.jpg "Einstein Cross compliments of Einstein, Hubble/NASA, and God")
[ ... under construction ... aren't we all? ... ]
*For the curious, the word "xtianity" is C. S. Lewis's shorthand for "Christianity."
An Occasional Twist of Chesterton: Classic Quotes from the great and the inimitable GKC
Critique of limited atonement (sometimes called definite or particular atonement) by theologian J. B. Torrance that shows how an unbiblical view of the atonement may owe more to Aristotle and Islam than to Scripture.
Critique of theistic determinism (sometimes called theological determinism) by New Testament scholar G. H. Juncker that shows how an unbiblical view of God's sovereignty (such that God causes/decrees/determines everything) leads inexorably to the conclusion that God is evil and not good in any meaningful sense of the word good.
G. H. Juncker, "The
Dilemma of Theistic Determinism," Journal for Baptist Theology and
Ministry 12.2 (Fall 2015): 15-22.
As a coda or epilogue to that article note the following
two perceptive quotes from C.S. Lewis:
On the other hand, if God’s moral judgement differs from
ours so that our “black” may be His “white”, we can mean nothing by calling Him
good; for to say “God is good”, while asserting that His goodness is wholly
other than ours, is really only to say “God is we know not what”. And an utterly
unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him.
If He is not (in our sense) “good” we shall obey, if at all, only through
fear—and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of
Total Depravity—when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally
depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing—may thus turn Christianity
into a form of devil-worship. (Problem of Pain, Chap. 3 titled "Divine
Goodness")
As regards the Fall, I submit that the general tenor of
scripture does not encourage us to believe that our knowledge of the Law has
been depraved in the same degree as our power to fulfil it. ... Our
righteousness may be filthy and ragged; but Christianity gives us no ground for
holding that our perceptions of right are in the same condition. They may, no
doubt, be impaired; but there is a difference between imperfect sight and
blindness. A theology which goes about to represent our practical reason as
radically unsound is heading for disaster. If we once admit that what God means
by "goodness" is sheerly different from what we judge to be good, there is no
difference left between pure religion and devil worship. (Christian
Reflections, Chap. 6 titled "The Poison of Subjectivism")
[On the same topic of divine goodness see also the comments of well-known
Arminian theologian Roger Olson at
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/03/c-s-lewis-said-it-gods-goodness-cannot-be-wholly-other/
]
Critique of calvinist D. A. Carson's, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000) by scholar-at-large and all around Erasmian gadfly Arminius Redivivus showing that when all is said and done God does not (for Carson) truly or really love everyone—a view that is in direct contradiction to John 3:16 and to God's very nature or essence (1 John 4:8). In other words, the idea that God has different kinds of love such that He allegedly loves different people differently, by loving some people (e.g., the elect) in some ways but other people (e.g., the non-elect) in other ways, and therefore can honestly be said to love everyone, does not hold biblical water.
)