What is hell, and is it biblical? Part 6: argument from statistics
A response to Jacob McMillen and Josiah Pemberton. In this installment, I briefly demolish their “statistical argument” that if hell were in the Bible, it would appear more often.
Annihilationism versus eternal torture
…and why I don’t have anything to do with the Christian Apologetics Alliance.
A simple proof that Pope Benedict XVI is an illegitimate pope
A 6-step argument showing that the bishop of Rome doesn’t have the credentials required to hold his office.
A simple proof that the Roman Catholic Church is illegitimate
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.
Rome: “Catholics adore the one God, Allah”
A quick little argument showing how, on Rome’s own terms, Catholics believe that God’s secret identity is Allah.
The term “catholic” in the Nicene Creed
Four reasons to think that the term “catholic” in the Nicene Creed should not be read as involving communion with the Church of Rome.
Why won’t Randal Rouser answer some simple questions?
Calling Randal Rauser: why won’t you answer some simple questions?
What to do when skeptics attack libertarian free will—become a Calvinist
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.
“No one is righteous”…metaphorically speaking
A polemic against the argument that, in light of the apparently contradicting evidence of our moral intuitions, total depravity should be interpreted metaphorically.
A response to Damian Peterson on the merits of being dogmatic.
On the atonement, part 6: unlimited satisfaction fails to actually accomplish redemption for anyone
Part 6 of 6, in which I consider and confute the objection that an unlimited satisfaction would not actually secure or guarantee salvation for anyone.
On the atonement, part 5: universal salvation, or double payment
Part 5 of 6, in which I refute the objection that unlimited satisfaction entails either universal salvation, or a double payment for sins.
On the atonement: introduction
In which I introduce the case I will forward for a particular redemption grounded in an unlimited satisfaction on the cross.
The Protestant’s Wager
Roman Catholicism fails to provide a principled advantage in understanding doctrine, over and against Protestantism. We can use a serious parody of Pascal’s Wager to show this: on a Catholic’s own terms, and all other things being equal, it is safer to be a Protestant.
Education and child abuse
A critical response to the accusation that teaching children beliefs which contradict secular science is a form of child abuse. This post is a reply to Ken Perrott’s article ‘”Biblically correct” child abuse?’
God and goodness: a second reply to Victor Reppert
Victor has posted a further response in our ongoing discussion regarding the nature of good as presented in the Bible, and how it compares to our moral intuitions. I invite you to read it in full; it is not very long. I will quote only pertinent segments here. The gist is that (I) Scripture only indirectly addresses the question in which we are interested (is predestination good?); (II) it is only authoritative once we already believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, so a preexisting conception of goodness is logically necessary to belief in the Christian God; and (III) it is unclear the extent to which we can get precise meaning out of Scripture via historical-grammatical analysis.
God and goodness: a reply to Victor Reppert
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.