A 6-step argument showing that the bishop of Rome doesn’t have the credentials required to hold his office.
A 5 (and a bit) step argument showing that the Catholic Church is not a legitimate Christian church because its leadership does not meet certain basic biblical requirements.
Was Gandhi the saintly and wise spiritual leader most people take him to be? A recent article from the Wall Street Journal proves that he was, in fact, a sexually depraved, morally bankrupt, politically foolish man: a product, as you might expect, of his religion and his culture.
My friend David Ponter recently made an observation to me which reflects a gradual change in my own thinking since I started blogging. He noted that when we interact with others online, we are generally quick to deal decisively and harshly with them if they disagree with us. (I say “we” because I myself am by no means exempt from this practice, as anyone who has followed my blog will know.) I think we do this largely because (i) online interaction mitigates social niceties which would temper our tone in a face to face discussion; and (ii) this encourages people to be bold and draws out those personalities who thrive on anonymous conflict. Inasmuch as this is true, it’s hardly a situation confined to Christian bloggers; it is a general observation about discourse on the internet. However, (iii) simply put, there are many online who set themselves up in a position of some authority, from which they judge, rebuke, and mock those with whom they disagree. This practice they believe is right, and defend it from Scripture, which does indeed contain examples of exactly these sorts of things. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal; the Lord Jesus rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees; Paul had a harsh word for any number of people. But there are some specifically Christian observations which David made about this which I think it important to elaborate upon and share.
A couple of weeks ago, Victor Reppert posted an argument against compatibilism, and invited a general critique. This argument looks as follows (I’m paraphrasing since Victor’s original formulation had some typos):
1. If compatibilism is true, then God could have created the world in such a way that everyone freely does what is right.
2. If God is omnipotent and perfectly good, then, were it possible, he would have created the world in such a way that everyone freely does what is right.
3. But God did not create the world in such a way that everyone freely does what is right.
4. Therefore, compatiblism is false.
Continued from part 4 « Although I gave consideration, in part 4, to the place of works in salvation, there are a number of items which still bear discussion if I am to complete the examination of this topic. Of particular importance is a treatment of the comments which James makes about the place of [...]
Continued from part 3 « So far I have concentrated only on the object of faith, in the sense of in whom it is placed. However, faith itself has a nature which is some things, and is not other things. It is a belief of a certain kind. If the kind of belief is not [...]