Dominic Bnonn Tennant |

Steve has now posted his second rebuttal. I am reproducing it here for ease of reference.

As part of my efforts toward establishing a set of comprehensive apologetics resources for lay Christians in New Zealand, centered around the Thinking Matters ministry, I’m working on a second edition to my hastily-released book The Wisdom of God. My particular focus is on making it more accessible by (i) improving the writing style and (ii) weeding out redundancy and wordiness while introducing more down-to-earth illustrations, examples, and definitions. One of the changes I’m considering, on which I’d like some feedback, is renaming the subtitle of the book from “a systematic introduction to biblical apologetics” (which frankly, while terse and accurate is rather unappetizing) to “an introduction to proving the Christian worldview”. My question is: is this a better subtitle? If not, what would you, the lay reader, suggest? Is the word “worldview” generally understood nowadays, or does it need explaining? And, more generally, what other suggestions can you offer regarding making the book a more readable, useful resource for lay Christians?

My friend David Ponter recently made an observation to me which reflects a gradual change in my own thinking since I started blogging. He noted that when we interact with others online, we are generally quick to deal decisively and harshly with them if they disagree with us. (I say “we” because I myself am by no means exempt from this practice, as anyone who has followed my blog will know.) I think we do this largely because (i) online interaction mitigates social niceties which would temper our tone in a face to face discussion; and (ii) this encourages people to be bold and draws out those personalities who thrive on anonymous conflict. Inasmuch as this is true, it’s hardly a situation confined to Christian bloggers; it is a general observation about discourse on the internet. However, (iii) simply put, there are many online who set themselves up in a position of some authority, from which they judge, rebuke, and mock those with whom they disagree. This practice they believe is right, and defend it from Scripture, which does indeed contain examples of exactly these sorts of things. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal; the Lord Jesus rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees; Paul had a harsh word for any number of people. But there are some specifically Christian observations which David made about this which I think it important to elaborate upon and share.

Continuing the discussion of God and goodness, Victor extends a request to Calvinists for clarification: “in virtue of what is the “God” of Scripture, as understood by Calvinists, thought of as good”? As always, I invite you to read the full article; but let me summarize:

If we reject the view that things are good simply because God has the power to say that they are, then in virtue of what do we say that they are good? To appeal to Scripture is to beg the question, because God wrote Scripture; so if he is in fact an omniscient fiend, then his saying that he is good is no guarantee that he is. If we reject the notion that God is good merely on the basis of his own fiat; and that we can know it based only on our own moral intuitions; then how can we know it? Since Victor has posed this question as a request rather than a refutation, let me respond in kind.

Victor has posted a further response in our ongoing discussion regarding the nature of good as presented in the Bible, and how it compares to our moral intuitions. I invite you to read it in full; it is not very long. I will quote only pertinent segments here. The gist is that (I) Scripture only indirectly addresses the question in which we are interested (is predestination good?); (II) it is only authoritative once we already believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, so a preexisting conception of goodness is logically necessary to belief in the Christian God; and (III) it is unclear the extent to which we can get precise meaning out of Scripture via historical-grammatical analysis [...]

A couple of weeks ago, Victor Reppert posted an argument against compatibilism, and invited a general critique. This argument looks as follows (I’m paraphrasing since Victor’s original formulation had some typos):

1. If compatibilism is true, then God could have created the world in such a way that everyone freely does what is right.
2. If God is omnipotent and perfectly good, then, were it possible, he would have created the world in such a way that everyone freely does what is right.
3. But God did not create the world in such a way that everyone freely does what is right.
4. Therefore, compatiblism is false.

It was a Friday when Sarah was diagnosed with pre-eclampsia. Although it is a common condition, it is also a very serious one—in the third world mothers die from it regularly, and although it is manageable given good medical facilities, there is still a degree of danger. For this reason, labor is generally induced very [...]