Arminian theologian Randal Rauser likes to pose trick questions as a wedge tactic:
i) He rigs the debate by stipulating a false dichotomy, then requires the respondent to pick one horn of the dilemma. But in this illustration, it's not a choice between a Muslim who happens to do the right thing in contrast to a Christian who fails to do the right thing or does the wrong thing. For in this illustration, the SDA pastor wasn't a Christian in the first place. He was a nominal Christian whose fundamental loyalty was to his ethnic group rather than God. His ethnic identity was his core identity rather than his religious identity.
You can't split Christian identity into faith and works, where some have faith without works while others have works without faith. Both faith and works are the outworking of grace. No faith without grace or works without grace.
ii) To say that faith in Jesus is normally a prerequisite for salvation is standard Bible teaching. But Rauser doesn't care about that. He brazenly embraces salvation by works alone.
iii) From a Reformed standpoint, the Muslim who did the right thing exemplifies common grace. He did the right thing despite his Muslim faith. His virtue on this occasion isn't something inherent in himself, but a residual virtue that God preserved.
iv) Finally, Rauser's comparison is self-defeating. What does it mean to act like Jesus during the Rwandan genocide? How did Jesus act during the Rwandan genocide? What did he do to prevent it? Nothing. What did he do to stop it once it was underway? Nothing.
If we're supposed to follow his example, then his example is nonintervention. Do nothing to prevent the genocide–or, if you couldn't see it coming, do nothing to stop genocide in progress.
Rauser acts as though Jesus was a moralistic guru like Buddha. An inspirational figure from the past. Because he's dead, he can't do anything to help.
But according to orthodox Christology, Jesus is God Incarnate. He didn't intervene in the Rwandan genocide, not because he was unable to do so, but because he was unwilling to do so.
If that's the standard of comparison, then inaction is how to act like Jesus in that situation. Watch it unfold while you do nothing.
I'm not saying Christians never have a duty to get involved. I'm just responding to Rauser's blinkered comparison on his own grounds. His argument backfires.
Rauser starts his thought experiment in 1994. Suppose, instead, we start in the year 1.994 gazillion. Suppose the consummation of all things has happened. Suppose believers live in the new heaven and earth, while unbelievers live in hell. However, suppose hell isn't fire and brimstone. Rather, suppose hell is no different than life as they knew it in their time on earth...with a single difference - their world is now entirely devoid of God. In that case, will the person who died outside God and who now lives forever separate from God still behave morally?
ReplyDelete