Abstract :
Peter Byrne has presented arguments against the effectiveness oftwo ‘defensive strategies’ deployed in my books Eternal God and The Providence ofGod respectively. These strategies were originally presented to support the cogencyof ‘theological compatibilism’ by arguing against the claims that it is inconsistentwith human responsibility, and that it entails that God is the author of sin. In thispresent article the author offers a number of clarifications to his original thesis andargues that Byrne’s arguments do not succeed in their aim of undermining the twostrategies
