Is Pluralism Really More Tolerant Than Christianity?- 'Very often people hold to religious pluralism because they think it ismore tolerant than Christianity. I’ll be the first to say that we need tolerance, but what does it mean to be tolerant? To be tolerant is to accommodate differences, which can be very noble. I believe that Christians should be some of the most accommodating kinds of people, giving everyone the dignity to believe whatever they want and not enforcing their beliefs on others through politics or preaching. We should winsomely tolerate different beliefs. Interestingly, religious pluralism doesn’t really allow for this kind of tolerance. Instead of accommodating spiritual differences, religious pluralism blunts them.'
Evangelicals And the Homosexual Moral Revolution - 'Moral revolutions generally happen over a long period of time. But this is hardly the case with the shift we've witnessed on the question of homosexuality. In less than a single generation, homosexuality has gone from something almost universally understood to be sinful, to something now declared to be the moral equivalent of heterosexuality-and deserving of both legal protection and public encouragement. Theo Hobson, a British theologian, has argued that this is not just the waning of a taboo. Instead, it is a moral inversion that has left those holding the old morality now accused of nothing less than "moral deficiency."'
What Finally Broke Louis Zamperini: The Gospel - 'Louis was once a man “unbroken,” but not anymore: The bullies he faced in high school in the 1920′s couldn’t break him. The injustice done to him by other runners as he raced to beat records didn’t break him. The severe homesickness that accompanied his military service couldn’t break him. His plane crash into the Pacific on May 27, 1943 didn’t break him. 47 days drifting on a raft in the ocean couldn’t break him. The sharks that attacked him from the water while the Japanese strafed his raft from the sky didn’t break him. Burying his close friend and fellow soldier at sea couldn’t break him. A typhoon that nearly swamped his raft didn’t break him. His Japanese captors who taunted and tortured and nearly starved him for two and a half years couldn’t break him. The mental agonies stirred up by the tortures of “The Bird” didn’t break him. But in September 1949, at a Billy Graham crusade, the gospel broke him.'
Was John Calvin Committed to Limited Atonement? - 'Calvin did not commit himself to any version of the doctrine of definite atonement. This, at least, is what I think. His thought is consistent with that doctrine, that is, he did not deny it in express terms. But (by other things that he most definitely did hold to) he may be said to becommitted to that doctrine. The distinction is an important one in order to avoid the charge of anachronism. Calvin lived earlier than those debates that led to the explicit formulation of the doctrine of definite atonement in Reformed theology. He did not avow it in express terms, but nor did he deny it. But (I shall argue) in his lifetime he held to certain positions which taken together may presume the doctrine.'