My take on attempted deconstruction of “christian films.”
splitframeofreference.blogspot.c … art-i.html
–Nick
Ah, a man after my own heart…
An interesting critique of reformed theology, particularly the YRR.
splitframeofreference.blogspot.c … y-not.html
–Nick
Blue Like Jazz review. Would love your thoughts.
splitframeofreference.blogspot.c … eview.html
–Nick
Scot McKnight on various influences within Christendom.
splitframeofreference.blogspot.c … ality.html
–Nick
I made it onto a popular blogger’s list of “25 Christian Blogs You Should be Reading.”
At number one. Cool. 
matthewpaulturner.net/jesus-need … e-reading/
–Nick
Great!
You need to post another one of my articles pronto! 
Hit me with a link to copy and I shall. Your last post got some nice traffic.
–Nick
And it’s come to this: “Angry Queers”, Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill.
Note: the title of the article is not my own, and if one reads the article, it explains the “angry queers” bit. Personally, a little too inflammatory for me. 
splitframeofreference.blogspot.c … -mark.html
–Nick
I kind of recall writing up a brief scriptural argument for Christian universalism for you. (Was that intended for another site? Or am I mis-remembering who I did that for…?)
Meanwhile… hm… I wrote up and distributed a worldwide press release last year in reply to the Southern Baptist Convention’s Resolution “On The Reality Of Hell”.
The PR page can be found here. The text of the PR is more of a news-release about the original resolution and my reply; but the text of my counter-resolution can be found attached there in doc and pdf formats.
(Or I could just be less lazy and append it here, I guess. 
)
JRP vs 2011 SBC Resolution on hell.pdf (103 KB)
Since we’re at the more-or-less 1 year anniversary of LW’s publication, maybe this would be equally appropriate. It runs less than 9 full pages, compared to the other one that ran less than 13 full pages. On the other hand, it’s a far more… archaically formal bit of work, since I’m mirroring the style of the SBC Resolution. Come to think of it, you might consider comparing them side by side somehow. (Their resolution was only 2 pages long I think. Still less in total than my previous article. 
)
However, since this is very much not in the style of your site, I really don’t expect it’s worth publishing there. 
I only offer it until I can think of something more appropriate. Most of my articles are direct historical or theological apologetics, not Christ-and/or-Christianity-and-culture sort of things, which I think would fit your site better. (Most of my articles are also rather long. )
Nah dude. I love breaking stereotypes.
Consider both posted.
–Nick
My girlfriend examines “race” within Christendom.
splitframeofreference.blogspot.c … -race.html
–Nick
A Conversation with an Agnostic Dressed as a Beer Can. A personal story.
splitframeofreference.blogspot.c … ed-as.html
–Nick
Roger Olson, “How serious a heresy is universalism?”
I think Roger doesn’t define heresy, nor does he seem to look beyond free will. I think Reitan has a lot to say on this.
splitframeofreference.blogspot.c … sy-is.html
–Nick
From the title; he doesn’t even consider whether universalism is a heresy, but just assumes it is and tries to analyze how serious it is?..
Ok, a quote to work with:
*
I am simply trying to get people to consider the possibility that not all versions of universalism are on the same level of error. There is egregious error and there is simple error. One kind of universalism (based on denial of God’s wrath and human sinfulness) is egregious error. Another kind (based on confusion about God’s love requiring his overriding free will) is simple error. I hope I don’t hold any egregious errors, but I’m sure I hold some simple errors. I am open to having those pointed out to me.*
Ok Roger, how about strong scriptural evidence for God’s sovereignty over man (e.g., A man’s mind plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps) vs. weak evidence for “free will” (over and against “choice”?"
I would say it is egregious error on Roger’s part to assume that any form of universalism is “unbiblical and illogical”. But he’s evidently not open to having egregious error pointed out to him (only the simple variety), as he seems certain that he only holds “simple errors”.
Alvin Plantinga, Roger Olson, Science and Theology.
splitframeofreference.blogspot.c … ology.html
–Nick