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.
A response to Damian Peterson on the merits of being dogmatic.
A clarification of my previous comments regarding the difference between the belief of a saved Christian, and the belief of an unsaved reprobate.
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 3 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement provides no grounds for faith, and makes the assurance of salvation impossible.
A defense of biblical foundationalism, in response to the objection that “The Bible is the word of God” presupposes certain more basic truths, and thus cannot function as a first principle. This objection was forwarded to me by my friend David Parker, who encountered it while debating a Randian objectivist.
A brief exposition of the failure of Roman Catholicism to provide a principled advantage in understanding doctrine, over and against Protestantism. I conclude with a serious parody of Pascal’s Wager, arguing that on a Catholic’s own terms, and all other things being equal, it is safer to be a Protestant than a Catholic.
Steve has now posted his closing statement. As usual, I’m reproducing it here for ease of reference. This is the final part of our debate. My thanks to Steve for an interesting and thought-provoking exchange.