<!-- execute Proverbs 4:18 -->
<?php
      // the path() function accepts one argument; 'Christian' is the generic default, but a name is expected:
      path( $righteous = 'Christian' ){
            $light = brighter(); return $light;
      }
      brighter(){
            $brightness = 0; $dawn = $brightness;
            $day = $dawn + 1; 
            /* eschatologically, $day will have three stateful string values ('fallen', 'intermediate', 'resurrection'), but there's 
            no need to define this since the epistemological and ethical values will always be ever-increasing integers. */
            while( $brightness < $day ){
                  $brightness++;
            }
            return $brightness;
      }	
      path( 'Dominic Bnonn Tennant' );
?>

Everything you perceive is unreliable

Posted on Friday, May 15, 2009 under polemics • 2 comments • read it ⇒

A brief, critical response to the Scripturalist claim that sense perception is unreliable, and/or does not produce knowledge. This article refutes Vincent Cheung’s argument that John 12:27–30 constitutes “an inspired example against empiricism.” It does not deal with the question of epistemic justification; merely with the biblical view of sense experience, and the problems inherent in Vincent’s own position.

On dogmatism

Posted on Friday, April 17, 2009 under polemics • no comments • read it ⇒

A response to Damian Peterson on the merits of being dogmatic.

On the atonement, part 6: universal atonement fails to actually accomplish redemption for anyone

Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 under papers • 12 comments • read it ⇒

In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.

This is part 6 of 6, in which I consider and confute the objection that a universal atonement would not actually secure or guarantee salvation for anyone.

On the atonement, part 5: universal salvation, or double payment

Posted on Monday, March 30, 2009 under papers • 3 comments • read it ⇒

In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.

This is part 5 of 6, in which I refute the objection that universal atonement entails either universal salvation, or a double payment for sins.

On the distinction between saving and non-saving faith

Posted on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 under presentations • no comments • read it ⇒

A clarification of my previous comments regarding the difference between the belief of a saved Christian, and the belief of an unsaved reprobate.

The purpose of regeneration revisited

Posted on Monday, March 23, 2009 under polemics • 1 comment • read it ⇒

Was I mistaken about the purpose of regeneration? A response to Ben at Arminian Perspectives, defending my position and refuting his objections.

What purpose does regeneration serve?

Posted on Friday, March 20, 2009 under presentations • 6 comments • read it ⇒

What is the purpose of regeneration, if God can direct the will of man in any direction he chooses? Why must God regenerate a sinner to create faith in him—could he not just control his will so that he believes? A question from Ben at Arminian Perspectives, answered.