I’d recently ran across the claim that Norman Geisler has compared Calvinism to “theological racism.”
Charges of “racism” are typically thrown around by liberal pundits. Indeed, Geisler’s analogy reminds me of homosexual activists who try to draw a parallel between racial discrimination and discrimination against sodomites. Yet I assume Geisler believes that impenitent homosexuals are hellbound.
Did you manage to confirm that Geisler did indeed make this comparison?
ReplyDeleteIf he did make this claim, in what context did he make it? (Do you have a link, possibly?)
Notice my qualified introduction. There's a reason for that.
ReplyDeleteFor more, see:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4392
Steve said: "Geisler’s analogy reminds me of homosexual activists who try to draw a parallel between racial discrimination and discrimination against sodomites.
ReplyDeleteAssuming the claim about Geisler is correct, your comment above shows that the false analogy stems from your reminiscence rather than Geisler's logic.
Clearly, the claim could not be made that Geisler's analogy commits some type of theological homophobia apart from your impression.
Your objection is unintelligible. Resist the temptation of raising objections for the sake of raising objections.
ReplyDeleteSteve, after reading your link, I think it is likely Geisler made the comments being attributed to him.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is your comment, and not my objection, that asserts the parallel between between claims of racial discrimination and discrimination against sodomites stem from your reminiscence.
The objection that IF the analogy you use as the basis for your argument is a function of your impressions, THEN it cannot be attributed to Geisler's logic, is hardly hardly unintelligible.
Hover, this is not to say, Geisler's statement couldn't or shouldn't be addressed on its own terms.
Claiming that Calvinism is some type of theological racism, and opposing that claim, is an interesting discussion apart from the false analogy that stemmed from your impressions.
Your position is much stronger without employing the comparison between what he said, and what it reminds you of.
(It would have been more interesting had he claimed Team Apologian act as though they are theological racists.)
Ekklesia,
ReplyDeleteWhat is a "theological racist" even supposed to mean? Geisler used an emotive and politically charged attack phrase. Steve responded with the same kind of emotive and politically charged attack phrase to demonstrate the utter stupidity of Geisler's original claim. It would only be problematic if Steve was actually intending someone to believe Geisler actually *IS* a theological homophobe; Steve's intent is pretty obvious to point out Geisler's being a twit to call Calvinists theological racists.
ἐκκλησία said...
ReplyDeleteMy analogy parallels his analogy. The comparison cuts both ways.
Attack both or attack neither.
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete"The objection that IF the analogy you use as the basis for your argument is a function of your impressions..."
Your impression of my impression of Geisler's impression of Calvinism.
Not to mention your impression of my impression of Geisler's impression of James White's impression of Geisler's impression of...
Peter said: '"What is a theological racist" even supposed to mean?'
ReplyDeletePeter, I agree.. This is where I'd engage Geisler.
As far as I can tell, being intolerant of religious syncretism, IS biblical, and so there is room for 'some' theological supremacy (at least that's what I take from his use of the overly emotive word 'rascism').
But here's the issue (at least historically), necessarily there must be tension in the boundary between 'theological acceptance' and 'theological rejection', essential beliefs, non-essential beliefs and heretical beliefs; So where does the Bible place that boundary.
If Geisler is trying to say that Calvinists are wrong to see their theology as the correct one, I'd disagree since every Christian ought to search after true 'Christ-given' orthodoxy and believe it it to be true, or discard it.
However if Geisler is trying to say that Calvinist are wrong to see their theology as supreme, superior, or exclusive (essentially lacking humility), I'd agree.
The reason I'd agree is this: Basically, all genuine believers, the elect, be they Calvinist or not, do the best they can theologically given the Gospel Christ gave us.
Although Christ is perfect, we are not. Even if we proclaim the role of the Holy Spirit in illuminating our understandings, it would be a fallacy to assert our knowledge of Christ's doctrine is 'complete' and 'perfect' simply because the Holy Spirit plays a role correcting the doctrine we do possess (emphasis on degree of completion).
Until Christ returns, our doctrine will not be complete, though it may contain few errors. So then, there is room for humility in dealing with fellow believers at least.
