|
|
| |
|
| by Editor Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
In terms of theoretical principle and eventual out-working, the unbeliever opposes the Christian faith with a whole, antithetical system of thought - not simply with a piecemeal criticisms. His attack is aimed, not merely at certain random points of Christian teaching, but at its foundation. The particular criticisms utilized by the unbeliever rest upon basic, key assumptions which unify and inform his thinking. It is this presuppositional root which the apologist must aim to eradicate if his defense of the faith is to be effective.
Because the unbeliever has such as implicit system of thought directing his attack on the faith the Christian can never be satisfied to defend the hope that is in him by merely stringing together isolated evidences which offer a slight probability of the Bible’s veracity. Each particular item of evidence will be evaluated (as to both its truthfulness and degree of probability) by the unbeliever’s tactic assumptions; his general world-and-life view will provide the context in which the evidential claim is understood and weighed. What one presupposes as to the possibility will even determine how he rates “probability.”
For this reason the apologetic strategy we see illustrated in Scripture calls for argumentation at the presuppositional level. For instance, when Paul stood before Agrippa and offered his defense for the hope in him (Acts 26:2, 6-7; cf. 1 Peter 3:15) he declared the public fact of Christ’s resurrection (v. 26); however, one must not the presuppositional groundwork and context which Paul provided for this appeal to fact. The very first point Paul endeavored to make in his defense of the faith was a pre-observational, transcendental matter: what is possible (v.8). God was taken as the sovereign determiner of what can and cannot happen. Paul then proceeded to explain that the termination of hostility to the message of the resurrection requires submission to the Lordship of Christ (vv. 9-15). One must understand who the genuine and ultimate authority is. Paul went on to explain that the message he declared called for a radical “change of mind” (metanoia / repentance), turning from darkness to true light and from the dominion of Satan to God (vv. 18-20). The unbeliever must renounce his antagonistic reasoning and embrace a new system of thought; thus his presuppositional commitments must be altered. Finally, Paul placed his appeal to the fact within the context of Scripture’s authority to pronounce and interpret what happens in history (vv. 22-23, 27). The ultimate ground of the Christian’s certainty and the authority backing up his argumentation must be the word of God. Paul could go to to the facts, then, only in terms of an undergirding philosophy of fact and in accordance with the foundational axioms of Biblical epistemology.
Consequently the apologist needs to recognize that the debate between believer and unbeliever is fundamentally a dispute or clash between two complete worldviews - between ultimate commitments and assumptions which are contrary to each other. An unbeliever is not simply an unbeliever at separate points; his antagonism is rooted in an overall philosophy (Colossians 2:8) which is according to the world’s tradition; thus he is an enemy of God in his mind (Colossians 1:21; James 4:4) and uses his mind to nullify or obviate God’s word (Mark 7:8-13). Because he cannot receive or know the things of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14), the unbeliever suppresses the truth (Romans 1:18) and exalts his reasoning against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5).
Two philosophies or systems of thought are in collision: one submits to the authority of God’s word as a matter of presuppositional commitment and one does not. Appeals to fact will be arbitrated in terms of the conflicting presuppositions held by the two philosophies; the debate between two perspectives will thus eventually work down to the level of one’s ultimate authority. Does this bring the argument to end in a stalemate, each person arbitrarily choosing a starting point to his own subjective liking? Not at all. Rather, this situation points up the great need for a presuppositional method of defending the faith. The presuppositionalist realizes that very argument chain must end in a self-authenticating starting point; every worldview has its unquestioned and unquestionable assumptions, its primitive commitments. all religious debate will develop into a question of ultimate authority. In principle the two options will stand in full, stark contrast to each other. At this point only a presuppositional argument can resolve the tension.
As discussed in recent studies, the presuppositional procedure has been seen to involve two steps: (1) an internal critique of the unbeliever’s system, demonstrating that his outlook is a foolish destruction of knowledge, and (2) a humble yet bold presentation of the reason for the hope that is within us, communicated in terms of the believer’s presuppositional commitment to God’s true word. Such a procedure can resolve the tension between competing authorities and conflicting starting points because it asks which position provides the preconditions for observation, reason, and meaningful discourse.
