Calvinism, Arminianism, Southern Baptist Traditionalism, and Accusations of Theological Dishonesty

Below is a parable that was written in response to the post and subsequent comment thread that are found here:

https://soteriology101.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/calvinist-slight-of-hand-a-brief-arminian-interaction-with-wayne-grudems-arguments-against-the-compatibility-of-foreknowledge-and-conditional-election

That post was re-blogged from here:

https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2017/06/07/calvinist-sleight-of-hand-a-brief-arminian-interaction-with-wayne-grudems-arguments-against-the-compatibility-of-foreknowledge-and-conditional-election

As a side note: For some reason, the person who moderates the Arminian Perspectives site finds my comments unworthy of approving for publication, and has a long history of either denying my comments outright once the substantive points are on the table, or editing out the most important parts before publishing.

Those two posts raise some interesting issues that are worthy of discussion. However, we should take a far greater interest in the not-so-subtle accusations of theological dishonesty found in the posts, and then stated even more strongly in the comment threads. The reason for this should be obvious: any Christian who publicly accuses a fellow believer (or, in this case, an entire group of fellow believers) of a pattern of dishonesty may face dire spiritual consequences in the event that it was his own misunderstanding or confusion (and not a fellow believer's dishonesty) that led him to a false conclusion.

Scripture is clear on both sides of this point:

I Pet. 2:1 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.
The person who accuses a brother of one of these evils (deceit) may in face be guilty of another (slander). Other Scriptures also apply:

James 4:11 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.

Gal. 5:15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

II Cor. 12:20 For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish—that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.

I attempted to post the parable below as a response at the Soteriology101 site and was not successful, most likely due to the length of the material. So, the comment I would have posted there is placed here for your consideration:

Friends, here is a little parable for your consideration, which may illustrate well the dynamic that is occurring on this comment thread (and many, many others across the internet, unfortunately).

Cal Venice and Amond Ian are little kids discussing their respective homes. Let's listen in . . .

Armond: I love my house, it is so great! It has a really solid foundation. You should come over and visit sometime. 
Cal: Cool. Sounds like fun! You might want to visit my house sometime, too. It is very unique and interesting.
Armond: What's so great about your house? Someone told me it isn't even a "real" house and has no foundation. Is that true??? Tell me about the foundation.
Cal: Well, that is partially true. My house does not have the kind of foundation you are used to seeing on a house, it's actually a---
Armond: Is it a foundation made of cement, and planted firmly into the ground, like my house's foundation?
Cal: No, it's not like that at all. It's actually--
Armond: Really? Is it even a house then?
Cal: Well, yes, it is actually a house, but it is much more than just a house. It's a hou--
Armond: That is the strangest thing I have ever heard. If it doesn't have a foundation, it can't be a house at all, right? LOL. 
Cal: If you say so. But my house has four bedrooms, one and a half baths, a living room, dining room, kitchen, family room, quality metal roof, plenty of windows, and lots of awesome closets. It is two stories tall and filled with all of the usual household furniture, like beds and couches and stuff. It has a great HVAC system, plumbing, electricity, and all of that. You'll be surprised when I tell you what kind of house it is.
Armond: You keep calling it a "house" when it obviously isn't one, since it clearly has no foundation. However, other than the odd lack of a foundation, that sounds just like my house! But how can a house not have a foundation? Are you trying to trick me? I'm getting very suspicious.
Cal: No, I assure you I am being completely honest with you. Let me explain further. Unlike your house, which sits permanently on one spot, my house was designed with flexibility in mind. It is able to move around and goes places where a house like yours could never even be built. It's called a--
Armond: Oh, I get it now, your house is nothing more than a two-story trailer!!!!!!! Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
Cal: Because it's not a trailer. It's-- 
Armond: Okay, let's stop playing games and just be upfront and honest about our houses. A house without a regular foundation that moves around to different places is just a trailer. Someone told me your family has been dishonestly acting like you don't live in a trailer for years. But everyone knows your family is a bunch of pretenders who can't admit that they live in a trailer. I even heard a famous architect, Willie Lame Cage, say people who live in trailers don't like to admit it. He's the smartest guy in the world, almost as smart as my dad, James. Or is it Jacob? I can't remember. In any case, you and your family are clearly disingenuous trailer dwellers. Let's fight now!
Cal: Okay, but before we start punching each other, I would like to ask you another question: out of curiosity, have you ever heard of a house boat? 
Armond: A house boat? LOL, what a stupid idea! A "house boat," if such a thing even exists, would be nothing more than a boat! I heard that somewhere, and my teacher, Lee Tin-Flowers, also read it on a website. He says a "house-boat" is just a boat--as much a "boat" as any other kind of boat! Boats are boats, and can't be houses, so there! If you say you live on a boat, then you can't possibly live in a house, and if you say you live in a house, you can't possibly live on a boat. Why aren't you getting this? I knew you were a liar from the moment I first saw you! After I get done beating you up, I'm going to start a podcast and a blog to tell the world how messed up you are. You and your family are clearly disingenuous trailer dwellers who pretend to be house-boaters!

