Tag: James N. Anderson
It goes without saying that I’ll recommend pretty much anything written by James N. Anderson of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC.
Here’s my summary of his most recent book, Why Should I Believe Christianity?, available to members of Books At a Glance.
(You may also be interested in the summary of A New Kind of Apologist edited by Sean McDowell.)
Go ahead, sign up for an account! You know you want to.
Gotta keep an eye on that guy.
Anderson’s review of Dolezal’s God WithoutParts – http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/god_without_parts_divine_simplicity_and_the_metaphysics_of_gods_absolu
More on God and propositions – http://www.proginosko.com/2012/07/god-and-propositions-the-saga-continues…
Covenantal apologetics have virtually no place in the academy.
It’s not that they shouldn’t have a place in the academy. It’s just that they don’t.
But why would we expect anything different? Covenantal apologetics are firmly grounded in the Christian worldview and are used to cast down every thought exemplifying its antithesis. It is not merely that non-Christians will misunderstand or reject covenantal apologetics in an intellectual sense, but rather that they will not even like them. So we should not expect to see covenantal apologetics pulling up a chair next to Naturalistic Atheism or Thomistic Christianity in the …
It’s always a good idea to actually read the posts you are responding to in the blogosphere as Pilgrim demonstrates with respect to another Anderson.
HT: Steve Hays
BTW, this is post #700 at Choosing Hats. I just thought I’d rub it in that I beat the other contributors to it even though they know that I am away right now. 😀
“From the Darwinian perspective, we owe our lives to death.” – James N. Anderson
UPDATE: Ben Wallis has edited his post to reflect his take on my concerns. See here – http://benwallis.blogspot.com/2012/02/reasonable-doubtcasters-on-van-tilian.html?showComment=1330427431782#c5897980217578008803
I like Ben Wallis, and he takes some really interesting angles in philosophical discussions, but I fear we often talk past one another.
Perhaps I am missing something in Ben’s most recent post, but his comments there appear less than fair. You may read the post in its entirety here – http://benwallis.blogspot.com/2012/02/reasonable-doubtcasters-on-van-tilian.html.
In that post, Wallis praises the recent work of the Reasonable Doubts podcast that pertains to presuppositional apologetics. Essentially, the hosts there appealed to Michael Martin’s TANG, Mitch …