The apologetic discussion does not end in a stalemate because the Christian, by placing himself on the unbeliever’s position, can show how it results in the destruction of intelligible experience and discursive thought. If the unbeliever were correct in his presuppositions, then nothing whatever could be understood or known. The philosophy of the unbeliever has been afflicted with vanity (Romans 1:21) so that his “knowledge” is (in terms of his own assumptions) falsely so-called (1 Timothy 6:20) and he opposes himself by it (2 Timothy 2:25). By pitting his foolish thinking (in the name of “wisdom”) against the wisdom of the gospel (which he labels “foolish”) the unbeliever must be unmasked of his pretensions (1 Corinthians 1:18-21) and shown that he has no apologetic for his view point (Romans 1:20) but has been left with a vain, darkened, ignorant mind which needs renewal (Ephesians 4:17-24).
The Christian can then teach the unbeliever that all wisdom and knowledge must take Jesus Christ as its reference point (Colossians 2:3). The believer’s thinking, just as the unbeliever’s is grounded in a self-validating starting point. The ultimate truth must be an expression of God’s mind; He alone speaks with unquestionable authority and self-attesting veracity. Thus Jesus categorically claimed to be the truth (John 14:6); there is no standard higher that His divine person and word. Christ demonstrated that God and His word must be the self-authenticating, indisputable starting point for all thought when He, unlike Adam, refused to put the Lord to a test (Matthew 4:7), rendering implicit obedience to God’s authoritative law (Deuteronomy 6:16). The Christian starting point, it should then be observed, provides the precondition for intelligible experience and meaningful thought rather than destroying the epistemological enterprise, for it teaches that man was created to think God’s thoughts after Him and thereby know the truth.
The Ultimate Starting Point – God’s Word
The disagreement between the believer and the unbeliever which gives rise to the need for apologetics, as we saw in the last study, is not merely over particular points. In principle two complete philosophic systems or perspectives come into conflict when the veracity of the Christian faith is debated. It is for that reason that the apologist cannot be satisfied to argue merely about certain facts (even those very special facts known as “miracles,” like Christ’s resurrection). Factual argumentation may become necessary, but it is never sufficient. What one takes to be factual, as well as the interpretation of accepted facts, will be governed by his underlying philosophy of fact - that is, by more basic, all pervasive, value oriented, possibility-determining, probability-rating, supra-experiential, religiously-motivated presuppositions. It is at this presuppositional level that the crucial work of defending the faith must thus be done.
This is also manifesting a somewhat different way. All argumentation about ultimate issues eventually comes to rest at the level of the disputant’s presuppositions. If a man has come to the conclusion, and is committed to the truth of a certain view, P, when he is challenged as to P, he will offer supporting argumentation for it, Q and R. But of course, as his opponent will be quick to point out, this simply shifts the argument to Q and R. Why accept them? The proponent of P is now called upon to offer S, T, U, and V as arguments for Q and R and on and on the process goes. The process is complicated by the fact that both the believer and unbeliever will be involved in such chains of argumentation. But all argument chains must come to an end somewhere. One’s conclusion could never be demonstrated if they were dependent upon an infinite regress of argumentative justifications, for under those circumstances the demonstration could never be completed. And an incomplete demonstration demonstrates nothing at all.
Eventually all argumentation terminates in some logically primitive starting point, a view or premise held unquestionable. Apologetics traces back to such an ultimate starting points or presuppositions. In the nature of the case these presuppositions are held to be self-evidencing: they are the ultimate authority in one’s viewpoint, an authority for which no greater authorization can be given. So then, all apologetic argumentation will require such a final foundation, an ultimate and self-validating presupposition or starting point for thought and commitment. The conscientious apologist should be aware of just what his actual starting point is.
But now a problem arises. If argument chains must eventually terminate, and if the believer and unbeliever have conflicting starting points how can apologetic debate ever be resolved? Since there are different authorities in the realm of thought, does apologetics reduce to a blind, voluntaristic “will to believe”? Is the decisions for or against the faith a mere matter of personal taste eventually? Well, the answer would have to be yes if the apologist contented himself merely with arguments and evidences for selected, isolated facts. But the answer is no if the Christian carries his argument beyond the “facts and nothing but the facts” to the level of self-evidencing presuppositions - the ultimate assumptions which select and interpret the facts.
