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.
The parable of the wedding feast
Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 under presentations • no comments • read it ⇒An exposition of Matthew 22:1–14: the parable of the wedding feast. This exposition focuses especially on the interpretation of the man with no wedding garment, who is bound and thrown out into the darkness, as a response to a request for such by a Roman Catholic correspondent.
The keys of the kingdom
Posted on Thursday, September 4, 2008 under polemics • no comments • read it ⇒An examination of Roman Catholic claims about the keys of the kingdom in Matthew 16:19, listing nine culminating reasons for their failure.
Catholic and Reformed views of God and Scripture: a correspondence
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 under polemics • 1 comment • read it ⇒A response to an email from a Roman Catholic correspondent, critiquing his presentation of the doctrine of Scripture and the purposes of God.
Does God exist? Part 4
Posted on Monday, August 6, 2007 under debates • 3 comments • read it ⇒Continued from part 3 «
Click here for Angels Depart’s final statement; below is my response—
As I see it, Angels, there are three main areas which I must cover in this final response so as to show convincingly that God must exist, and that the Bible is his revelation. The first area regards the issue of [...]
Does God exist? Part 3
Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2007 under debates • 5 comments • read it ⇒Continued from part 2 «
Click here for Angels Depart’s third statement; below is my response—
Erratum; August 2, 2007: thank you Jim for pointing out that I incorrectly cited the covenant conditions relating to Judges 1. These are not from Leviticus 7, but Deuteronomy 7.
As with my previous statement, Angels, I am going to respond only [...]