-
Recent Posts
Archives
- September 2025
- March 2025
- December 2024
- April 2024
- December 2023
- October 2023
- August 2021
- January 2021
- October 2020
- June 2019
- May 2019
- October 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- May 2017
- January 2017
- October 2016
- September 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- December 2011
Categories
Meta
Monthly Archives: June 2013
Matt, I believe you are stating the issues correctly. As requested, I am going to quote from your previous post and respond directly. This post will be an initial response to some of your preliminary comments and questions, and the … Continue reading
Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism Part 16: Matt Responds
Hi Derek, I do concede that I have not covered or answered all the queries and comments you have submitted. I don’t have a problem with both of us being selective as long as we try to focus in on … Continue reading
Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism Part 15: Derek Responds
Matt, Thank you for your response. You make some good points here. I probably have been too broad in summarizing your arguments. At this juncture, we seem to be advancing well into the subject matter, and I am going to … Continue reading
Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism Post 14: Matt Responds
Hi Derek, I enjoy reading your responses However I feel you are summarizing my responses too much and doing so in a generalized manner that ignores key terms and allows you to bypass the thrust of some of my comments. It … Continue reading
Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism Part 13: Derek Responds
Matt, This reply is well written, well argued, and very strongly stated. I am reeling with the force of it. Downright impressive, actually! Nevertheless, a few clarifications are in order, and I think I can escape the main thrust of … Continue reading
Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism Part: 12 Matt Responds
Hi Derek, Thanks for your very kind words as to the work I am privileged to be involved with and for your generous comments towards Arminians and working in concert with them. Moreover I do appreciate your attempts to articulate … Continue reading
Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism Part 11: Derek Responds
Matt, Thank you for this excursus. I am excited to hear about your work in Asia, and wish you much success in serving “the least of these.” Arminian or Calvinist, those who roll up their sleeves to serve the poor … Continue reading
NOTE: At this point in our debate another blogger named Prometheus entered the discussion and suggested I was displaying an uncharitable attitude and being too combative in my responses. I sought to apologize for this and explain where I was … Continue reading
Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism Part 9: Derek Responds
Matt, I think we are getting down to the root issue here. If I “hear” you correctly, you are saying that you fundamentally disagree with the premise of Christian compatibilism (which is that God’s pre-determination of everything is compatible with … Continue reading
Debate on Calvinistic Compatibilism Part 8: Matt Responds
Hi Derek, Again thanks for trying to clarify your views further. I do appreciate it. I’m not trying to be sarcastic when I say you are doing a good job of showing any reader who is toying with compatibilism the … Continue reading
A Theology in Tension 