

    I don't know him personally, never met him face-to-face, but the impression I get over the Internet is that he's somewhat emotional and quick-tempered and I believe this seriously impairs his objectivity at times. We've called him on a rash article or two in the past (remember his surprise rant against Greg a while back?) and I recall that JP responded well to correction at that time, his ego seems to have swelled past such correction now. Proverbs has a lot to say about such a man and none of it is redeeming. Proverbs 14:16-17 and Proverbs 22:24 for example.

    Again, this isn't personal, but JP has simply proven himself a fool to all with eyes open to see it. I remain hopeful that he is restoreable but it will apparently need to come from someone other than me as he has given up his credibility through bad behavior.

    One good thing that has come out of our "failed" dialog is that it's clear to all that he is no longer "one of us". That elephant has been cleared from the room. That doesn't make me happy, but IMO it needed to be done.

  10. p.s. I just found this little Gem. In the Q&A on Habermas' site someone asks specifically "What did the early Church Fathers teach about what salvation requires?"

    Gary explains that scripture itself is the most "authoritative route" and this is the crux of what Gary had to say about what scripture says: "Whenever the Gospel data are defined in the New Testament as the foundation of what someone must believe to be saved, these three doctrines always appear: the Deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus."

    See this page for full context.

  11. Understood in the context which Habermas presents it, the video supports our conclusions much more than it does JP's... yet there it sits on JP's sidebar as-if Gary Habermas supports his ungrounded conclusions.

    Maybe an e-mail to Habermas as to how JP is mischaracterizing his (Habermas's) views for personal advantage might be in order.


  12. Bro. Stephen,

    I don't know why, but I read this article first in your series. I suppose I wanted to kind of get a summary of what you were saying. I am very impressed with it. I plan to go back now & read the previous articles. I am sorry that the discussion got sidetracked on the "groundless" concept. I hope the discussion on the article can be revived. Thank you for your work in this regard. May the Lord bless you & Rachel.

  13. Hi David, thanks for your comment. However, I need to point out that my brilliant better half wrote this series. I can't take any credit 'cept to say "yeah, what she said."


    I love my wife, blessed to have her.

  14. Ah! I see that as I read on! I apologize, but either way, very good!!

  15. S&R,

    I really appreciate your articles on this site! It is very edifying due to the good Scriptural foundation & exegisis I find here. I hope to see more soon! God Bless!