Home » Intelligent Design » [Off Topic] Newest Book: TOUGH-MINDED CHRISTIANITY

[Off Topic] Newest Book: TOUGH-MINDED CHRISTIANITY

My newest book, co-edited with Thomas Schirrmacher, has just been published and is now available for immediate shipping from Amazon.com (go here).

Tough-Minded Christianity

It is an extensive collection of essays in honor of John Warwick Montgomery. JWM’s no-nonsense brand of apologetics, in which he was willing to put everything on the table for discussion and to consider all evidence pro and con on any topic, has certainly been an inspiration to me in the ID movement. If Phillip Johnson is the father of the ID movement, then JWM is its godfather.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

15 Responses to [Off Topic] Newest Book: TOUGH-MINDED CHRISTIANITY

  1. Congratulations on another published work. I definitely want to get and read this one!

  2. Greg Koukl at Stand To Reason (str.org) was a significant influence in my conversion from atheism to Christianity. (There have been many such influences!)

    Greg is always hospitable, but incisive. His book, Relativism, Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, co-authored with Francis Beckwith, is, in my opinion, the definitive exposition of the moral and logical bankruptcy of moral relativism. I encourage all UD readers to check it out.

    For those who are not familiar with Greg and STR, I think you’ll find him to be much like JWM, a tough-minded Christian who puts everything on the table.

  3. John Warwick Montgomery was one of my earliest influences. I discovered him at about the same time I discovered Chesterton. I found out very early that I had much more in common with conservative non-Catholics than with liberal Catholics. Sometimes, labels don’t tell the whole story.

  4. Oh man, that sounds AWESOME! Can’t wait for the audio version…

  5. I’m sorry to have to use this forum for this question, but I have been searching this site for about 2 hours trying to find out how it might be possible to post an entry to the blog, rather than a comment, or, alternatively, how to ask the question of the site manager. If anyone knows the answer to this, or can direct me to a link, I would greatly appreciate it. Again, I apologize for using this method of asking my question.

  6. Bruce David,

    You cannot make a front-page post unless your user account is upgraded to “author” or higher. And unless the site owners give you permission you will not be given this privilege.

  7. Thank you, Patrick. Can you tell me how one gets in touch with the site owners?

  8. Dembski: “JWM’s no-nonsense brand of apologetics, in which he was willing to put everything on the table for discussion and to consider all evidence pro and con on any topic,”

    Everything, it appears, except for his Reformed theology. “Christianity” is an “ism,” an ideology, one opposed to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Perhaps someday those who are critical of Darwinism will be as critical of their own cherished assumptions.

  9. To the moderators: Riddick needs to be removed. His ignorance of the difference between Reformed and Lutheran theology is bad enough (JWM is Lutheran). But his attack on Christianity is out of bounds with any standards of civility acceptable on this forum.

  10. Re: 2

    Maybe it’s my browser, but I find that Stand To Reason has many broken links. It’s extremely frustrating. Anyone else experience this?

    On a lighter note, has anyone seen the clip of Koukl vanquishing Deepak Chopra in a debate (I believe it addressed pluralism). Made Chopra look pretty stupid (which he is, in my opinion).

  11. Riddick,

    Really?

    You ever heard of William Lane Craig? We don’t believe what we do for no reason and based on no evidence. If you doubt me I suggest you investigate Christianity yourself, specifically the historicity of Jesus and even more importantly the serious case that can be made for his resurrection from the dead.

    http://www.reasonablefaith.org (William Lane Craig’s website)

    You might also be interested in some of Lee Strobel’s studies. He was an atheist until he actually studied Christianity and its claims.

    To Mr. Dembski: can we not allow Riddic to stay around? His comments may be out of line, but many of us on here seem to make similar comments against neo-Darwinists and atheists, so I’m not sure we’re much, if any, better. In such a case, our comments would be out of line too.

  12. Riddick is gone.

  13. Thanks for the recommendation, Gil. Have you ever read Peter Kreeft’s A Refutation of Moral Relativism?

  14. I note there is a sample chapter available in PDF format here:

    http://bhpublishinggroup.com/a.....5#moreinfo

  15. William Dembski (#9):

    “To the moderators: Riddick needs to be removed. His ignorance of the difference between Reformed and Lutheran theology is bad enough (JWM is Lutheran). But his attack on Christianity is out of bounds with any standards of civility acceptable on this forum.”

    In response to Dembski:

    Domoman (#11):

    “To Mr. Dembski: can we not allow Riddic[k] to stay around? His comments may be out of line, but many of us on here seem to make similar comments against neo-Darwinists and atheists, so I’m not sure we’re much, if any, better. In such a case, our comments would be out of line too.”

    I agree with Domoman.

    Riddick (#8) said nothing deserving of banishment. He used no invective or profanity. His comments were tame. I assume him to be an Atheist-evolutionist. I am a Christian-creationist. We know Atheist controlled debate sites ban any Christian at the drop of the proverbial hat. Like their Communist brothers: off to Siberia you go—-never to be heard from again. We also know that Darwinists have corrupted the Constitution, making it say their enemy (= ID) is unconstitutional, despite the fact that 99% of the Founding Fathers were IDists. The point is: censorship is the Atheist way, not the Christian way.

    Dr. Dembski, not too long ago, announced publicly that he had abandoned the Explanatory Filter. A day or two later he reversed himself. This is how real scholars behave: when they make an honest error they admit and move on. We know dishonest “scholars” like Wesley Elsberry never admit to any mistakes, no matter how obvious, unlike a Daniel Dennett or Stephen Jay Gould who, like Dembski, admit to their mistakes and move on. Admitting to mistakes displays honesty and only reinforces the integrity of a persons work. It shows they can be trusted to make room for the truth as it becomes known to them; it shows that they are not in the business of preserving ego and insulting intelligence.

    I believe William Dembski has made an honest mistake. I believe if he should read these replies that he would surely reconsider and agree that Riddick should not be banned.

    Ray

    PS: Please note that I did not say I agree with Dennett or Gould. Only that they have a verifiable record of admitting to mistakes.

    RM

Leave a Reply