What do you think?
Rate this book
A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture
In A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture, Dr. Keith Mathison briefly introduces us to a topic that has long been a subject of debate, aiming to equip Christians with a clear foundation so that they may approach questions and discussions pertaining to science and Scripture with grace, humility, and patience.
57 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 3, 2013
168 people are currently reading
733 people want to read
About the author
Keith A. Mathison
18 books55 followersDr. Keith A. Mathison is associate editor of Tabletalk magazine. He is also academic dean and professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College in Sanford, Fla., and author of From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews
June 27, 2014
Essentially, this little book is a commentary on a statement made by theologian R.C. Sproul. It serves somewhat as a guide for scientists and theologians to come to terms when disagreements arise. The basic argument of the book is as follows:
1. All truth is God's truth.
2. God reveals truth in two ways - General Revelation (nature/science) and Special Revelation (Word of God).
3. Both General and Special Revelation are infallible, however, they are both subject at times to fallible interpretations.
4. If a conflict between science and the Bible arises, it can only be one of three things - the scientist holds a flawed interpretation of his data, the theologian holds a flawed interpretation of Scripture, or both are wrong.
Mathison reminds the reader of the historical view of geocentrism and that many theologians (Calvin and Luther specifically) clung to a flawed interpretation of Scripture despite Copernicus proving them wrong. As such, it is possible for science, while interpreting infallible general revelation, to inform and educate the theologian. This point is made to argue for a generous relationship between science and theology. Too often, theologians assume the scientist is wrong while the scientist assumes the theologian is wrong - in reality, both scenarios are possible.
The author does remind the reader that in cases where science seems to directly contradict God's Word, it is God's Word that gets the nod. However, the theologian must be sure of his interpretation before taking a stand.
I would have rated this little book higher has the author applied its principles to the argument over evolution. Rather, Mathison applies his principals to the age of the universe. It was interesting, but it left me wanting more. It does, however, serve as a decent introduction to the subject of science and religion.
1. All truth is God's truth.
2. God reveals truth in two ways - General Revelation (nature/science) and Special Revelation (Word of God).
3. Both General and Special Revelation are infallible, however, they are both subject at times to fallible interpretations.
4. If a conflict between science and the Bible arises, it can only be one of three things - the scientist holds a flawed interpretation of his data, the theologian holds a flawed interpretation of Scripture, or both are wrong.
Mathison reminds the reader of the historical view of geocentrism and that many theologians (Calvin and Luther specifically) clung to a flawed interpretation of Scripture despite Copernicus proving them wrong. As such, it is possible for science, while interpreting infallible general revelation, to inform and educate the theologian. This point is made to argue for a generous relationship between science and theology. Too often, theologians assume the scientist is wrong while the scientist assumes the theologian is wrong - in reality, both scenarios are possible.
The author does remind the reader that in cases where science seems to directly contradict God's Word, it is God's Word that gets the nod. However, the theologian must be sure of his interpretation before taking a stand.
I would have rated this little book higher has the author applied its principles to the argument over evolution. Rather, Mathison applies his principals to the age of the universe. It was interesting, but it left me wanting more. It does, however, serve as a decent introduction to the subject of science and religion.
January 19, 2023
A very good primer on how Natural Revelation is as infallible as Scripture is. It is imperative as Christians to know that science, when it is correct, can never contradict Scripture, and vice versa. Both are means that God reveals things to us, and therefore both should be treated with reverence. All truth is God’s truth, wherever it may be found. Our interpretation of Scripture may be flawed, or our interpretation of scientific findings may be flawed. However, both are true and we must find reconciliation between them if both are true. No true scientific theory can violate God’s word as science is a description of reality just as much as Scripture is. Theologians are fallible like scientists. For those who love to read about the reconciliation of science and faith, this is a wonderful short read.
January 18, 2014
I found this to be disappointing on many levels. First of all, it was merely a commentary on a lecture by R.C. Sproul. Not that this is a problem. But it was more like reading a review of someone else's work. Secondly, there was no actual "approach" advocated. There was a lot of dancing around issues. Perhaps "that" is the aforementioned approach. Thirdly, the word "science" in the title is far too general. The only issue the book was addressing is the age of the universe. It was not advocating any position on that either. So, when all was said and done, we have a second hand report of a lecture in which the speaker danced around the question of the Reformed position on the age of the universe.