[After this, there is a very long pause, during which Cal ponders whether he should try to explain the compatibility of "house" and "boat." They look at one another suspiciously, considering whether they should start throwing punches, then back away slowly. At last, both boys go home for dinner and then listen to some of their favorite podcasts.]

Lee Tin-Flowers: Am I wrong for questioning what the "house-boaters" say? Am I wrong for saying I see it another way? Here on the podcast, I always like to point out how I once had a part time job as a speed boat driver. I quit that job because I never could understand how boats can be houses. No one in their right mind would try to live on a speed boat, right? I try to tell these so-called "house-boat" people that they actually just live on a boat and can't possibly live in a house, and they never seem to be able to admit it, even though I quote their own favorite website, house-boats-r-us dot com, which clearly states: "A house boat is no less a boat than any other boat." So, as you can see, no matter how many times they try to tell you they live in a house, or a "house-boat" (whatever that is), they just refuse to admit they are actually nothing more than casual boat people without real houses. They also contradict themselves constantly, trying to say they actually do live in houses, which is obviously not true since houses have foundations, and they admit their so-called houses don't have foundations, which means they must actually live in trailers. None of this ever made any sense to me when I was a speed boat driver. It is all just casual boater double speak, as I explain on my website, HouseFoundations101. Go there to read the five best reasons why house-boats don't exist, and why I quit my job as a speed boat driver. Here is a quote from A.W. Tow-boat that proves my point . . .
Armond: Aha! I just knew Cal Venice was a liar, and this confirms it! I'm going to go around telling everyone how he lies! Liar, Liar Liar!!!!!

[Meanwhile, Cal Venice reads a few good books on architecture, engineering and boating, then goes to volunteer at an agency that builds houses for the homeless. Later, he goes to the mission field and gives his life for the cause.]

[Armond and his friend, Trey DeShaun Alice, more firmly convinced than ever of their views on the utter incompatibility of houses and boats, continue to slander Cal and his friends as dishonest liars. They later find themselves standing before a rather concerned Judge who solemnly calls them to account for every word they have ever spoken or written.] 

THE END.  

Hopefully the tie-ins with determinism, compatibilism, freedom of will, divine sovereignty and human responsibility are clear to all readers.

While we are on the topic of house boats and conversations that miss the point, you might enjoy this video on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/pXUcmVibTUI

One of my favorites.

May you know the blessings of godly fellowship with grace, mercy, and peace in Christ, dear friends!

A Discussion of the Ordo Salutis

In case anyone is interested, I am having an interesting conversation with some Arminian brothers here:

http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/interesting-comments-from-john-macarthur-on-the-nature-of-preveninet-grace-the-ordo-salutis/

Pretty interesting stuff.

Here is my attempt to describe a Biblical Ordo Salutis:

http://theoparadox.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-biblical-ordo-salutis-for-biblical.html

A Response to Leighton Flowers: What is the "Dead" State of Fallen Man?

Perhaps, dear reader, you are aware of the criticisms of Calvinism recently put forth by Leighton Flowers, a Southern Baptist preacher, professor and Youth Evangelism Director for the Texas Baptists. Flowers is a prolific podcaster and blogger who presents a distinctively Baptist approach to non-Calvinism. I have listened to nearly every podcast he has released, and have briefly interacted with him on the "About" page of his blog site, Soteriology101.com. In what would seem to be an amazingly courageous move, Flowers has also debated the formidable High Calvinist heavyweight, James White. Unfortunately, this was an epic exercise in missing the point, and I found both of their debate presentations and post-debate follow up responses equally disappointing.

