Thursday night, 1-27-2011 Shepherd's Fellowship will have its second "Worldview Night" by viewing a debate at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. And no, Dusman will not be participating in this one. I'm too busy with ministry right now.Theme: Ratio Christi of UNCG and the UNCG Atheists Agnostics and Skeptics will be offering a panel discussion exploring the different concepts for grounding morality. Does the Christian or Atheistic worldview better account for morality, and which offers a better understanding of how morality works in our world? What are the problems and benefits of the different worldviews? These just some of the areas to be explored.
Location: The event will be held in the Elliot University Center (EUC) in the EUC auditorium from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. The auditorium is on the middle floor of the EUC to the left of the information desk, if you are facing the information desk. Here is a map of the location and parking for those traveling onto campus for it.
http://maps.google.com/map
Format: This is being called a panel discussion but will be structured like a debate, with each panelist giving an opening statement then each side having time to question and lead discussion with the other. After that there will be time available for each side to give a closing statement. Finally at the end there will be time for audience questions and answers.
Representing Ratio Christi will be:
Adam Tucker: Is the UNCG campus director of Ratio Christi and a student at Southern Evangelical Seminary.
Bill Pratt: Christian apologist who blogs at toughquestionsanswered.org
Representing the UNCG Atheists Agnostics and Skeptics will be:
Joshua Deaton: Got his first degree in political science from UNCG and is currently working on a second degree in biology. He studied to be in the ministry and his studies lead him to be an atheist.
Robert Eldredge: Current President of the UNCG Atheists, Agnostics and Skeptics Robert got undergraduate degrees in Philosophy and Political Science from Guilford College and is currently working on a Masters of Public Affairs degree from UNCG.
"ANNOUNCEMENT: Worldview Night 1-27-2011"
ReplyDeletePastor Dusman in prior post: "If you are logically consistent and want to have a worldview that can ground rationality and provide an indubitable moral basis to be rational, then there is only one worldview that you can adhere to in the end: Biblical Christianity.”
Evangelical Theology Professor Randal Rauser: "Yoiks! This is wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin. The problems begin when we simply try to figure out what the claim actually is. So what are the beliefs one must hold to have the worldview of “biblical Christianity”? Well there are two words here for our consideration: biblical, and Christianity. First off, the only rational worldview according to this author is a biblical one. What is that supposed to mean? It could mean holding the set of beliefs held by one of the authors of the Bible. Or maybe we should also extend it to the beliefs of one of the main characters in the Bible that plays for the home team."
Pastor Dusman, what do you make of an Evangelical Theology Professor scoffing at the idea of Biblical Christianity as a rational worldview?
TUAD,
ReplyDeleteYou asked, "Pastor Dusman, what do you make of an Evangelical Theology Professor scoffing at the idea of Biblical Christianity as a rational worldview?"
With all due respect my dear brother, I think he would correct you and say that he's asking this: "What set of doctrines constitutes Biblical Christianity such that a denial of said doctrines destroys the minimally necessary platform for grounding for rational thought?"
That's a fair question, and I think Steve already answered it sufficiently here: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/01/token-radical-chic-charity.html
Of course, the basic answer is that there are a number of derived doctrines taught in the received canon the denial of which would undermine rationality. Steve did a good job at outlining those in said article linked above.
Though I don't enjoy saying this, my view is that Randal takes umbrage at that statement and many others like it because he's a lost man. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that he's saved. If he is saved, why the angst against conservative doctrine and siding with infidels to promote his views (i.e., Noam Chomsky)?
I was talking to a fellow T-blogger last night on the phone and he noted that Randal is much worse doctrinally speaking than Peter Enns. That's *not* a good assessment.
Hi Pastor Dusman,
ReplyDeleteYou're right, I could have phrased my question more accurately. I was really trying to capture his scoffing attitude towards you ("Yoiks! This is wrong on so many levels it is hard to know where to begin.") in my question to you.
"Though I don't enjoy saying this, my view is that Randal takes umbrage at that statement and many others like it because he's a lost man. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that he's saved."
I think there are reasons, albeit weak and faint reasons to believe that he's saved, but I do have my concerns and doubts about his salvation, that's for sure.
Interestingly, Rho, also expresses the same sentiments as you do about Rauser.
Here's my tentative thoughts:
Highest and Best Hope (but low probability): Professor Rauser is a "Judas but a Christian" and he repents and stops being a Judas.
Maybe the case: Professor Rauser is a "Judas but a Christian" and continues to do what he's doing. No change. (As a Christian, he's still in Heaven, although on Earth, he was co-opted as a servant for Satan, helping to lead others to Hell.)
Also, maybe the case: Professor Rauser is a Judas and not a Christian.
-----
Charitably, Professor Rauser is a "Judas but a Christian."
Also,
ReplyDeleteMy last post leads me to wonder:
Can a person act and behave like a "Judas" and yet still be a Heaven-bound Christian if they don't deny salvific doctrines in their faith and practice?
I.e., like Liberal Evangelical Randal Rauser.