At this level of conflict with the unbeliever the Christian must ask, what actually is the unquestionable and self-evidencing presupposition? Between the believer and the unbeliever, who actually has the most certain starting point for reasoning and experience? What is that presuppositional starting point? Here the Christian apologist, defending his ultimate presuppositions, must be prepared to argue the impossibility of the contrary - that is, must be prepared to argue that the philosophic perspective of the unbeliever destroys meaning, intelligence, and the very possibility of knowledge, while the Christian faith provides the only framework and conditions for intelligible experience and rational certainty. The apologist must contend that the true starting point of thought cannot be other than God and His revealed word, for no reasoning is possible apart from the ultimate authority. Here and only here does one find the genuinely unquestionable starting point.
It should be clear that this is the perspective of Scripture. It is God’s word which must be our ultimate and indisputable presupposition in thought and argumentation, rather than independently supported “brute facts.” Christ demonstrated that God’s Word (and thus His own teaching) had highest authority in the world of thought; it was the firm starting point, self-validating foundation, and final standard of the truth. As such, nothing was more ultimate than it or could call it into question. Thus Christ would never consent to put the Lord to a test (Matthew 4:7). So also, Christ designated Himself as “the truth” (John 14:6). Christ and His word stand firm as the most ultimate established, trustworthy, point of truth; He alone can designate Himself “the Amen” (Revelation 3:14; cf. Isaiah 65:16). and preface His pronouncements with “Amen, amen I say to you ...” (John 3:3, 5, 11 etc.) Christ and His word are self-attestingly true.
As the very standard of truth which all other claims must be measured, Christ did not rely upon the backing or evidence of others for His teaching: He taught with self-sufficient authority (Mat. 7:29). Should anyone refuse to receive His words, those very words stand in judgment over him (John 12:48-50); they had ultimate authority as coming from the Lord, thus not being subject to challenge (cf. Matthew 20:1-15). Christ declared THAT IT WOULD BE more tolerable for Sodom than for that city which would not receive the apostolic proclamation for (as He explained to the apostles) “he that hearth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:10-16). The divine word is authoritative in itself, carrying its own evidence inherently. Consequently, no man has the prerogative to call it into question (Romans 9:20); instead those who contend with God are required to answer (Job 38:1-3; 1-3; 40:1-5). God’s veracity is to be automatically presupposed (Romans 3:1), for He speaks with unmistakable clarity (Romans 1:19-20; Psalm 119:130).
Christ disdained those who sought signs beyond the authority of His words (Matthew 12:39; 16:4); mindful of that, Luke prefaced such an incident with the words, “Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it” (Luke 11:28). Apologists should keep in mind that Christ needs not the witness and glory of man (John 5:31, 41). His greatest witness comes from the Father speaking in the Scripture (John 5:37, 39). The refusal of men to believe Christ’s word is not attributed to a lack of factual evidence, but rather to their not abiding in that self-evidencing word of God (John 5:36-38). Scripture is authoritative in itself to testify of Christ, for God’s word is more sure than any eye witness experience of the facts (2 Peter 1:16-19). If men will not submit to the self-evidencing, ultimate starting point of God’s word [12], neither will the fact of an historical resurrection convince them (Luke 16:31). Hence when certain disciples reluctant to believe the fact of Christ’s resurrection, He rebuked them, not for failure to attend to the experienced evidence, but for their hesitance to believe the Scriptures (Luke 24:24-27).
So we see that, in terms of a Biblically guided method, the crux of Christian apologetics is not mere experienced facts (necessary though they may be), but God’s revelation in its self-attesting truthfulness. As defenders of the faith, we are obligated to “test the spirits, whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1); that discernment and defense is required at the level of starting point and presupposition, just as at every higher level. The final standard by which all religious claims (affirmative or negative) are to be tried is the apostolic teaching (1 John 4:2-3) - which means that it is itself tried by nothing more ultimate; there is no “higher authority” than God’s self-evidencing word.
