Randal Rauser is on a tirade about my allegation that he's on a tirade.
But then when I make an argument against Calvinism which is considered too extreme (e.g. my recent argument unpacking its pastoral consequences) I am dismissed like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
I didn't say his argument was too extreme. Rather, I said his argument is a lousy argument.
This despite the fact that no rebuttal to the argument is offered. What explains the attitude?
I've presented detailed rebuttals to Rauser's argument.
I am in the midst of developing a critique of Calvinism which parallels in certain respects Tinder’s critique of secular accounts of morality. It parallels them in the sense that Calvinism, so I will argue, cannot ground an adequate concept of love of one’s neighbor in a way analogous to the failure of secular atheism to ground morality.
That’s really important to remember in the present case. The point of the argument I’m developing is not that Calvinists don’t love their neighbor. Rather, the argument is that Calvinism provides an inadequate ground for love of neighbor. Indeed, if the implications of the theology are consistently applied then it undermines love of neighbor.
I think Rauser's annihilationism cannot ground an adequate concept of loving one's neighbor. Would you go around zapping your neighbors into oblivion? Is zapping your neighbor a loving thing to do? I doubt your neighbor would appreciate your creative interpretation of neighborliness.
Seems more like what an angry, psychopathic teenager would do if you handed him a phaser. He'd take his phaser to school and zap every student or teacher in sight. Poof! Can't you just feel the love?
Rauser believes that God gives many men and women a tantalizing taste of this life, only to snatch it away from them. Is that loving?