Although, I personally think Calvinism is exegetically flawed, contains false presuppositions, and cannot be sustained Biblically, I have no doubt that Calvinists are sincere, capable of believing true things, and have a place in His Kingdom. But this criticism is just as true of the theology I hold, since I too possess incomplete knowledge.
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteHere is an example of how ALL our theology has been flawed: from a link I obtained in one of Triablogue's posts, I came across a book which has deeply impressed me.
I purchased a copy of The Messianic Hope: Is the Old Testament Really Messianic?. The author, a converted orthodox Jew, has argued that since our Hebrew texts have traditionally been edited, translated, copied largely by scholars who reject Jesus's messiah-ship, the texts available to us have largely been excised of messianic meaning. Accordingly, our theology is not seeing the big picture.
(One of the things that impressed me, was the author's ability to show how the OT cites the OT; Ezekiel, for example, quotes Genesis)
So though Geisler may have been a twit in using far too emotive language, I don't think he's automatically being a twit, in pointing out Calvinism's pride, or any true believing Christian theological system for that matter.
Steve said: "Your impression of my impression of Geisler's impression of Calvinism."
ReplyDelete.. but you were incorrectly crediting Geisler's logic with an analogy that stemmed from your impression.
If they are both flawed analogies, they are not flawed for the reasons you assert.
This is the fallacy that weakens your position.
Geisler is doing nothing more than trying to poison the well with what he said. I by no means agree with Reformed positions, being a Lutheran, but I do see good reason for discussion of the points that the Reformed bring up (even if I do believe that most things can be answered soundly in a way that does not lead to many of the Reformed distinctives). That being said, seriously to use racism in conjunction to anything in this politically correct age is to say that the position that it is attached to should just be dismissed out of hand because the person holding the position is so backwards they don't really need to be answered beyond tossing a label on them. I listened to the recent Dividing Line which aired the clip from the program in which Geisler made the theological racism comment, and sure enough that is what Geisler pretty much was doing. Trying to innoculate believers into not even delving into the discussion itself and dismissing a position out of hand without even weighing the truth of it. That is not a God-honoring way of doing things. Feel free to air your disagreements with a position, but be accurate and fair to the theology you speak about.
ReplyDeleteἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete"If they are both flawed analogies, they are not flawed for the reasons you assert."
You keep repeating the same tendentious stipulation as if that's a counterargument to my argument. It's not.
Justin you raise a good point. There is a God honouring way of objecting to those, with whom we disagree.
ReplyDeleteSteve, you've really not presenting a counter argument for me to consider, to the claim you're falsely attributing an analogy to Geisler that is in fact, yours.
Present one and Ill respond or concede.
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete"Until Christ returns, our doctrine will not be complete, though it may contain few errors. So then, there is room for humility in dealing with fellow believers at least."
Yes, that's your shtick. We've heard all that before.
Of course, the statement is self-refuting since your mock humility is predicated on your eschatology. But if you applied your mock humility to your eschatological premise, you'd lose the supporting argument which undergirds your mock humility.
What we're getting from you is spiritual pride disguised as spiritual humility. That's a dangerous combination, because it reflects a degree of self-deception on your part. You'd only be entitled to make these lofoty disclaimers if you enjoyed the objectivity which your disclaimers deny.
You need to put your humility badge in a box with a few rocks, then toss it in the river. True modesty doesn't flaunt its modesty. True modesty doesn't draw invidious comparisons between the mock humility of the speaker and the benighted targets of his unctuous little hortations.
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, you've really not presenting a counter argument for me to consider, to the claim you're falsely attributing an analogy to Geisler that is in fact, yours."
Your denial is just a repetitious assertion. Hence, it merits no response. Pull your own load.
First of all, the "theological racist" assertion by Geisler should be completely embarrassing upon further reflection.
ReplyDeleteGod chose a single nation out of all the people of the earth to be His people. Was He theologically racist?
"..Geisler is guilty of theological homophobia–"
ReplyDeleteThat made me smile. Thanks.
Geisler says Faith comes before salvation, according to Ephesians 2:8 period. And he does gives jabs to all who believe the 5 points. He calls anyone who believes this way as "extreme".
Thanks for the great thoughts.
Have a Spirit-filled Lord's day.