Therefore, when the apologetic debate centers (eventually) on the issue of conflicting presuppositions, the believer must defend God’s word as the ultimate starting point, the unquestionable authority, the self-attesting foundation of all thought and commitment. At the level where there are conflicting claims to be true, self-evident starting point: either complete surrender to epistemic Lordship of Christ (Colossians 2:3) or utter intellectual vanity striving after the wind (Ecclesiastes 1:13-17). We must argue from the impossibility of the contrary. The fundamental truth of the Christian faith cannot be given a more ultimate or rigorous defense than this. Simple evidences from nature, personality, logic, or history cannot suffice when the debate reaches the presuppositional level: they cannot cast down every high reasoning which exalts itself against the knowledge of God and demand that every thought be made captive to the obedience of Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 10:4-5).
The unbeliever should not be left with false pretensions: such as, that his problem is merely a lack of information, or that he simply needs to correct some of his syllogisms, or that his experience and thinking are all right as afar as they go. In actuality, the unbeliever’s espoused principles of thought, reason, and reality would lead to utter intellectual foolishness and destruction (1 Corinthians 1:20; Matthew 7:26-27). This is what must be pointed out, thus witnessing that the contrary of Christianity is impossible, while on the other hand the dogmas of the faith provide the necessary preconditions of intelligibility and meaning. Such is the Scriptural perspective and method.
The source of the unbeliever’s moral and epistemological problem is that he is wrong (allegedly self-evidencing), authoritative starting point in his thought. It should be obvious, then, that the apologist can help the unbeliever only if the apologist is conscientiously aware of the correct, genuinely self-evidencing, ultimate authority in the real of thought, and is faithful in arguing in such a way that his defense is rooted in that presupposition (Matthew 15:15; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 4:18. with John 9:39; Acts 26:19; Psalm 119:18).
Indeed, it is the case, as man will be quick to point out, that this presuppositional method of apologetics assumes the truth of Scripture in order to argue for the truth of Scripture. Such is unavoidable when ultimate truths are being debated. However, such is not damaging, for it is not a flat circle in which one reasons (i.e., “the Bible is true because the Bible is true”). Rather, the Christian apologist simply recognizes that the ultimate truth - that which is more pervasive, fundamental, and necessary - is such that it cannot be argued independently of the preconditions inherent in it. One must presuppose the truth of God’s revelation in order to reason at all - even when reasoning about God’s revelation. The fact that the apologist presupposes the word of God in order to carry on a discussion about the veracity of that word does not nullify his argument, but rather illustrates it.
Summary Of The Apologetical Method
The Nature of the Apologetic Situation:
The controversy between the believer and unbeliever is in principle an antithesis between two complete systems of thought involving ultimate commitments and assumptions. Even laws of thought and method, along with factual evidence, will be accepted and evaluated in light of one’s governing presuppositions. All chains of argumentation, especially over matters of ultimate personal importance, trace back to and depend upon starting points which are taken to be self-evidencing thus circularity in debate will be unavoidable.
Thus appeals to logic, fact, and personality may be necessary, but they will not be apologetically adequate; what is needed is not piece meal replies, probabilities, or isolated evidences but rather an attack upon the underlying presuppositions of the unbeliever’s system of thought.
The unbeliever’s way of thinking is characterized as follows:
By nature the unbeliever is the image of God and, therefore, inescapably religious; his heart testifies continually, as does also the clear revelation of God around him, to God’s existence and character. But the unbeliever exchanges the truth for a lie. He is a fool who refuses to begin his thinking with reverence for the Lord; he will not build upon Christ’s self-evidencing words and suppresses the unavoidable revelation of God in nature. Because h delights in not understanding but choses to serve the creature rather than the Creator, the unbeliever is self-confidently committed to his own ways of thought; being convinced that he could not be fundamentally wrong, he flaunts perverse thinking and challenges the self-attesting word of God. Consequently, the unbeliever’s thinking results in ignorance; in his darkened futile mind he actually hates knowledge and can gain only a “knowledge” falsely so-called. To the extent that he actually knows anything, it is due to his unacknowledged dependence upon the suppressed truth about God within him. This renders the unbeliever intellectually schizophrenic: by his espoused way of thinking he actually “opposes himself” and shows a need for a radical “change of mind” (repentance) unto a genuine knowledge of the truth. The unbeliever’s ignorance is culpable because he is without excuse for his rebellion against God’s revelation; hence he is “without an apologetic” for his thoughts. His unbelief does not stem from a lack of factual evidence but from his refusal to submit to the authoritative word of God from the beginning of his thinking.