January 8, 2023
Good discussion of the reformed and their view of science.
February 9, 2021
This short book is essentially a commentary on a statement made by R.C. Sproul in response to a question about the age of the earth. And while I do not identify as Reformed, I found the book very helpful. (Incidentally, it also increased my respect for Sproul, and makes me want to read more of his work.)
Sproul demonstrates a humility that is often lacking in discussions of science and Scripture. Since all truth is God's truth, then all truth is compatible. When Scriptural revelation and natural revelation seem to disagree, we can be sure that it is simply our fallible understanding of the revelation that is at fault - and we shouldn't jump to a conclusion about whether it is the theologian or the scientist who is wrong. Rather, we can rest in the certainty that God is not conflicted.
Sproul demonstrates a humility that is often lacking in discussions of science and Scripture. Since all truth is God's truth, then all truth is compatible. When Scriptural revelation and natural revelation seem to disagree, we can be sure that it is simply our fallible understanding of the revelation that is at fault - and we shouldn't jump to a conclusion about whether it is the theologian or the scientist who is wrong. Rather, we can rest in the certainty that God is not conflicted.
"It is far wiser to say, with Dr. Sproul, “I don’t know,” than to assert falsehoods to be the teaching of Holy Scripture. It is also wiser to say, “I don’t know,” than to make ultimatums that may be based on misinterpretations of Scripture and/or God’s created works."
September 15, 2022
Wanted to get a little refresher for some of the conversations in my Christian Education class. Nice short pamphlet on general and special revelation, epistemology, and the age of the earth.
January 19, 2016
This was a wonderful but short book on a Reformed approach to science and Scripture. Since God is the fountainhead of all truth, then all truth is God's truth. This means that natural revelation and special revelation are both infallible because they both spring from God. What is fallible, however, is our interpretation to each of them (either our interpretation of the Bible or our scientific theories). There were a lot of quotes from Reformed teachers (Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Hodge, etc.), demonstrating that Scripture and science are not at odds with one another—even though our interpretations of either may be.
The only thing I disliked about the book is that Mathieson begins almost each chapter by quoting a response from Dr. Sproul that he gave at a national conference in 2012. While Dr. Sproul's answer was full of wisdom and practical insight into the nature of science and Scripture, it felt like more of a teaching based off his answer than rooted in Scripture or history. It was in fact rooted in both, but I would have loved to see the chapters springboard from older Reformed teachers, and then maybe tie in Dr. Sproul's answer there. But nevertheless, it was a helpful little book to see that Scripture and science are not at odds with each other.
The only thing I disliked about the book is that Mathieson begins almost each chapter by quoting a response from Dr. Sproul that he gave at a national conference in 2012. While Dr. Sproul's answer was full of wisdom and practical insight into the nature of science and Scripture, it felt like more of a teaching based off his answer than rooted in Scripture or history. It was in fact rooted in both, but I would have loved to see the chapters springboard from older Reformed teachers, and then maybe tie in Dr. Sproul's answer there. But nevertheless, it was a helpful little book to see that Scripture and science are not at odds with each other.
February 9, 2014
Excellent. In this day and age with all the scientific findings that are around it is good to take a step back. God has revealed Himself to man in two ways, general and special revelation. Both are infallible. This means that general revelation cannot contradict special revelation and vice versa. This short book does an excellent job at warning Christians on the dangers of taking an interpretation of Scripture over scientific fact. Conversely it is impossible to believe scientific theory that is in direct conflict over what the Scripture actually teaches. The two must be compatible as both are infallible revelation of God. This gives me pause and grants me caution as to what I dogmatically assert the Scriptures to "plainly teach". Thanks to the author of this short book and to R.C. Sproul
January 1, 2014
A very interesting read that helped temper my thoughts on the subject. Would have been nice to reference someone other than Sproul all the time, it made it feel a little one sided. This had potential to be a good book but ended up being little more than a long winded paraphrasing of someone else's thoughts.
