Thursday, August 18, 2011

Rauser's self-defeating apologetic

Similarly, the fact that biblical authors were incorrect in some of their theological descriptions doesn’t mean that Yahweh doesn’t exist. It means only that they got some of their theological descriptions about Yahweh wrong. Indeed, this is precisely what the doctrine of progressive revelation has always accepted.

Several problems:

i) To redefine progressive revelation as progression from revealed error to revealed truth is scarcely the definition which has always been accepted.

ii) For Jesus and the NT writers, the God of the OT is the God of the NT. Yahweh is the true God. They do not view the relation between OT theism and NT theism as a progression from an erroneous view of God to a truer view of God.

iii) The OT is the foundation for the NT. The OT messianism underwrites NT messianism.

Because Rauser is a liberal, he’s trying to patch together some sort of compromise position. But in the process he ends up sabotaging both the OT and the NT. 

1 comment:

  1. Steve, does Rauser profess that the OT "contains the Word of God" or some sort of similar notion? And do you know how he discerns what should be affirmed or rejected in the OT? I like what Richard Baxter said, “No error or contradiction is in it [Scripture], but what is in some copies, by failure of preservers, transcribers, printers, and translators.”