The Requirements of the Apologist
The apologist must have the proper attitude; he must not be arrogant or quarrelsome, but with humility and respect he must argue in a gentle and peaceable manner. The apologist must have the proper starting point ; he must take God’s word as his self-evidencing presupposition, thinking God’s thoughts after Him (rather than attempting to be neutral), and viewing God’s word as more sure than even his personal experience of the facts. The apologist must have the proper method; working on the unbeliever’s unacknowledged presuppositions and being firmly grounded in his own, the apologist must aim to cast down every high imagination exalted against the knowledge of God by aiming to bring every thought (his own as well as his opponent’s) captive to the obedience of Christ. The apologist must have the proper goal: Securing the unbeliever’s unconditional surrender without compromising one’s own fidelity. The word of the cross must be used to expose the utter pseudo-wisdom of the world as destructive foolishness. Christ must be set apart as Lord in one’s heart, thus acknowledging no higher authority than God’s word and refusing to suspend intellectual commitment to its truth.
The Procedure for Defending the Faith
Realizing that the unbeliever is holding back the truth in unrighteousness, the apologist should reject the foolish presuppositions implicit in critical question and attempt to educate his opponent. This involves presenting the facts within the context of the Biblical philosophy of fact:
God is the sovereign determiner of possibility and impossibility. A proper reception and understanding of the facts requires submission to the Lordship of Christ. Thus facts will be significant to the unbeliever only if he has a presuppositional change of mind from darkness to light. Scripture has authority to declare what has happened in history and to interpret it correctly.
The unbeliever espoused presuppositions should be forcefully attacked, asking whether knowledge is possible, given them:
In order to show that God has made foolish the wisdom of the world the believer can place himself on the unbeliever’s position and answer him according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceits; that is, demonstrate the outcome of unbelieving thought with its assumptions. The unbeliever’s claims should be reduced to impotence and impossibility by an internal critique of his system; that is, demonstrate the ignorance of unbelief by arguing from the impossibility of anything contrary to Christianity. The apologist should appeal to the unbeliever as the image of God who has God’s clear and inescapable revelation, thus giving him an eradicable knowledge of God; this knowledge can be exposed by indicating unwitting expression or by pointing to the “borrowed capital” (un-admitted presuppositions) which can be found in the unbeliever’s position.
The apologist should declare the self-evidencing and authoritative truth of God as the precondition of intelligibility and man’s only way of salvation (from all the effect of sin, including ignorance and intellectual vanity). Lest the apologist become like the unbeliever, he should not answer him according to his folly but according to God’s word. The unbeliever can be invited to put himself on the Christian position in order to see that it provides the necessary grounds for intelligible experience and factual knowledge - thereby concluding that it alone is reasonable to hold and the very foundation for proving anything whatsoever. The apologist can also explain that Scripture accounts for the unbeliever’s state of mind (hostility) and the failure of men to acknowledge the necessary truth of God’s revelation; moreover, Scripture provides the only escape from the effects of this hostility and failure (futility and damnation).
The Condition Necessary For Apologetical Success
“God must Sovereignly Grant Understanding”
If the Christian is to have success in defending the faith he must be prepared to call into question the competence of the unbeliever’s thinking. Even if the unbeliever does not have the impressive credentials of educated scholarship possessed by the unbeliever, he is able to to this. The so-called educated “experts” criticized our Lord with respect to His educational credentials (John 7:14-15), but Jesus countered by challenging the competence of His opponents. Because they refused to follow the will of God they were in no position to judge His teaching (vv. 17, 19). The Christian, being dwelt by the Holy Spirit (John 14:17) and dwelling in Christ’s word (John 8:31-32), knows the truth. All things pertaining to life are granted through a knowledge of God (2 Peter 1:3)., and thus those who refuse to acknowledge God and the truth about Him will be those who refuse to acknowledge God and the truth about Him will be led into futility and error in all fields of thought (Romans 1:18-19). Their unrighteousness blinds them, and accordingly the enlightened Christian can challenge his opponent’s reasoning. Even Christianity’s cultured and educated despisers can be presented an effective apologetic by any believer: “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise...” (1 Corinthians 1:27). Apologetic success begins with this confidence.
