I have finally finished the response to the Neo-Amyraldian Tony Byrne, which can be found here. Here are the subtopics in the paper itself.
I. Biblical teachings and logical errors
I.1.1 On God’s desire
I.1.2 Non-decretive desires?
I.1.3 Deducing intentions from imperatives?
I.1.4 Illogicity runs amok
I.2.1 Distinction between the Visible and Invisible Church
I.2.2 What applies to the collective may not be applicable to the individual; the logical fallacy of division
I.2.4 Understanding Covenant Theology and its idea of the universal offer
II. Interpretation of historical sources
II.1.1 Context of John Bunyan and his writings
II.1.2 The context and proper interpretation of his work
II.1.3 Rebuttal of Byrne’s interpretive fallacies
III. Conclusive rebuttal and practical concerns
III.1 The logical fallacy of quote-mining
III.2 Conclusive rebuttal of Byrne’s fanciful theories
Section one of the response was previously posted on the blog here, and the PDF contains the remainder of my response to Tony Byrne, both in refuting his Neo-Amyraldism according to the Scriptures, his quote-mining methodology, and his misquotation of historical sources.
Here is the abstract, if you like, of the paper.
The Neo-Amyraldian Tony Byrne has quoted John Bunyan in one of his blog posts in asserting that Bunyan believes in the well-meant offer of the Gospel. I have refuted Byrne’s eisegesis of Bunyan and came up with an alternative interpretation. In reply, Byrne attempted a proper response to prove that his interpretation is correct, or at least highly probable. In this paper, I would address the issue of God’s desires, interpret Bunyan’s quote in context, and refute Byrne’s interpretation of Bunyan as being acontextual and thus reading of foreign concepts into the text.
Add (30th June 2009): I have made some minor changes to the article (typo and the section regarding John Preston) to touch it up.