Dr. Richard G. Howe has taught courses in philosophy at the University of Mississippi (Graduate TA), Mississippi State University (Instructor), Marquette University (Graduate TA), the University of Arkansas (Graduate TA) and Luther Rice University (Assistant Professor). He has a BA in Bible from Mississippi College, an MA in Philosophy from the University of Mississippi, and a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Arkansas. Dr. Howe is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC where he still teaches part-time and is the Vice-President of the International Society of Christian Apologetics. He is a author of / contributor to several apologetic books including Religion of the Force: Exploring the Religious Philosophies of the Jedi Force in the Star Wars Saga (with Norman Geisler), The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Reasons for Faith, To Everyone an Answer, The Jesus Quest: The Danger from Within, and a forthcoming festschrift in honor of Norman L. Geisler. He has spoken and debated in churches and universities in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Africa on issues relating to the defense of the Christian faith. In their free time, Richard and his wife Rebekah enjoy international travel.
Quodlibet – Latin, “whatever, whichever, no matter, what you please, any whatever”
Quodlibetal Questions – (kwōd-lē-bi-tәl) A form of Medieval academic discourse where “whatever pleases” or “any whatever” questions were presented to the Master (university teacher); The quodlibetal questions stood in contrast to the “disputed questions” format where the questions generally followed a more unified theme, e.g., truth, the virtues, the power of God, etc.
Yeah, but what about all those “whosoever” verses????
Well, I just believe the Bible! I don’t need all that philosophy and theology! 🙂
Hope you are well, found your blog today. Good to see your sense of humor has stayed in tact. I’ll always remember laughing till my ribs heart in the trailer out back of our old campus at the church.
Let me know how you are doing sometime. Check out my blog too, I’m doing a podcast every week in an effort to promote ministry to outdoors men with a great friend of mine. We mostly just laugh at ourselves!
I case you didn’t know I joined the Army as a Chaplain (Reserves) and we leave for the mid east this Spring (If the Feds have any money left for an Army)
I’m doing some basic teaching on Islam and didn’t know if you had a groovy PPT presentation I could use. You know basics of Islam and major differences.
Looking forward to hearing from you my friend.
Thank you for posting your paper, “Some Concerns about John C. Maxwell.”
As a consultant to Christian ministries, I have encountered many ministry leaders who buy into the Napoleon Hill philosophy, among others. It is very concerning that a majority don’t seem to have the discernment to see things clearly on this front.
None the less, I had been considering whether to add the Maxwell resources to our work – until I watched an introductory video where their President, Paul Martinelli, began his presentation and included references to Hill in the first couple of minutes.
That lead me to look for “reviews” which brought me to your paper.
I’m pretty sure that I am not the only person to write to you on this topic. I’d be interested in any further material or sources that you might have developed that would help us determine whether value exists in any form in the Maxwell material.
Specifically, I’m looking at whether using the material and replacing the heretical concepts with Biblical truth would still be useful (minus the mind games). I realize that if a majority of the foundational principles are based upon these errors, the whole system needs to be thrown out.
I’m just not sure whether there is enough truth in the concepts (without the occultism) to warrant all the editing that might be involved.
Thanks in advance for your work.
Dan Mirgon & Associates
PO Box 701343
Salt Lake City, UT 84170
Thanks, Dan. I’m glad the paper was helpful. It’s sometime tricky when wading through material to try to glean what might be useful while trying to protect oneself from “contamination.” An illustration I often use is describing what it would be like to go to the landfill to try to find something to eat. To be sure, one could find unopened packages of crackers or cans of food. But in rummaging through the landfill, one runs the danger of exposing oneself to the toxins that are present. This is especially an unnecessary risk given the fact that one could just go to the grocery store to get the same food without the toxic risk. Many of the things I see offered in the “self-help” material seem to seek to be a substitute for many of the things we’re already given in God’s word.
Having said that, I am also a firm believer that God has also given us many truths through General Revelation that can be know by a sound application of our reason. Thus, I’m not one of those apologists who insist that the Scriptures are the only source of truth. Clearly, however, (at least as a matter of principle) any “philosophy” that goes against what is clearly taught in Scripture must be false. In my opinion, a significant amount of the “self-help” philosophy is predicated upon a false view of human nature; especially regarding the influence of sin in our lives and the role that sanctification must play in overcoming sin’s destruction. Please feel free to email me personally if you want to explore more on these matters. Thanks for the reply.