I'm not wanting to get into comparing rhetoric again; my aim was to highlight how the word depraved was being applied. It was not personal toward anyone doing CT work. It was describing worldly methods. Is there no Christian endeavor where you believe Christians are not employing worldly assumptions and methodologies in doctrinal matters? And is it fair to call worldly assumptions and methods in finding out the things of God 'depraved'? As someone who holds to a young earth (and six-day creation), I would say that Christians who interpret historical data as proving or implying evolution or an old earth are "employing the world's depraved assumptions" (those assumptions being that Genesis is not a factual account, for instance; or that scientific methods are to be trusted over the Bible).Jeri, are you seriously going to defend his rhetoric after bulldozing me for my far milder rhetoric? That is unbelievably offensive. You can't possibly interpret my rhetoric in the same vein as your pastor's, can you? I would like to know how "depraved" in describing the approach of Warfield, and the vast majority of today's Reformed scholars is ONE WHIT less objectionable than the Satan's Bible comment. I assure, to me, it is not. And not all your attempts to excuse it will move me one iota on that. You are demonstrating the exact tone-deafness I am trying to point out. You seem to think that any rhetoric is acceptable if the position is correct, but my rhetoric is unacceptable even if I am correct. But you can't see how uneven this playing field is?