Such confidence, however, must be followed by the properly guided method. In particular the apologist must refrain from appealing to the autonomous principles of secular thought in his attempt to bring understanding to the unbeliever, for the unbeliever’s method, standard, and starting point are inherently contrary to that saving understanding at which the apologist aims. Apologetic success will be precluded if the believer rests his case on unbelieving presuppositions or the attitude of autonomy; since these are the source of the unbeliever’s lack of understanding , a fortiori they cannot provide the path to understanding.
The entire human race is dead in trespasses and sin, falling short of God’s glory (Ephesians 2:1, 5; Romans 3:23; 5:15).; as a result, no one seeks after God or has understanding (Romans 3:10-12). Sin has led the unbeliever to exalt his own imaginations and to ignore the revelation of God, and thereby the unbeliever’s reason is always defected into futile, erroneous, and unrighteous conclusions. In his heart (out of which are the issues of life) the foolish unbeliever says that there is no God, and thus he has no knowledge or understanding (Psalm 53:1-4; Romans 3:10-12). The man with whom the apologist argues, then, lacks understanding, and his reasoning is unprofitable. In his mind he is a child of wrath (Ephesians 2:3); his mind is at enmity with God and he is unable to do God’s will (Romans 8:7). It is the sinner’s intellectual assumptions, operation, and competence which are on trial in an apologetical encounter, not the revelation of Christ. The rebel thinker walks according to his own thoughts and is thus locked into the foolishness which proceeds from his heart (Isaiah 65:2; Mark 7:21-22). Since he departs from the faith he unavoidably speaks falsehood and teaches demonic lies (cf. 1 Timothy 4:1-2; Romans 1:25).
These are harsh and unpopular words to modern ears. Because contemporary apologists so often share the autonomy of secular thought they are unwilling to indict its root foolishness. The thoroughgoing defectiveness and unrighteousness of non-Christian epistemology is overlooked by many in an attempt to gain a hearing and to show that compromise between intellectual self-sufficiency and soteriological dependence on God is possible. However, it is impossible to evade the Bible’s stringent indictment of unbelieving thought and its exposure of the unbeliever’s foolishness. The principle antithesis between Christian epistemology and apostate epistemology must be underscored. In contrast to the man whose thoughts are vain stands the man who instructed out of God’s law (Psalm 94:11-12; cf. 1 Corinthians 3:20). The Christian rejoices that he operates, not according to fleshly wisdom, but (in diametric contrast) according to God’s grace (2 Corinthians 1:12).
What kind of apologetic, if it is not to share the autonomy of unbelieving thought, can be successful in bringing the unbeliever to an understanding of truth? The answer is that, like faithful preaching, faithful defense of the gospel must be rooted in the Word and the Spirit. God can only be known by a voluntary revelation by the Son and Spirit of God (Matthew 11:27; 1 Corinthians 2:10); together they deal with man’s ethical hostility to God’s revelation and enable him to have a saving knowledge of his Creator.
The understanding which the unbeliever lacks can only be provided when his mind has been opened (e.g., Luke 24:45) and he has been convicted by the Spirit if Truth (John 16:8). This Spirit continually witnesses to Christ, conducting His case before the world as Christ’s legal representative for the defense (i.e., the “Advocate”; John 15:26). That is, the success of our apologetic depends on the work of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 3:3, 8). Moreover, only if the unbeliever comes to abide in Christ’s word can he have God and know the truth (John 8:31-32; 2 John 9). Until he gains the mind of Christ he is completely unable to know spirit things (1 Corinthians 2:14, 16). Having the mind of Christ requires humility (cf. Philippians 2:5; 8), and thus renunciation of self-sufficiency in order to obey the truth of God. One can only come to a knowledge of Him who is Truth (John 14:6) when the Son grants him the understanding which is lacking (1 John 5:20).
Therefore, the apologist is called upon to give faithful witness to the truth, rather than to attempt to improve on the Lord’s wisdom by autonomous arguments. Being confident of his ability to challenge apostate thought, the believer must reason, not according to the principles of secular thought, but on the presupposed truth of Christ’s word, and looking to the power of His Spirit to bring conviction, conversion, and understanding. A successful apologetic, being given according to Christ’s Word and Spirit, is a function of the grace of God, not human cleverness and wisdom.
|
|
