If you only read one blog post this week …
August 21, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
I would like to humbly suggest this one, courtesy of John Depoe (though the hat tip actually goes to the Prosblogion). It's got everything—a devastating critique of McLaren's A is for Abductive,
an absolute treasure trove of recommended reading, and much thoughtful
interaction on the topic of Christian scholarship. Added bonuses
include: a reference to (and mild criticism of) J.P. Moreland's plenary
talk (“Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn“) at last year's ETS; a personal anecdote revolving around the trenchant critique of Plantinga's supposed refutation of the historical argument for Christianity (this was the plenary at the 2004 Pacific SCP
that, according to Richard Swinburne, was [this is a paraphrase, but
close enough I think] exactly what he would've said [in response to
Plantinga], except better); and appearances by Doug Groothius and Keith
DeRose, among others. Enjoy …
Related posts:
- My Final A-Team Blog Post
- Post-Official Emergent Response & The Return of D.A. Carson
- "Calvin's Legacy" Conference at WSC (Jan 16-17): Live Blog
- This Week: Mormonism
- The A-Team Blog Book of the Year Award (2005)
- John's New Blog
Posted in Apologetics, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Philosophy, Religion (General)
content rss
August 21st, 2005 at 5:20 pm
Wow, there's some really good stuff in the comments, as well as the review of Sweet & McLaren's book.
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:39 am
Indeed. There's even a bit of scandal in there if you follow the right links …
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:53 am
The “devastating critique” starts with “WHO ARE THESE MORONS?” and “Have the editors at Zondervan lost their minds? Did they have minds to begin with?” is mean-spirited. I'm not defending the book (I haven't read it), but this kind of rhetoric does not encourage dialogue or an exchange of ideas. It is bashing other people and it is one of the reasons I find your blog unpleasant and uncharitable at times.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Hi John,
One of the reasons I like this post is because, toward the end, the aforementioned Keith DeRose takes Tim McGrew (the reviewer) to task for just the reasons you mention. McGrew's response, if I remember correctly, is that there are certain situations in which that kind of language is warranted. I don't wish to take a stand on that particular issue, but I am curious as to where on this blog you've found similar examples of unpleasantness and lack of charity?
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Thank you for your response. Regrettably the last sentence in my comment was itself a “bash”–my apologies.
I did read the comments on the post (very lengthy). Keith DeRose states it well when he says that rhetoric like “moron” is counter-productive and crosses over a line. But by linking to the review, you seem to endorse this kind of rhetoric. Perhaps you don't endorse it since I have not witnessed it on your blog.
In terms of your question
August 22nd, 2005 at 4:39 pm
Timbo continues this discussion in more depth here.
August 25th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Garrett,
I'm a little surprised, but not displeased, that my book review is still making waves in the ether. I've contributed a couple of posts on the timbosplace thread; interested readers may want to follow them up. John Sloas contributed higher up on that thread, but he hasn't responded to my remarks — and perhaps doesn't want to. Fine by me.
The link to the critique of Plantinga is no longer operative, but you can find one that works here.
Best,
Tim
August 26th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Thanks for the updated link, Tim. For my part, I'm pleased that our modest contribution is substantial enough to be considered one of the waves! I look forward to following up with the other threads.
September 1st, 2005 at 8:08 pm
Garrett,
what? i didn't know you were a blogger, much less at this blog…awesome…later.
rhett
http://www.rhettsmith.com