# Alister McGrath vs Richard Dawkins - discussion\debate



## panta dokimazete

Interesting discussion - I posted it on Christian Skepticism.

After watching it, I though McGrath's responses were very good - even as they were constructed to be "sound bite" editable - I thought his responses on suffering were somewhat weak - I thought he could have landed much more strongly on the sovereignty of God. Which led me to begin researching his theological standpoint.

Question to the PB'ers at large - can any of you give additional insight on AM and his view concerning Calvinism and Reformed Theology? Is he more of an Open Theist?


----------



## panta dokimazete

wow - I let this sit all day...*no one* has any info on AM?


----------



## RamistThomist

I really doubt he is an open theist. He has written several biographies and treatises on Luther and Calvin that are VERY favorable to them (if unbalanced at times).


----------



## panta dokimazete

Draught Horse said:


> I really doubt he is an open theist. He has written several biographies and treatises on Luther and Calvin that are VERY favorable to them (if unbalanced at times).



unbalanced in what way?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

Alister McGrath has done some excellent apologetic work against Atheism and especially Richard Dawkins. The rap on him, though, is that he tends towards high Anglicanism and Neo-Orthodoxy as well. I believe the Torrance clan has had an affect on him. He has written a number of books and articles among which his most popular is: Christian Theology: an Introduction.

He interprets Luther and Calvin from a distinctly neo-orthodox position: "Barthism" as they call it in England.

Grace,

-CH


----------



## RamistThomist

jdlongmire said:


> unbalanced in what way?



His bio on Calvin, which I thoroughly enjoyed, was more popular-style and avoided meatier stuff. 

He wrote another biography on Torrance. I don't think he is a full-fledged Barthian, though.


----------



## caddy

JD

I'm reading his book now _The Dawkins Delusion_. I'll chime in as I get more into it....



jdlongmire said:


> wow - I let this sit all day...*no one* has any info on AM?


----------



## panta dokimazete

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Alister McGrath has done some excellent apologetic work against Atheism and especially Richard Dawkins. The rap on him, though, is that he tends towards high Anglicanism and Neo-Orthodoxy as well. I believe the Torrance clan has had an affect on him. He has written a number of books and articles among which his most popular is: Christian Theology: an Introduction.
> 
> He interprets Luther and Calvin from a distinctly neo-orthodox position: "Barthism" as they call it in England.
> 
> Grace,
> 
> -CH



Barth, huh?


> When asked in 1962 (on his one visit to America) how he would summarize the essence of the millions of words he had published, he replied, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so."
> 
> Though Barth made it possible for theologians again to take the Bible seriously, American evangelicals have been skeptical of Barth because he refused to consider the written Word "infallible" (he believed only Jesus was). Others gave up on Barth's theology because it overemphasized God's transcendance (to the point that some former Barthians began championing the "death of God"). Nonetheless, he remains the most important theologian of the twentieth century.



Sounds like an interesting fellow...I can see his influence on AM...I also note that he was Reform-minded.

anybody watched the video?


----------



## panta dokimazete

caddy said:


> JD
> 
> I'm reading his book now _The Dawkins Delusion_. I'll chime in as I get more into it....



cool - thanks!


----------



## Davidius

He was a guest on the White Horse Inn not too long ago. For that reason I assumed he was sound...


----------



## tellville

I always thought he was a conservative Anglican. Probably very similar to NT Wright in views. Maybe not as extreme in Paul.


----------



## RamistThomist

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> He was a guest on the White Horse Inn not too long ago. For that reason I assumed he was sound...



The few books I have read by him were good. I didn't come away from his Calvin book a Barthian-screaming NPPer.


----------



## caddy

Along with Turretin, Owens, Watson, Frame, Burroughs, Sproul, I have found delight in Robert L. Short's "Snoopy" books. It is very obvious that Short like Barth from his writing. For the most part, Short's messages mixed with Schulz's Peanut gang is wonderful. I was, however, disturbed by his notion that ALL sinner's would be reconcilled in Christ in the end. Which only makes one wonder, did he get those ideas from Barth?


----------



## wsw201

I have read a number of his works and he is a Reformed Anglican along the lines of Packer. What he says about Barth is true. Barth was and is very influential even today and you just can't get around that. But he's no Barthian.

One thing that is for sure about McGrath is that he believed (and may still unless Muller changed his mind) that the later reformers left Calvin behind, ie; Calvin vs the Calvinists. This come out in his book on the life of Calvin. This may be why some think he is NPP or has those leanings but I don't see it.


----------



## RamistThomist

wsw201 said:


> I have read a number of his works and he is a Reformed Anglican along the lines of Packer. What he says about Barth is true. Barth was and is very influential even today and you just can't get around that. But he's no Barthian.
> 
> One thing that is for sure about McGrath is that he believed (and may still unless Muller changed his mind) that the later reformers left Calvin behind, ie; Calvin vs the Calvinists. This come out in his book on the life of Calvin. This may be why some think he is NPP or has those leanings but I don't see it.



Agreed. He quote and interacts with Barth, but that doesn't make him Barthian. He has written some things that fed the NPP debate, but I don't think he is New Perspective.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

Yes, McGrath is neo-Orthodox. Until someone describes to me the difference between a "moderate" and a "full-blown" Barthian, then I refrain to reply. Check out this link:

http://www.ivpress.com/spotlight/1591.php

Grace,

-CH


----------



## RamistThomist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Yes, McGrath is neo-Orthodox. Until someone describes to me the difference between a "moderate" and a "full-blown" Barthian, then I refrain to reply. Check out this link:
> 
> http://www.ivpress.com/spotlight/1591.php
> 
> Grace,
> 
> -CH



That was a very informative link. I still don't think it makes McGrath an out and out Barthian. Postmodern to a degree, maybe.


----------



## RamistThomist

I was thinking about it. I think one can make the argument that McGrath has too much postmodernism in him, but he only uses that as a critique of the Enlightenment. I think he is wrong to do so, but this isn't so bad. 

I really enjoyed his book on Calvin. I didn't see any Barthianisms in there. I didn't come away saying that Jesus is the "Yes" to the world, or whatever Barth said.

And Mcgrath can't be that bad. McMahon does a serious interaction with him elsewhere.
http://apuritansmind.com/Reformation/McMahonOverviewIntellectualOriginsReformation.htm


----------

