Academic Papers

This paper argues that it fails as a coherent and comprehensive apologetic methodology due to its inconsistent epistemological claims, theological shortcomings, logical circularity, limited engagement with Christian evidences, and practical ineffectiveness.

In this brief review of J.I. Packer's book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, I summarize his view of the relationship between these two concepts and critique his view accordingly. Then I offer my own position on why the seemingly irreconciliable contradiction isn't true. Lastly, I offer concluding thoughts on how this review can be practically applied to ministry. 

In this paper, I argue that general revelation does not provide sufficient knowledge for a person to be saved today because (1) Scripture overwhelmingly points to this view, (2) thematic continuity between Israel and the Church makes more sense on this view, and (3) a saving relationship requires the illumination of the gospel

Advocates of divine passibility such as Jürgen Moltmann and Nicholas Wolterstorff (from whom the title of this paper is derived) have argued that God must be vulnerable to suffering if He is to have real affectionate love for humans. My objective is to explicate my thoughts on why this particular argument for divine passibility is unpersuasive.

In this essay, I will defend the thematic continuity between Christ’s atoning sacrifice (particularly concerning Matthew’s account of the Lord’s Supper (Mat 26:26-29)) and the Levitical sin offering (Lev 4-5). This is echoed by Isaiah’s suffering servant (Isa 53) and the eschatological overtone in Hebrews 9-10. Relevant themes that will be evaluated include “pouring out,” atonement, forgiveness of sin, “many,” blood sacrifice, substitution, and retribution.

Arguing for a Classicalist and Minimal Facts Methodology.

Examination of Theological Approaches to the Existence of Gratuitous Evil