A bit of proof that men are not basically good
Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2010 under polemics • 3 comments • read it ⇒A simple demonstration, through the use of some eye-opening studies on rape, that Christianity is correct to claim that men are inherently evil.
A response to Glenn Peoples’s ‘No, I am not an inerrantist’
Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 under polemics • 8 comments • read it ⇒A response to Glenn Peoples’ article of June 1, in which he critiques the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and finds it wanting.
“No one is righteous”…metaphorically speaking
Posted on Monday, November 9, 2009 under polemics • no comments • read it ⇒A polemic against the argument that, in light of the apparently contradicting evidence of our moral intuitions, total depravity should be interpreted metaphorically.
Determinism and the authorship of sin in Calvinism and Arminianism
Posted on Friday, August 28, 2009 under presentations • 21 comments • read it ⇒Arminians object to determinism because it makes God the “author of evil”—but does their own system avoid it? In this post, I argue that although they disagree with Calvinists about the nature of God’s sovereignty, their own theology commits them to an equally deterministic view.
Everything you perceive is unreliable
Posted on Friday, May 15, 2009 under polemics • 4 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.