Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Society of Anything-Goes Arminians
I notice on the sidebar of the Society of Evangelical Arminians a number of articles by Randal Rauser. What does it tell you about SEA priorities that it's plugging a guy as far left on the theological spectrum as Rauser? Do Arminians hate Calvinism more than they love Scripture?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not all of us.
ReplyDeleteThat restores my flagging faith in humanity.
ReplyDeleteSince when does a Calvinist have any "faith in humanity?" *smile*
ReplyDeleteNick,
ReplyDeleteAre you implying you agree with Hays' implicit criticism? I'm honestly wondering, not assuming you do. Do you think it is wrong to have articles by scholars with whom our society disagrees on various points, and are significantly more liberal theologically than us, when those articles set forth something we think of value on a particular topic? We have some articles by Calvinists on our site as well.
"Do you think it is wrong to have articles by scholars with whom our society disagrees on various points, and are significantly more liberal theologically than us, when those articles set forth something we think of value on a particular topic?"
ReplyDeleteI'd say Rauser's material on the sidebar of the Society of Evangelical Arminians isn't merely disagreeable but perfidious.
neurotransmitter,
ReplyDeleteI believe Triablogue sometimes posts articles by non-Christians via link like the Rauser ones are. Is that perfidious as well?
BTW, I believe I submitted those Rauser articles and really don't know that much about him. He's supposed to be a Christian. And what he said in those articles was good.
You know I hate liberal theology, Steve , (I think you know) but how does the source of an argument that one considers sound determine whether it is worth considering or not? Aren't you kind of genetic fallacy-ing it up here a bit?
ReplyDeleteArminian said:
ReplyDelete"I believe Triablogue sometimes posts articles by non-Christians via link like the Rauser ones are. Is that perfidious as well?"
With all due respect, I think you're missing the point. The problem isn't whether it's acceptable to support a non-Christian. I fully grant non-Christians can have sage words to contribute. So that's not the issue.
The problem is Rauser claims he's a Christian but what he writes actually undermines Christianity. And, yes, I'd reiterate that includes Rauser's articles which you link to over on the sidebar of your website. Why support someone who is undermining Christianity?
Triablogue may post links by non-Christians but I've personally never seen Triablogue post links or articles or the like which undermine Christianity (unless it's to interact with satirically).
By the way, I'm not necessarily saying any of this to fault you. Perhaps like you've said you're not familiar with Rauser. If that's the case, then it's understandable.
Nevertheless the fact remains Rauser is a wolf in sheep's clothing. I don't personally like to put it so starkly. I don't personally like to make such blunt accusations in public. But I don't know how else to warn genuine Christians about Rauser.
Obviously Rauser doesn't think of himself this way. I'm sure Rauser believes he's a fine, upstanding Christian.
Of course, I haven't given my reasons for why I think this about Rauser. But the Triabloggers (among others) have dealt with Rauser in the past. If you peruse Triablogue's archives, then you can find supporting material for my claim that he's undermining Biblical Christianity. Perhaps you could start by Googling "site:triablogue.blogspot.com rauser" or something similar.
Or if you don't prefer Triablogue, you could Google for other Christian websites which interact with Rauser. There are even non-Calvinistic or non-Reformed Christians who have raised the red flag with regard to him. So it's not limited to Calvinists or Arminians taking issue with him. Rather I think all evangelical, Bible-believing Christians would have significant problems with Rauser (e.g. he subverts Biblical inerrancy).
If I had the time, I could go through those articles by Rauser on your website and point out places where I think his words undermine Biblical Christianity. Unfortunately I'm quite busy with school. Maybe in the future.
ReplyDeleteBut as I've mentioned others have dealt with Rauser on related topics so you can see what's wrong with him by reading their material.
Besides what others like Steve Hays and Paul Manata have written on Triablogue as well as other writers elsewhere online is infinitely better than what I could ever hope to do in pointing out what's wrong with Rauser.
BOSSMANHAM SAID:
ReplyDelete“You know I hate liberal theology, Steve , (I think you know) but how does the source of an argument that one considers sound determine whether it is worth considering or not? Aren't you kind of genetic fallacy-ing it up here a bit?”
i) I didn’t cite his liberalism to discredit Rauser’s arguments (such as they are). Rather, I cited his liberalism to question the priorities of SEA.
ii) There are times when citing the genetic fallacy exposes the intellectual laziness of those who commit the fallacy. However, there are also times when facile invocation of the genetic fallacy exposes the intellectual laziness of the critic who cites it. The classification of something as an informal fallacy sometimes oversimplifies complex issue.
For instance, there are times when the horoscope is accidentally right. When, by pure coincidence, it accurately predicts the future.
But if you had a friend who used the horoscope to make decisions, and you pointed out that this is a highly unreliable source of guidance, would it suffice for him to accuse you of committing the genetic fallacy? No, because that’s a case where the quality of the source is relevant.
That doesn’t mean the source is wrong. But there’s a presumption against it. Is it a genetic fallacy to say consulting the horoscope is not a trustworthy method of planning for the future? If so, then so much the worse for the genetic fallacy.
iii) Rauser’s liberalism isn’t merely incidental to his rejection of Calvinism. He also rejects eternal punishment. He also rejects OT ethics.
And there’s a common thread. It all goes back to his unquestioned moral intuition.
Arminian said...
ReplyDelete"BTW, I believe I submitted those Rauser articles and really don't know that much about him."
"Arminian" never disappoints our low expectations.
"He's supposed to be a Christian."
Yeah. So is his pal Thom Stark.
Nice to see "Arminian" illustrate his theological discernment (or lack thereof).
Arminian: I was answering the last question of Steve's post; nothing more, nothing less.
ReplyDeleteArminian said:
ReplyDelete"BTW, I believe I submitted those Rauser articles and really don't know that much about him. He's supposed to be a Christian. And what he said in those articles was good."
Of course, now that you're aware of Rauser's infidelity to the Bible and Biblical Christianity, or at least aware there are many respected evangelicals who have seriously called Rauser's Christianity into question, you'd be remiss not to check further into it. At this point there's no excuse not to look into Rauser and learn more about him. No excuse to remain blissfully ignorant and say stuff like "[I] really don't know that much about him" as one rationale for why you've posted links to those articles on your website.
And if you find what's said about Rauser is true, then it'd be lamentable (at best) if you didn't remove those articles from your website.