October 13, 2014
This is an excellent little booklet, which shows how one can deal with debates about origins while remaining faithful to a high view of scripture. The authors are very careful not to be dogmatic about issues that cannot be fully known. While not all Christians come from a reformed background, I believe that all would benefit from this booklet.
March 1, 2017
I thought this was a good introduction to the topic if you are unfamiliar with the subject. It was oddly written as a commentary on a speech given by Dr. Sproul in 2012. I think if this book were to be expanded to include discussion on many of the ongoing discussions beyond the age of the universe, that would be very helpful.
January 27, 2018
This book was a good introduction to the topic of the science/scripture authority debate. It doesn't go into a lot of detail, but gives a good basic foundation to learn more on the topic without getting bogged down with too much detail right away. The book is pretty much an elaboration on RC Sproul's answer to being asked how old the earth is.
February 6, 2018
The author makes one good point, which is that we need to make sure that we don't misinterpret God's special revelation and then use that misinterpretation to misinterpret God's natural revelation. Unfortunately, that's the author's only point, and he hammers it chapter after chapter without building on it or moving on from it.
January 10, 2017
Generally insightful. More of a wise approach to look at the conversation of creation. It basically covers RC Sproul's comments on the idea with just a bit of logical investigation. Quick read.
August 7, 2022
Review Title: Good introductory book on wrestling with science and faith from a Reformed perspective.
I read the Kindle version of this short book and recommend it as an introduction to the topic of approaching science and scripture for those who are part of or at least partial to the Reformed tradition. Much of the book focuses on statements made by R.C. Sproul and expands on some of his ideas.
The book is quite short, 57 pages, and a quick read. It has a Foreward, Introduction, seven chapters, and endnotes. The chapters are:
1. All Truth is God’s Truth
2. General and Special Revelation
3. Interpreting General and Special Revelation
4. Luther, Calvin, and Copernicus
5. Earthly Things and Heavenly Things
6. When Science and Scripture Conflict
7. The Age of the Universe and Genesis 1
A quote that I really like is on p25 “When we forget the distinction between what God is saying in Scripture and our own fallible interpretations of His Word, we run the risk of subtly replacing God’s Word with our word.” I do quite often run into people who equate their interpretation of a passage in the Bible with the Bible itself and see this quote from p25 in action far too often, “My friends there [at Dallas Theological Seminary] could not grasp the fact that my difference with them was a difference of interpretation, not a difference over the authority of God’s Word. … These are disagreements over interpretations of God’s Word and not denials of its authority.”
I appreciated the way the author looked back at the lessons learned when Copernicus and Galileo shifted the paradigm in our understanding of the cosmos from a geocentric view with earth in the center to a heliocentric view with earth and the other planets orbiting the sun. The type of transformation in our understanding of some verses in the Bible that point to a fixed earth is somewhat similar to today’s approach to verses when we discuss the age of the earth and evolution. This quote from p31 on Luther’s view is insightful, “Here Luther suggests that it is wicked to deny that there are literal waters above the firmament to which the sun and stars are fastened. Why did he believe this was an undeniable fact? He believed Scripture taught it clearly in Genesis 1.” And on p32 he goes on to talk about Calvin’s view, “Calvin warns against those who say “that the sun does not move and that it is the earth that moves.” He describes those who hold this view as “stark raving mad” and as “possessed” by the Devil.” Thankfully, most Christians now accept that the earth orbits the sun. Wouldn’t it be nice if they learned this lesson and applied it to our understanding of the rest of modern science?
While I do recommend this book, there were a couple of areas where I was not in complete agreement. For example, I’m not really sure I agree with this quote from p22, “Few Christians would disagree with the idea that a right interpretation of Scripture (special revelation) can correct a misinterpretation of general revelation, but is the converse true as well?” I have not figured out where a right interpretation of scripture has ever corrected a misinterpretation of general revelation. It doesn’t seem to me that the Bible intends to teach modern science or offer special insight into the natural world beyond what the people at the time understood. Similarly, I don’t agree with this quote from p23, “We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.” Ancient people in the Bible had an ancient understanding of the world around them and this is reflected in their writings. It’s just not appropriate to expect them to write about modern scientific subjects. We can accept and learn from the spiritual teaching in their writings without demanding that they align, or concord, with our modern understanding of the universe. But perhaps I am overthinking what the author means as he states in this quote from p23 “Dr. Sproul is making the simple point that while science cannot overturn an actual teaching of Scripture, it can sometimes correct a misinterpretation of Scripture.” I would also say I disagree with some of his other theology such as the perfection and maturity of humans before the fall (p34). I don’t see the Bible demanding this view.