"What we're getting from you is spiritual pride disguised as spiritual humility. That's a dangerous combination, because it reflects a degree of self-deception on your part. You'd only be entitled to make these lofoty disclaimers if you enjoyed the objectivity which your disclaimers deny.
ReplyDeleteYou need to put your humility badge in a box with a few rocks, then toss it in the river. True modesty doesn't flaunt its modesty. True modesty doesn't draw invidious comparisons between the mock humility of the speaker and the benighted targets of his unctuous little hortations."
Whoa! That's pretty good.
This "Dr. Gregory House Diagnosis" can also be applied to many liberals and emergers who tout their faux humility which blinds them to their own judgmental pharaseeism.
Ekklesia wrote: >>If Geisler is trying to say that Calvinists are wrong to see their theology as the correct one, I'd disagree since every Christian ought to search after true 'Christ-given' orthodoxy and believe it it to be true, or discard it.
ReplyDeleteHowever if Geisler is trying to say that Calvinist are wrong to see their theology as supreme, superior, or exclusive (essentially lacking humility), I'd agree.<<
Ekk, did you read the quote? Geisler was referring to neither of your bizarre options. His analogy runs something like: "Calvinists are to the reprobate as skinheads are to blacks or jews."
That settled, Geisler's remark is akin to a Black Panther saying, "Those damn Tea Party honkies are nothing but a bunch of bigoted white, straight-haired, blue-eyed crackers!"
aztexan said: "His analogy runs something like: "Calvinists are to the reprobate as skinheads are to blacks or jews."
ReplyDeleteAztexan, If I saw what you are seeing, I'd also be highly offended, but that's not how I took his use of the word "racism".
I think Peter Pike has it right. If we were to engage his comment in good faith, we have to confront him on what he means by "theological racism".
This whole conversation has made me feel more intellectually humble...oh wait! A guy just can't win around here.
ReplyDeleteGEISLER: "These people [meanie Calvinists] teach that Christ only loved the elect and only died for the elect. And I think that's some kind of theological racism."
ReplyDeleteEkk, I don't know how the above can reasonably be taken any way other than how I take it. How do you calculate that "...only loved the elect and only died for the elect...that's some kind of theological racism" somehow refers to Reformed snobbery toward other Christian doctrinal systems? Geisler's "racism" crack is a commentary on how Calvinists allegedly see ourselves in relation to the non-elect, NOT how we appraise the superior correctness of our tradition in comparison to other Christian traditions.
Unless I'm completely missing something big here... *scratching head*
BRIAN SAID:
ReplyDelete"This whole conversation has made me feel more intellectually humble...oh wait! A guy just can't win around here."
Yes, it's humbled me as well. In fact, if we had a humility contest, I bet you that I'd score twice as humble as you.
Pssst! Just between you and me, I think I'm three times as humble as you are, but it would be immodest of me to say so in public, so that will be our little secret. :-)
Prideful humility.
ReplyDeletePharisees prayed long prayers in street corners so that people could see how pious they were, boastful and prideful of their prayerfulness.
Now we have modern day Pharisees touting and proclaiming their humility so that people could see and know how pious they are, boastful and prideful of their great show of humility.
Bleah.
Why can't everyone be humble like me? That's my question. It's humbling just to mediate on how humble I am. I spend at least 4 hours a day in a lotus position, staring at the mirror, to cultivate my humility.
ReplyDeleteSteve wrote: >>Yes, it's humbled me as well. In fact, if we had a humility contest, I bet you that I'd score twice as humble as you.<<
ReplyDeleteI've no doubt I'm the world's LEAST humble man. In fact, I'm sure the next-most arrogant wretch on Earth must be at least 10 times more humble than I, chief of braggarts. Yes, when the Lord is giving rewards for humility, I'll be dead-last - perhaps least in the whole Kingdom. And, of course, my confessing this wickedness of mine shall in nowise score me ironic points for humility; no, there's nothing I can do but confess that ALL of you great men of God will have heavenly mansions and crowns immeasurably greater than mine, for I am a miserably proud, haughty fool - by far the least of God's elect.
As I understand it, many Calvinists believe that we can have some signs, in the course of our lives, that we are amongst the elect. One sign that you might be a reprobate, surely, would be the fact that you are gay. Right?
