Is “Once Saved, Always Saved” the full biblical doctrine of eternal security or only a diluted version of it? This article argues that OSAS affirms an important truth but often leaves out the equally biblical doctrine of perseverance. Readers will see how Scripture presents salvation as both God’s preservation of his people and their continuing faith in Christ to the end. The article examines key passages in the Scriptures. It also explains how biblical warnings against apostasy function as means God uses to preserve believers rather than as denials of eternal security. Historically, the discussion traces the doctrine from Augustine through the Reformed confessions and shows why OSAS is better understood as a later, thinner abbreviation of the fuller doctrine of the Preservation and Perseverance of the Saints. Readers will discover why true assurance rests not merely in a past profession of faith, but in God’s continuing grace that sustains faith, repentance, holiness, and endurance. The article ultimately argues that those whom God truly saves, he preserves, and those whom he preserves persevere until final glorification. A companion podcast episode is also available there for those who prefer listening over reading.
Mystery or Missing Ground?
What began as a friendly Facebook exchange with a fellow believer developed into a broader theological and philosophical discussion of Molinism, Reformed concurrence, divine providence, and human freedom. This blog post presents that discussion in clear, accessible language, asking whether Molinism genuinely resolves the tension between God’s comprehensive sovereignty and responsible human agency, or whether it simply relocates the mystery by making God’s decree dependent on counterfactual truths that He neither determines nor grounds. The discussion first examines the grounding objection to middle knowledge and distinguishes the biblical affirmation of God’s counterfactual knowledge from the additional philosophical claims distinctive of Molinism. It then turns to a new meta-theological framework, Theoikophysignosis, which provides a method for evaluating the competing positions and for developing a constructive account of Reformed concurrence. The central question is whether Calvinism faces an acknowledged mystery whose mechanism remains underspecified (until lately), while Molinism rests upon the more foundational problem of missing ground. A full scholarly essay is available for download at the end of the post. A companion podcast episode is also available there for those who prefer listening over reading.
Maletas, Marines and the Measure of Truth
Are the 18 ex-Marines telling the truth, lying, or somewhere in between?Are the 18 ex-Marines telling the truth, lying, or somewhere in between? Before you decide, read this. This post breaks down the controversy through ten disciplinary lenses including law, psychology, history, and theology among others in plain and laymanized language so you can evaluate the claims responsibly. The full scholarly paper is available for download at the end of this post. For those who prefer listening over reading, a companion podcast episode is also available at the end of the post.
Inspired Text, Unscriptural Stricture
Is a pastor qualified to declare who is and isn’t saved, including men who lived four centuries ago?Is your pastor qualified to declare who is and isn’t saved, including men who lived four centuries ago? Pastor Benny Abante’s viral statements about the King James Version, the Greek word ekklesia, and the Anabaptists contain some important truths, some partial truths, and some significant errors. This article examines each claim fairly and honestly: what he got wrong, what he got partially right, and what he got right. You can download the scholarly paper or listen to the companion podcast episode on Spotify if you prefer to listen rather than read at the end of the post.
Quorum, Power, and the Bending of the Law, Part 2: The Doctrine, the Distortion, and the Deal Behind the Drama.
In Part 1, we looked at what happened when twelve senators reorganized the Senate on June 3, 2026. In Part 2, we ask a different question: Did they actually have the legal authority to do it? The senators relied on a 1949 Supreme Court case called Avelino v. Cuenco, but does that case still apply under the 1987 Constitution? This post explains the controversy in plain language, examines a legal argument that many commentators missed, and explores why some believe the real battle was not about impeachment at all, but about control of a major corruption investigation. Beyond constitutional law, we also examine the issue through the lenses of political science, political economy, sociology, philosophy, comparative jurisprudence, and Reformed theology. Each lens helps answer a different question: How do political actors manipulate institutions? What incentives drive their decisions? How is public perception shaped? Does the precedent really fit the facts? And was the Senate being used for its proper purpose? By bringing these perspectives together, we gain a fuller picture of what may have happened on June 3 than constitutional law alone can provide. The complete scholarly paper is available for download at the end of this post. If the Constitution says one thing and politicians say another, who should we believe? And if the rules can be interpreted differently depending on who benefits, what does that mean for ordinary Filipinos?
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 111
- Next Page »