Overall, I think this book could be useful to someone who is looking for an introduction to approaching science and Scripture, especially, but not limited to, people in the Reformed tradition. I found the book a bit limited in that it doesn’t really address the science much. If all of the evidence actually supported a young earth creationism literal reading of Genesis 1, there wouldn’t really be the need for much dialogue here. It would have been nice for the book to point this out as it did in the section on geocentrism/heliocentrism of Copernicus’ day.
I read the Kindle version of this short book and recommend it as an introduction to the topic of approaching science and scripture for those who are part of or at least partial to the Reformed tradition. Much of the book focuses on statements made by R.C. Sproul and expands on some of his ideas.
The book is quite short, 57 pages, and a quick read. It has a Foreward, Introduction, seven chapters, and endnotes. The chapters are:
1. All Truth is God’s Truth
2. General and Special Revelation
3. Interpreting General and Special Revelation
4. Luther, Calvin, and Copernicus
5. Earthly Things and Heavenly Things
6. When Science and Scripture Conflict
7. The Age of the Universe and Genesis 1
A quote that I really like is on p25 “When we forget the distinction between what God is saying in Scripture and our own fallible interpretations of His Word, we run the risk of subtly replacing God’s Word with our word.” I do quite often run into people who equate their interpretation of a passage in the Bible with the Bible itself and see this quote from p25 in action far too often, “My friends there [at Dallas Theological Seminary] could not grasp the fact that my difference with them was a difference of interpretation, not a difference over the authority of God’s Word. … These are disagreements over interpretations of God’s Word and not denials of its authority.”
I appreciated the way the author looked back at the lessons learned when Copernicus and Galileo shifted the paradigm in our understanding of the cosmos from a geocentric view with earth in the center to a heliocentric view with earth and the other planets orbiting the sun. The type of transformation in our understanding of some verses in the Bible that point to a fixed earth is somewhat similar to today’s approach to verses when we discuss the age of the earth and evolution. This quote from p31 on Luther’s view is insightful, “Here Luther suggests that it is wicked to deny that there are literal waters above the firmament to which the sun and stars are fastened. Why did he believe this was an undeniable fact? He believed Scripture taught it clearly in Genesis 1.” And on p32 he goes on to talk about Calvin’s view, “Calvin warns against those who say “that the sun does not move and that it is the earth that moves.” He describes those who hold this view as “stark raving mad” and as “possessed” by the Devil.” Thankfully, most Christians now accept that the earth orbits the sun. Wouldn’t it be nice if they learned this lesson and applied it to our understanding of the rest of modern science?
While I do recommend this book, there were a couple of areas where I was not in complete agreement. For example, I’m not really sure I agree with this quote from p22, “Few Christians would disagree with the idea that a right interpretation of Scripture (special revelation) can correct a misinterpretation of general revelation, but is the converse true as well?” I have not figured out where a right interpretation of scripture has ever corrected a misinterpretation of general revelation. It doesn’t seem to me that the Bible intends to teach modern science or offer special insight into the natural world beyond what the people at the time understood. Similarly, I don’t agree with this quote from p23, “We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.” Ancient people in the Bible had an ancient understanding of the world around them and this is reflected in their writings. It’s just not appropriate to expect them to write about modern scientific subjects. We can accept and learn from the spiritual teaching in their writings without demanding that they align, or concord, with our modern understanding of the universe. But perhaps I am overthinking what the author means as he states in this quote from p23 “Dr. Sproul is making the simple point that while science cannot overturn an actual teaching of Scripture, it can sometimes correct a misinterpretation of Scripture.” I would also say I disagree with some of his other theology such as the perfection and maturity of humans before the fall (p34). I don’t see the Bible demanding this view.
