Fallout
Posted on Saturday, January 8, 2011 under pontifications • 5 comments • read it ⇒Some comments and observations following ‘The Great William Lane Craig Original Sin Flamewar of 2010–2011′.
What to do when skeptics attack libertarian free will—become a Calvinist
Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2010 under presentations • 7 comments • read it ⇒This is a continuation of the discussion started with Stuart McEwing in his article ‘Openness Theology (Part Two)’, exploring the ramifications of libertarian free will, the principle of alternative possibilities; and how an Arminian theology ultimately collapses into either a Reformed or Open theology, depending on how you push it.
A bit of proof that men are not basically good
Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2010 under polemics • 6 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.