ReplyDeleteI suppose Calvinists don't have so much at stake in arguing the homosexual orientation is chosen.
Victor, they choose sodomy because they are reprobate, not vice versa.
ReplyDeleteTo be a homosexual is not, per se, a sign of reprobation. There are elect homosexuals whom God will save. But in saving them, he also saves them from their homosexual addiction.
ReplyDeleteThey can't live and die homosexual. At some point there has to be basic change.
The signs of election are no different than the signs of what it is to be a true believer. That experience isn't unique to Calvinism. But Calvinism has a different way of grounding salvation.
True, the choice argument doesn't have the same purchase in Calvinism that it has in freewill theism vis-a-vis homosexuality.
ReplyDelete"Ekk, I don't know how the above can reasonably be taken any way other than how I take it. How do you calculate that "...only loved the elect and only died for the elect...that's some kind of theological racism" somehow refers to Reformed snobbery toward other Christian doctrinal systems? Geisler's "racism" crack is a commentary on how Calvinists allegedly see ourselves in relation to the non-elect, NOT how we appraise the superior correctness of our tradition in comparison to other Christian traditions."
ReplyDeleteEXACTLY. You hit the nail on the head, aztexan.
@Matt: Phew! I had hoped I wasn't somehow off base in my reading of the quote. There's being charitable, and then there's being obtuse.
ReplyDeleteAztexan said: "Geisler's "racism" crack is a commentary on how Calvinists allegedly see ourselves in relation to the non-elect, NOT how we appraise the superior correctness of our tradition in comparison to other Christian traditions."
ReplyDeleteNot if you take Geisler's use of 'elect' on Calvinistic terms. Remember, though you may not agree, Geisler sees himself a Calvinist, and he's well known for criticising what hell calls 'extreme Calvinists'.
Accordingly, and in my opinion, this is exactly why Geisler's comments can be taken to be appraising the superior correctness of the Calvinist tradition against other Christian traditions.
But again, this is the danger of using excessively emotive language - it cuts both ways.
(PS its too bad my responses to Steve's ad hominem keep disappearing).
@Ekklesia: I still don't get it, homie - now you've got me really confused. Please excuse me. I'll be returning to my bigoted ubercalvinist stupor.
ReplyDelete>Steve, after reading your link, I think it is likely Geisler made the comments being attributed to him.
ReplyDeleteHere Ekklesia concedes that he probably jumped the gun here. A generous admission. Well done, Ekklesia!
Yet, I am not so generous with Dr. Geisler as Steve was. Dr. Geisler does in fact have theological homophobia.
As do I. And I'm not too humble to admit it.
>Peter, I agree.. This is where I'd engage Geisler.
Geisler does not engage in debates with Christians. it has been a long-held policy of his.
>If Geisler is trying to say that Calvinists are wrong to see their theology as the correct one, I'd disagree...
Geisler has long been consistent in that position. And incidentally, he prefers to label Calvinists as Determinists. A little less incendiary, perhaps. And more consistent with his philosophical bent.
>However if Geisler is trying to say that Calvinists are wrong to see their theology as supreme, superior, or exclusive (essentially lacking humility), I'd agree.
Ekklesia, if I didn't actually see my theology as supreme, superior or exclusive--- why wouldn't I abandon it?
And doesn't Geisler actually see his own Calminianism as supreme, superior and exclusive?
>The reason I'd agree is this: Basically, all genuine believers, the elect, be they Calvinist or not, do the best they can theologically given the Gospel Christ gave us.
That's a very Determinist position my non-Calvinist brother :)
>But this criticism is just as true of the theology I hold, since I too possess incomplete knowledge.
But I thought the issue was about correct knowledge, Ekklesia- not about incomplete knowledge...
>Here is an example of how ALL our theology has been flawed:
A bit much hyperbole here, Ekklesia.
Thanks for the link, though.
Am largely in agreement with this book. Despite it's disagreement with Kaiser, Longman, Hurtado etc.
And despite its racist implications.
Will likely buy this book. Or I could trade you for my Geisler Systematic Theology :)
Ron said: "Will likely buy this book. Or I could trade you for my Geisler Systematic Theology :)"
ReplyDeleteNice. Thanks, but frankly
, Geisler's work interests me little. :P