Overall, I think this book could be useful to someone who is looking for an introduction to approaching science and Scripture, especially, but not limited to, people in the Reformed tradition. I found the book a bit limited in that it doesn’t really address the science much. If all of the evidence actually supported a young earth creationism literal reading of Genesis 1, there wouldn’t really be the need for much dialogue here. It would have been nice for the book to point this out as it did in the section on geocentrism/heliocentrism of Copernicus’ day.
June 25, 2020
Should be re-titled: a proclamation of a modern PCA approach to science and scripture that directly contradicts their reformed forefathers and gives no actual defense of why they think traditionalist views are untenable besides "but the bible isnt a science textbook"
If you want to beleive that OEC and PCA evolutionists like keller have any capability of being "within biblical lines," on their scientific beliefs then fine. you're wrong, but thats fine. But to assert that it is untenable to take a hard and clear stance on something such as YEC. Boiiiiiiiiii get back into your PCA conference and toucheth not the golden goose. Intellectual humility is not humility if its forced on us. Nor is it intellectual humility to pretend that the bible leaves room for OEC. It doesnt. YE just find the dates and ages of individuals too hard to beleive so it MUST just be literary art. THIS IS NOT HARRY POTTER. What the Word of God says is truth. The Word of God is inerrant , that is, in all that it says. In its geographical statements, historical statements, astronomical statements. And no That does not mean theres no room for condescension to context I.e. the size of the mustard seed. Jonah is historical fact, Job is historical fact, gen 1 & 2 are historical fact and the bibles dates are historical facts. Will the real reformed view on scripture and science please stand up because this book is not it.
It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, IN THE SPACE OF SIX DAYS; and all very good.
- WCF 4.1
VDMA
If you want to beleive that OEC and PCA evolutionists like keller have any capability of being "within biblical lines," on their scientific beliefs then fine. you're wrong, but thats fine. But to assert that it is untenable to take a hard and clear stance on something such as YEC. Boiiiiiiiiii get back into your PCA conference and toucheth not the golden goose. Intellectual humility is not humility if its forced on us. Nor is it intellectual humility to pretend that the bible leaves room for OEC. It doesnt. YE just find the dates and ages of individuals too hard to beleive so it MUST just be literary art. THIS IS NOT HARRY POTTER. What the Word of God says is truth. The Word of God is inerrant , that is, in all that it says. In its geographical statements, historical statements, astronomical statements. And no That does not mean theres no room for condescension to context I.e. the size of the mustard seed. Jonah is historical fact, Job is historical fact, gen 1 & 2 are historical fact and the bibles dates are historical facts. Will the real reformed view on scripture and science please stand up because this book is not it.
It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, IN THE SPACE OF SIX DAYS; and all very good.
- WCF 4.1
VDMA
January 12, 2020
This books is basically parsing a Sproul quote on Natural Revelation and Spiritual revelation.
I don’t know that this book was needed but I guess you can’t say a common sense approach to science and religion and assume that everyone understands. The reformed part I hope is at least not needed as I hope that most conservative Protestants would be close to this but I guess that’s the point. Writing it down means others might not have to wonder as much.
Want to know where reformed people stand on specific scientific ideas, this won’t tell you. It attempts to answer the question, how do (or should) reformed Christians deal with the connection between them and where they might intersect with biblical passages interpreted to comment on specific scientific ideas.
All that said, I’m glad I read it. I’d recommend it to anyone who cares about these things but hasn’t put loads of thought into it or those that have thought so much about it they would like some realignment.
I don’t know that this book was needed but I guess you can’t say a common sense approach to science and religion and assume that everyone understands. The reformed part I hope is at least not needed as I hope that most conservative Protestants would be close to this but I guess that’s the point. Writing it down means others might not have to wonder as much.
Want to know where reformed people stand on specific scientific ideas, this won’t tell you. It attempts to answer the question, how do (or should) reformed Christians deal with the connection between them and where they might intersect with biblical passages interpreted to comment on specific scientific ideas.
All that said, I’m glad I read it. I’d recommend it to anyone who cares about these things but hasn’t put loads of thought into it or those that have thought so much about it they would like some realignment.
June 23, 2020
Was this book even necessary to be written?
