Press "Enter" to skip to content


With advances in neuroscience, many Christians are confused about what the soul is and its role in human flourishing. This book identifies and corrects the wrong assumptions promoted by some influential Christian authors, outlines a biblically and philosophically sound understanding of our soul and its relation to the body, and illustrates how this understanding is the right path toward more fully loving God and loving others.

On What There Is,” co-authored with Paul Gould, in  Loving God with Your Mind: Essays in Honor of J.P. Moreland, Paul M. Gould and Richard Brian Davis, eds. Moody Publishers, 2014

I was invited to co-author this article for a book honoring my mentor Dr. J.P. Moreland. In this chapter we paint the broad contours of a realist view of properties–that abstract objects exist and are exemplified in many particular things  (are “universals”). See here for one reason this issue is important.

Aiding the Christian Scholar in Integrating Faith and Scholarship: How Understanding Constituent Realism Provides Motivation to Respond to Naturalism. D.Min dissertation, ProQuest Publishing, 2014. 

Here I make the case for the existence and causal efficacy of abstract objects, and illustrate how they “show up” in a wide range of academic disciplines. Therefore, the Christian scholar can help others in his or her discipline understand there is more than just the material realm that is real, as evidenced by the subject matter of their fields of study.

Does God Exist? The Craig-Flew Debate (ed.). Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003

In February 1998 I had the opportunity to host the world’s leading Atheist (Antony Flew) and the world’s leading Christian apologist (William Lane Craig) at the University of Wisconsin for a live debate on the topic of God’s existence. The debate was on the 50th anniversary of the famous “Copleston-Russell” debate on the same topic. It was attended by thousands and made headlines when the Christian decisively won the debate. Ashgate Publishers, an academic publishing house in the U.K., published the debate. The book also includes an introduction by moderator Keith Yandell, responses by eight leading philosophers of religion (four Christian and four atheists), and final chapters in response by Craig and Flew. Dr. Flew told me in personal correspondence that this debate was what led him to first consider atheism may be wrong, which eventually led to his rejection of atheism and conversion to theism. I tell the story here.

The Essentials of Postmodernism” in Philosophy: Christian Perspectives for the New Millennium (reprinted here)

Many argue “postmodernism” defies definition. I disagree, showing there are several essential features of all and only postmodern views that allow us to identify them as truly postmodern. I also highlight some inadequacies of any view with these features, which provides good reason to reject postmodernism as an appropriate worldview.

Philosophy: Christian Perspectives for the New Millennium, edited with Paul Copan and Scott Luley. CLM/RZIM Publishers, 2003

A companion volume to the above. The contributors are Ravi Zacharias, Alister McGrath, J.P. Moreland, Stan Wallace, J. Budziszewski, Paul Copan, and R. Douglas Geivett.

“In Defense of Biological Essentialism: A Response to Sober et al. Philosophia Christi, vol. IV, no 1: 29-44, 2002

Since the Enlightenment many have assumed only what they can see is real. In biology this resulted in the assumption that human persons have no immaterial dimension (essence, human nature, or soul), but are purely physical–are only a body. This view is known as Biological Anti-essentialism. Its leading proponent is Elliott Sober of The University of Wisconsin. In this paper I outline the strongest arguments Sober and others offer against Essentialism and provide responses, showing Sober’s arguments against Essentialism are not adequate to defeat the view. I then provide a number of additional reasons to embrace Biological Essentialism.

Science: Christian Perspectives for the New Millennium, edited with Paul Copan and Scott Luley. CLM/RZIM Publishers, 1999

This is a compilation of articles by Christian academics working in the sciences. The focus is on points of integration between the Christian worldview and their fields of study. The contributors are Phillip Johnson, Henry Schaefer, Alvin Plantinga, Robert Kaita, Walter Bradley, Michael Behe, and Wesley Allen.

Aquinas vs. Locke and Descartes on the Human Person and End-of-Life Ethics,” co-authored with J. P. Moreland. International Philosophical Quarterly, vol. XXXV, no. 3: 319-330, 1995

There is much confusion as to when life ends, and therefore when withdrawing life support is morally justifiable. We argue that the prevalent view of the relation of the soul to body (Locke and Descartes’ view, derived from Plato) is inadequate and leads to much of this confusion. A more adequate answer to the relationship between the soul and body, and therefore to biomedical ethical issues, is found in the alternative view of Aquinas, derived from Aristotle.