I was recently reading an exchange between Dr. Bowen and Robert Rowe, and it struck me that the real issue was being overlooked. I won’t reproduce the entire dialogue, but here’s the link for reference. Rowe was defending Hugh Ross’s … Continue reading Out of Egypt: Hosea, Typology, and the Gospel According to Matthew
Co-written with Jimmy Stephens Introduction Tony Byrne recently offered an extensive reply to my vacuity objection against Hypothetical Universalism (HU). While I appreciate the theological depth and historical citations he brings to the conversation, his response ultimately fails to address … Continue reading Christ Died for Sins, Not Categories
In his response to Thomas Schreiner’s review of Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:10–18, Brian Abasciano critiques the Reformed interpretation of Romans 9, especially the notion that Paul teaches unconditional individual election. Abasciano argues instead for a … Continue reading Naming, Calling, and the Sovereignty of God: A Reformed Response to Brian Abasciano’s Critique of Schreiner on Romans 9
In a recent exchange, Dr. Theologician attempted to draw a strong distinction between Calvinism and metaphysical fatalism by appealing to the idea that the future is known by God with certainty but is not fixed. His assertion: “All events being … Continue reading Can God Know an Open Future with Certainty? A Response to Dr. Theologician
In my recent article, Not His Plan? A Reformed Response to a Common Prooftext Error, I critiqued a popular misuse of Hosea 8:4—especially among Open Theist Provisionists who argue that certain events occur outside of God’s knowledge or decree. But … Continue reading God’s Plan Includes Even This: A Response to a Provisionist Reading of Hosea
A popular anti-Calvinist tweet recently circulated, citing Hosea 8:4 (“They set up kings without my consent”) and Isaiah 30:1 (“They carry out plans—but not mine”) as supposed proof that some human actions fall outside of God’s will. The argument goes … Continue reading Not His Plan? A Reformed Response to a Common Prooftext Error
Cactus: I understand that the problem of induction is philosophically pressing. To base your worldview on whatever answers this one complicated question best seems fair to me. But it does not follow that it’s True. I believe you will always … Continue reading The Inductive Challenge: Why Rationality Needs Christian Theism
Dan Chapa:Calvinists, how do you explain Moses’ comments on humbling an uncircumcised heart? Lev. 26:41 if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, 42 then I will remember my covenant with Jacob… Jimmy Stephens:Forgive … Continue reading Uncircumcised Hearts and Divine Sovereignty: A Calvinist Perspective on Leviticus 26:41
The process of salvation, often termed the ordo salutis, frequently stirs debates over the sequence of events. Recently, I engaged with a Provisionist perspective that proposed a specific order: enslaved to sin ➡️ faith ➡️ becoming sons of God ➡️ … Continue reading Provisionism’s Sequential Fallacy: The Unified Nature of Sonship and the Spirit
Leighton Flowers has raised several analogies to challenge Calvinist compatibilism and the moral framework it entails. https://watchmencouncil.com/2024/10/30/how-to-flunk-soteriology101/ First, he uses a “love potion” analogy to argue that Calvinist determinism entails a form of artificial manipulation incompatible with true love. Then, … Continue reading Divine Mysteries and Human Analogies: A Response to Leighton Flowers on Compatibilism and Causation
The Council 
You must be logged in to post a comment.