Additional Explanations on Concordism: A Response to Paul Seely's Critique

aul Seely's charitable comments about my work (and that of other "concor- dists") are much appreciated. I am also grateful to the PSCF editor for allowing me this opportunity to respond to the critique. Seely takes exception to my assertion that God's two books of revelation, one verbal (the Bible) and one expressed in action (nature), are totally truthful. Perhaps our greatest point of disagreement has to do with divine revelation. I take literally the Bible's explicit claim that God has spoken to humanity through both the words of the Bible and the world of nature. If God, by his nature, does not lie, deceive, or contradict, then the record of biology, for example, will not contradict the record of physics, nor will the message in Genesis contradict that in Romans. Neither do I see any possibility for contradiction between what God reveals in the Bible and what he reveals in nature's record.