Written for redherring, it seems. Despite Calvin and Luther's erring on this, how is geocentrism vs heleocentrism even relevant to the issue of the age of the cosmos?
Several issues are at stake with the age of the universe, however: Putting death before the original sin (which further puts theodicy in a mire; and undermining Romans chapters 5 and 8 and detaching them from Genesis 1-3), the noetic effects of sin (hence its influence on our intellect for the academic pursuits in the "lower things", in Calvin's terms), the whole counsel of God (e.g. ignoring Exodus 20:11 and Mark 10:6?), and the clarity of Scripture to name just a few.
It is deplorable that the majority in the Reformed world is intimidated by intellectualism / academic culture (the secular scientism).
Wait, hasn't guys like J Mac and Al Mohler given clear answers at the Lig Conferences several times?
Had better check it.
https://creation.com/age-earth-why-ma...
Written for redherring, it seems. Despite Calvin and Luther's erring on this, how is geocentrism vs heleocentrism even relevant to the issue of the age of the cosmos?
Several issues are at stake with the age of the universe, however: Putting death before the original sin (which further puts theodicy in a mire; and undermining Romans chapters 5 and 8 and detaching them from Genesis 1-3), the noetic effects of sin (hence its influence on our intellect for the academic pursuits in the "lower things", in Calvin's terms), the whole counsel of God (e.g. ignoring Exodus 20:11 and Mark 10:6?), and the clarity of Scripture to name just a few.
It is deplorable that the majority in the Reformed world is intimidated by intellectualism / academic culture (the secular scientism).
Wait, hasn't guys like J Mac and Al Mohler given clear answers at the Lig Conferences several times?
Had better check it.
https://creation.com/age-earth-why-ma...
May 2, 2023
Another thesis book. This was a very short read, and it did not pack very much detail into its 50 pages. However, it did do an upstanding job establishing the basis for the almost philosophical argument that was the foundation of my senior thesis, so while it might not have provided many concrete examples it provided a good springboard for basic logic to be backed up with more thorough resources. Also directed me to a great R. C. Sproul lecture on the topic.
January 24, 2019
This book brings clarity!
there's a lot of discussion surrounding the scripture versus science debate which is an artificial way of framing it anyway. this book looks at an extended quote from RC Sproul where he provides a lot of wisdom and a foundation on how I believe all Christians should respond to questions regarding scripture and science.
there's a lot of discussion surrounding the scripture versus science debate which is an artificial way of framing it anyway. this book looks at an extended quote from RC Sproul where he provides a lot of wisdom and a foundation on how I believe all Christians should respond to questions regarding scripture and science.
April 20, 2018
Too short, an expanded review of Sproul's answer. I expected at least some Scriptural considerations on why there are some valid positions on either side, and which one with certainty can be dismissed.
April 13, 2021
Genesis interpretation
A quick read about reformed's stand on interpreting Bible, especially on Genesis and theory of creation. A sola scripture approach, better say don't know rather than misinterpreted the Bible.
A quick read about reformed's stand on interpreting Bible, especially on Genesis and theory of creation. A sola scripture approach, better say don't know rather than misinterpreted the Bible.
December 28, 2018
Meh, 3.5 stars. If you really haven't thought about the subject at all this would be a good introduction. If you have thought about it, even a little, you've probably covered most of this.
January 7, 2019
Wonderful little read.
Wonderful little read on the history and interaction between the reformed and science. Also the the topic of special and general revelation.
Wonderful little read on the history and interaction between the reformed and science. Also the the topic of special and general revelation.
September 13, 2019
Super short read but VERY good! Does it answer how old the universe is? Nope. But that's the point. It's ok to say "I don't know."
October 28, 2019
What the Church needs
April 21, 2020
Interesting
December 19, 2020
Excellent essay.
It is a good introduction into the doctrine of creation, though I wish it had gone deeper into the subject.
It is a good introduction into the doctrine of creation, though I wish it had gone deeper into the subject.
January 15, 2023
Good book on Scripture and science, and the interactions between these two “books of God.” Just a general introduction really. Not meant to be too in-depth.
December 28, 2023
Useful little primer on a framework to distinguish general/specific revelation and fallible interpretations of either. Would like to be a little stronger in one direction but hey ho!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews