Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A forum for discussing matters of moment, from a curmudgeonly perspective. (The ideas posted here do not necessarily represent those of any organization with which I am a part). Rude and insulting remarks will not be published, but civil disagreement is welcome.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(122)
-
▼
August
(24)
- Basic Logical Principles Required for Apologetics
- Review of Brian McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian"
- Groothuis on Backbone Radio in Denver
- Staying True to the Truth
- Letter to "The New York Times" Concering Intellige...
- A Little Bit on G. K. Chesterton
- Book Review of "True to Life"
- More support for Intelligent Design
- Review of "The Crisis of Islam"
- Review of "Total Truth" by Nancy Pearcey
- More Thoughts from Pascal
- Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?
- Debating Intelligent Design on the Radio
- Made for thinking, but...
- Colossal Questions for Tragic Times: Tsunami, Cata...
- Book Review: "Christianity on Trial"
- The Doctrine of Calling
- New Reality TV!
- Groothuis (and other) interviews on line
- Rocky Mountain News story on Intelligent Design
- ID on TV: Reflections on Being Televised
- Article from "The Rocky Mountain News"
- Televised Curmudgeon
- The Strange Exile of Jesus
-
▼
August
(24)
Links
About Me
- Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.
- Nothing on this blog represents the position of Denver Seminary. I am a Christian, philosopher, teacher, writer, and preacher, who is Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary. My most recent of my twelve books is Philosophy in Seven Sentences. My magnum opus is Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (InterVarsity Press, 2011). I have published ten others, including Truth Decay and On Jesus. I direct the Christian Apologetics and Ethics MA program at Denver Seminary.
2 comments:
If you haven't done so,I would encourage you to submit this to Tim Challies for Diet of Book Worms and also post it on Amazon.com.
Big Chris
Because I said so
Good review, Dr. Groothius!
That's how I view McLaren, i.e. a liberal "theologian"--who only affirms (modernity) what he is trying to deny (modernity)by embracing the higher-critical understanding that so-called modernistic "scholarship" has produced on the inerrancy of the Bible.
McLaren naively evinces the fact that PoMo really is only the logical conclusion of modernism's epistemological foundation (maybe McLaren should've paid more attention to Nietsche).
Post a Comment