Nickalicious' response to Dwuhlizzle

Derek's assessment of Habermas is accurate as far as his "fundamental modernism" is concerned. I will say this; Habermas will be the first to admit that apologetics and debate do not change lives or "convert" souls. In fact he doesn't debate anymore; but would be open for lecturing, discussing, or participating in open dialogue. Much of Dr. Habermas' focus of late has been on what the resurrection means for practical faith. I refer you to a recent book of his, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope. Dr. Habermas does focus a great deal on "preaching the hope of the resurrection". One last thing on Habermas, he encouraged me a great deal in my decision to attend Duke. His top reason for choosing Duke was Dr. Hays. Enough with my ongoing Liberty apologetics. I do not believe that bringing in scholars who differ in opinion from that of the faculty at Duke would nor should cause any dissension within the divinity school. If Mel White and Bart Erhman (I believe their views are in opposition with the ?line?) can be brought in for open discussion, then why not an Evans or Habermas. I would understand the riff Pat Robertson or Falwell would cause, but not respected and well read academians. I don?t believe that by bringing certain figures ( ie (?left?) Eugene Rogers or (?right?) Gary Habermas) would come off as disrespectfully opposing the ?line?. I feel that these scholars would respect the teachings of the div. school and offer their own convictions without discord in their intentions. I specifically mention these two scholars because they?re within two hours of Duke. We shouldn't limit the horizon of the socratics. I know the the members of our churches won't limit what they will read. I anticipate questions in my church on Erhman, Rogers, Evans, and
Habemas just as much as questions on the Dan Brown.

Would Dr. Smith like to commit and offer his opinion as a faculty member?


God Bless,

Nick