Revisiting the ‘Reformed Objection’ to Natural Theology

In the present paper I address two significant and prevalent errors concerning to natural theology within the Reformed theological tradition. First, contrary to Alvin Plantinga, I argue that the idea of properly basic theistic belief has not motivated or otherwise grounded opposition to natural theology within the Reformed tradition. There is, in fact, a Reformed endorsement of natural theology grounded in the notion that theistic belief can be properly basic. Secondly, I argue that late nineteenth- and twentieth-century Reformed criticisms of natural theology do not constitute an objection to natural theology as such but rather an objection to natural theology construed in a particular way. I explore the nature of this objection and its compatibility with an alternative understanding of natural theology

Eros and agape in Karl Barth’s Church dogmatics

This is the author's PDF version of an article published in International journal of systematic theology© 2000. The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com.This article discusses the concepts of eros and agape in Karl Barth's Church dogmatics

'Bound Over to Satan’s Tyranny’ : Sin and Satan in Contemporary Reformed Hamartiology

Peer reviewedPostprin

Crisp and Sanders\u27 Locating atonement: Explorations in constructive dogmatics (Book Review)

A review of Crisp, O., & Sanders, F. (Eds.). (2015). Locating atonement: Explorations in constructive dogmatics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 256 pp. $26.99. ISBN 978031052116

‘Jesus is victor’: Passing the impasse of Barth on universalism

This is the PDF version of an article published in Scottish journal of theology© 2007. The definitive version is available at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=SJT. The publisher version is included by kind permission of Cambridge University Press.This article examines the question of Karl Barth's stance on universalism

Hauerwas and the Law: Framing a Productive Conversation

Background: Meal-Q and its shorter version, MiniMeal-Q, are 2 new Web-based food frequency questionnaires. Their meal-based and interactive format was designed to promote ease of use and to minimize answering time, desirable improvements in large epidemiological studies. Objective: We evaluated the validity of energy and macronutrient intake assessed with Meal-Q and MiniMeal-Q as well as the reproducibility of Meal-Q. Methods: Healthy volunteers aged 20-63 years recruited from Stockholm County filled out the 174-item Meal-Q. The questionnaire was compared to 7-day weighed food records (WFR; n=163), for energy and macronutrient intake, and to doubly labeled water (DLW; n=39), for total energy expenditure. In addition, the 126-item MiniMeal-Q was evaluated in a simulated validation using truncated Meal-Q data. We also assessed the answering time and ease of use of both questionnaires. Results: Bland-Altman plots showed a varying bias within the intake range for all validity comparisons. Cross-classification of quartiles placed 70%-86% in the same/adjacent quartile with WFR and 77% with DLW. Deattenuated and energy-adjusted Pearson correlation coefficients with the WFR ranged from r=0.33-0.74 for macronutrients and was r=0.18 for energy. Correlations with DLW were r=0.42 for Meal-Q and r=0.38 for MiniMeal-Q. Intraclass correlations for Meal-Q ranged from r=0.57-0.90. Median answering time was 17 minutes for Meal-Q and 7 minutes for MiniMeal-Q, and participants rated both questionnaires as easy to use. Conclusions: Meal-Q and MiniMeal-Q are easy to use and have short answering times. The ranking agreement is good for most of the nutrients for both questionnaires and Meal-Q shows fair reproducibility.QC 20130709</p