Dominic Bnonn Tennant

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 4 of 6, in which I interact with the objection that universal atonement requires that God be at cross-purposes with himself, entertaining frustrated desires which he cannot fulfill.

A response to my friend Jim regarding the sincerity of Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37. This follows on from my previous argument from divine purpose, in which I rebutted the view that God intends to save all people but is prevented by human free will. Here, I address the dual question of whether my view leads necessarily to confusion or doubt about God’s word, and further interact with Jim’s proposed counter-solution of human autonomy.

A response to an email from a Roman Catholic correspondent, critiquing his presentation of the doctrine of Scripture and the purposes of God.

In this series, I interact with the criticisms of the Trinity forwarded by Steve Zara in our recent debate, using them as a springboard to examine this important doctrine and demonstrate that it is not intrinsically self-contradictory.

This is part 4 of 4. It dissects the argument Steve makes against the Trinity, showing where it fails and why.

In this series, I interact with the criticisms of the Trinity forwarded by Steve Zara in our recent debate, using them as a springboard to examine this important doctrine and demonstrate that it is not intrinsically self-contradictory.

This is part 3 of 4. It follows on from the previous discussion of the nature of the Trinity by drawing out its ramifications for our understanding of identity, and how this influences the way in which we can formulate arguments about God.

In this series, I interact with the criticisms of the Trinity forwarded by Steve Zara in our recent debate, using them as a springboard to examine this important doctrine and demonstrate that it is not intrinsically self-contradictory.

This is part 2 of 4. It argues that although the Trinity appears self-contradictory at first blush, this is due to an unarticulated equivocation in how we describe it. When we carefully work through the nature of God’s being, we find that the square circle is actually a cylinder.

In this series, I interact with the criticisms of the Trinity forwarded by Steve Zara in our recent debate, using them as a springboard to examine this important doctrine and demonstrate that it is not intrinsically self-contradictory.

This is part 1 of 4. It argues that contradictions cannot be believed, nor considered reasonable answers to any questions, and that if the Trinity is self-contradictory it invalidates Christianity as believable and reasonable.