-
Lykken, T. David. The Antisocial Personalities. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers 1995. 259 pp. Per Lykken in The Antisocial Personalities in 1995 put…
-
Aquinas’ use of remissio peccatorum in his Aristotelian taxonomy of justification as the “remission of sins” has led some to conclude that ultimately he argues for…
-
I have herein summarized and quoted from articles 1-10 of question 113 in the prima secunda of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica: “Of the Effects of Grace.” I…
-
I have so far offered mostly praise and appreciation for Julian Baggini’s book Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2003), 119 pp. In my last…
-
I have so far offered almost nothing but praise and appreciation for Julian Baggini’s book Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2003), 119 pp. I…
-
In the year 2013, all my posts have been a summary of Julian Baggini’s book Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2003), 119 pp. …
-
Is Atheism the same as Humanism? If not, what is the difference? Who are the major atheist thinkers of history and what are some of…
-
What about arguments for the existence of God? Are they sound? Is the faith of religious believers actually based on such rational arguments? In our…
-
In our summary of Julian Baggini’s book Atheism, we have already covered how to better define atheism, explored his summary of the case for atheism,…
-
We have examined how to better define atheism and the rational case for atheism according to author Julian Baggini. In our last post, I summarized Julian Baggini’s own…
-
We have looked at how to better define atheism and the rational case for atheism. In this post I will summarize Julian Baggini’s own summary of atheist ethics,…
-
In this post I will summarize Julian Baggini’s own summary of the case for atheism, presented in chapter 2 of his book Atheism: A Very Short…
-
In the next few posts I will be both summarizing and reviewing a book designed to explain and defend Atheism. The book is not written…
-
I have summarized highlights of John Chrysostom’s interpretation of the introduction to the book of Romans. I believe they foreshadow much of his interpretation of…
-
Remember Francis Shaeffer? The great evangelical apologist who, for example, helped galvanize evangelicals over the issue of abortion? I ran across an old video of…
-
Who Are the Unitarian Universalists? It was a customary scene I have been familiar with since my own childhood: first-time visitor parking, greeters at the…
-
**UPDATE: My research article has fluctuated from 3% to 6% in the top viewed trophies at Academia.edu. Famous British theologian and philosopher John Hick passed…
-
For those of us who tend to think of slavery as merely a historical evil (that is, an evil only to be studied from our…
-
The following audio is a book reading about “The Great Questions” from William Portier’s Tradition and Incarnation: Foundations of Christian Theology (Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist…
-
Do Catholics practice open communion? In the past, I would’ve answered this with a simple: No. And perhaps on the local level for many Protestants…
T h e o • p h i l o g u e 
Hey Bradley,
Thanks for the post brother. Here is a Lutheran response to Rob Bell’s video that I posted awhile back:
Rob Bell Making Evil Good and Good Evil
http://www.pastormattrichard.com/2011/02/theology-of-rob-bell-making-evil-good.html
PM
Just taking a look around the theophilogue today. Muslim response is interesting… thanks for sharing.
Hello friend. Remember me? The uber poster? Thanks for deleting my old post. I told you I’d boil down my words some, so here’s an excerpt from my uberblog on my own page (which admittedly, weakly and entirely hinges on Sola Gratia Sola Fide). Here’s a quote: “it is little wonder two camps (at least two) can’t agree on Love Wins. They have totally different points of departure for their arguments and hence draw totally different conclusions. It’s like they are speaking different languages while believing they are speaking the same one. They are using the same words, but using them differently, etc., etc., etc.
Before I say more, let me say that in some ways, this is ok and in other ways it is really really not ok. It’s not ok that theological debate distract us from our missiological calling. It not Ok when every discussion of Matthew 25 recently seems to be about heaven/hell stuff at the expense of “the least of these, my brethren” who we are called to love. So while we argue doctrine, and they hungry stay hungry, the sick and the prisoner remain alone, the stranger stays outside, and the naked remain unclothed, it is clear that we’ve fixated on only one part of Matthew 25. That is not ok. While we neglect the least of these but love to affirm the “depart from me ye cursed ones” do we not fear the irony that our love of debate is keeping us from the least of these and thereby making us “goats”? Whatever hell is, why do we not fear neglecting the least of these…..when we can get around to them tomorrow, right? or the next day? Today we’ve got to “resolve” big doctrinal issues first, right? And this hell thing is a biggie. We’ll get around to loving Jesus in the least of these once we can prove to everyone what happens to us if we don’t love him as such. Is this not madness?!!!!!
So endless debate (and sadly, it will be endless) is not ok. It gets us off mission. It keeps us off mission. However, while the endless amount of words wasted in this debate (my own, as well) may be tragic, there is a sense in which the dissonance within the church is ok. I don’t mean the division. I don’t mean the name calling and the castigation that flows both ways. I mean that lack of all the answers. It’s ok to not have all the answers. It’s not ok to get off mission, forget John 3:16, the Great Commission, and the least of these of Matthew 25. It is ok, I believe to disagree on things. It would be nice if we could disagree without being….so distasteful….and disgraceful…and such poor stewards of time in respect to the least of these.” That’s the main point, really. If you peep my blog, and have insight on how to think through this with other than Lutheran lenses, I’d value that. Also, I’ll link you a faceless youtube Vid that kind of sums up my thoughts. Appreciate your work. Peace brother. And thanks again, for the do-over.:) lol
…and yeah, I’m kinda a music fan more than a philosopher or theologian:) hehe