The most important and controversial attribute of God is the doctrine of divine simplicity. While it has always been important, it has not always been controversial. It enjoyed almost universal acceptance from the time of Augustine until recent times. So what is it? It is the doctrine that there are no parts in the divine […]
THE MOST IMPORTANT AND CONTROVERSIAL ATTRIBUTE OF GOD: DIVINE SIMPLICITY Read More »
When I was about fourteen I started listening to teachers such as Kenneth Copeland, Jesse Duplantis, Jerry Savelle, and Creflo Dollar. I had grown up going to church, albeit a very liberal church, but these guys were different than what I was used to. They had passion, zeal, and spoke with power and authority. They
WHY I LEFT THE WORD OF FAITH MOVEMENT Read More »
A few weeks ago Dr. William Lane Craig joined Bishop Robert Barron to discuss divine simplicity. The recording can be found here. (Craig’s remarks start around 26:22.) Bishop Barron explained and defended simplicity. A brief discussion on what divine simplicity is can be found in this previous blog article. In that post I said that simplicity is the
A RESPONSE TO WILLIAM LANE CRAIG’S SYMPOSIUM COMMENTS ON DIVINE SIMPLICITY Read More »
Several of my previous blogs have dealt with divine simplicity and some objections to the doctrine. As I have written, it is the most important divine attribute, even if it is hotly debated. Those who accept simplicity are on a completely different theological trajectory from those who reject it. I would argue that its acceptance puts one on
DIVINE IMPASSIBILITY: GOD AS OUR UNAFFECTED FORTRESS Read More »
When I was born the doctors said I was blind. In fact, I have a letter from the doctor saying that I was blind and that my grandmother (my grandparents reared me) simply would not accept that. She prayed and had her church pray. She had them anoint me with oil. One day I reached
THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF MIRACLES Read More »
God is not a moral being and often the way the moral argument is used is just wrong. What I mean by the former is that God does not abide by moral commands, nor does he fulfill obligations or virtues in the way that humans do. I am also denying that God is his own
GOD IS NOT A MORAL BEING AND THE MORAL ARGUMENT IS OFTEN WRONGHEADED Read More »
My last post on God and morality brought up the issue of if and how God is moral. My main point was to reject the notion that God is moral in the sense that humans are moral. But I did mention that God is good, just not morally good. That is, he isn’t good because he lives
THE GOODNESS OF GOD Read More »
John Frame has written a blog article titled “Two Models of Divine Transcendence: Pure Being vs. Divine Lordship.” He states, “In this paper, I will discuss two ways of understanding God’s transcendence that have been common in our theological history. I will argue against the first, in favor of the second.” The first is the classical view
A RESPONSE TO JOHN FRAME’S “TWO MODELS OF DIVINE TRANSCENDENCE” Read More »
I debated the topic “Did Jesus Die For All Men Without Exception?” with my friend Sonny Hernandez of Reforming America Ministries. This article is an adaptation of my opening statement in that debate. I have held to limited atonement and unlimited atonement. The transition was long and thoughtful. The reason I currently hold to unlimited atonement
DID CHRIST DIE FOR EVERYONE? Read More »
In a NY Times article titled “A God Problem: Perfect. All-powerful. All-knowing. The idea of the deity most Westerners accept is actually not coherent,” Peter Atterton argues, well, that the concept of God is not coherent. Atterton describes God in the classical sense as his subtitle suggests. He argues that such a view of God is logically
RESPONDING TO NY TIMES ARTICLE SAYING THE CONCEPT OF GOD IS INCOHERENT Read More »
