Christianity, confidence, and certainty
We can have complete certainty in the existence of God, and a high degree of confidence in the truth of Christianity specifically. This is justified not only by philosophical, prophetical and historical arguments, but especially by the direct knowledge imparted by the Spirit of God.
Can unbelievers understand the Bible?
A brief response to an important question, in which I answer yes and no.
Thorny problems with Molinism #3: the theological grounding objection
Molinism removes the metaphysical machinery that underwrites God’s knowledge of free actions (i.e., his knowing what he will cause), but does not replace it with anything. Thus, middle knowledge is a just-so story; an assertion we are supposed to accept “because reasons.” Only…there are no reasons.
Inerrancy without the weasels
Why do formulations of inerrancy always seem to conceal the most important issue?
Why do atheists proselytize?
Evangelical atheism seems to be on the rise. Which is odd, when you think about it.
Why belief in God casts doubt on all atheistic beliefs
If fundamental and widely-held beliefs are selected by evolution not because they are true, but rather because their falsehood confers a survival advantage, shouldn’t we expect any and all beliefs (including scientific and atheistic ones) to be possibly false in the same way?
A response to Damian Peterson on the merits of being dogmatic.
On the atonement, part 3: the objective grounds for faith
Part 3 of 6, in which I forward the argument that limited satisfaction undermines the assurance of salvation at exactly the times we most need it, by removing the objective grounds for faith.
The Protestant’s Wager
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.
God and goodness: a new question from Victor Reppert
Continuing the discussion of God and goodness, Victor extends a request to Calvinists for clarification: “in virtue of what is the “God” of Scripture, as understood by Calvinists, thought of as good”? As always, I invite you to read the full article; but let me summarize:
If we reject the view that things are good simply because God has the power to say that they are, then in virtue of what do we say that they are good? To appeal to Scripture is to beg the question, because God wrote Scripture; so if he is in fact an omniscient fiend, then his saying that he is good is no guarantee that he is. If we reject the notion that God is good merely on the basis of his own fiat; and that we can know it based only on our own moral intuitions; then how can we know it? Since Victor has posed this question as a request rather than a refutation, let me respond in kind.