This photo was Leighton's humorous take on
his recent debate with James WhiteSee the debate here: https://youtu.be/lzoZjSTysIs

A BRIEF CRITIQUE

There are a lot of good things to say about Leighton Flowers, so let's start there:

• He is respectful in his manner of dialogue with opponents
• He conducts himself with humility
• He generally speaks positively of Calvinists and accepts them as brothers
• He articulates a clear theology of salvation from a "traditionalist" (i.e., non-Calvinistic) Baptist perspective
• He serves as a ministry leader, and is not just a "talking head" with opinions
• He has a sense of humor (a characteristic that is woefully lacking in so many Calvinist/Arminian dialogues on the internet)

There are some notes of concern as well, and at least one of them is genuinely alarming:

• He doesn't always have his facts straight (as an example, in one of his podcasts he mentions D.A. Carson as an example of a non-Calvinist scholar - Huh???)
• He frequently overstates the persuading power of his views, which have not actually proven persuasive to thoughtful, Biblically grounded Calvinists
• He often presses illustrations to logical extremes that amount to "straw man" arguments
• He sometimes ignores critical distinctions that are consistently drawn by mainstream Calvinists
• In contradiction to his typically respectful comments about Calvinists, he has actually said more than once that he believes this passage might refer to them:
• And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

We can only assume that Flowers has not thought through the implications of that last point, which are quite inflammatory. Viewed charitably, the statement is a bit out of character, though nonetheless troubling. All in all, Leighton is far friendlier toward Calvinists than many others who engage in this type of debate.

A SIMPLE REFUTATION: IS FALLEN HUMANITY TRULY "DEAD" TOWARD GOD?

Let's take a brief look at an issue Leighton Flowers has often mentioned in his polemic against Calvinism. According to Flowers, Calvinists routinely compare man's "dead" state to that of Lazarus in the tomb, while he prefers to relate it to the state of the prodigal son in Luke 15. The prodigal son was only figuratively dead, right? He still had the natural ability to return to his father, right? So, perhaps fallen man is just "mostly dead":



Leighton's view ignores both the context and the content of Ephesians 2:1-3, which states:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

Agreeing with Leighton, the clear implication of this text is not that fallen man is incapable of doing anything. However, it is actually much worse than that. According to this text, fallen man is incapable of doing anything that is not sinful. Humanity's "dead" acts are trespasses against God's law and are worldly, demonic, disobedient, fleshly and lust-driven. Believing in Christ for salvation does not seem to fit with this set of "dead" capabilities that remain in fallen human beings.

Much more telling, and far more detrimental to Leighton's position, is the obvious context of Ephesians 2. See Ephesians 1:19-20, which comes just a few verses prior:

... and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places ...

Without question, the flow of the text shows us that Paul is linking the believers' dead state prior to salvation with Jesus' dead state prior to his resurrection. Was Jesus "mostly dead" in the tomb, or was He "all the way dead"? Does Jesus' death and burial more closely resemble that of Lazarus, or that of the prodigal son?

This context-based exegesis stands like a sumo wrestler in opposition to a weak speculation that draws all of its force from the misapplication of an unrelated passage.

Reminding us of the three most important rules for proper Biblical interpretation: context, context, and context.

The whole Bible, taken in context, will always lead us inexorably to something along the lines of Calvinism. An army of critics will never change this, though they may push back with all their might.

Both Determined and Free? A Conversation with Dr. Roger Olson

Recently I have been enjoying some conversation with Roger Olson, the "irenic Arminian" theologian and scholar, at his blog. I always find conversation with Dr. Olson to be interesting and informative. He is one of my favorite non-Calvinist discussion partners, although we disagree rather thoroughly in many areas. 

We have recently engaged profitably in discussion in the comment box at this post on Dr. Olson's blog:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/11/the-ultimate-horror-story-reflections-on-stephen-kings-new-novel-revival-spoiler-alert/

Today, Dr. Olson has responded to me directly with this blog post:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/12/can-a-single-act-be-both-determined-and-free/

I have posted my reply, as follows:

Dr. Olson, 

Thank you for giving attention to this important issue, which seems to be a key point of disagreement between Calvinistic and Arminian/non-Calvinistic thought.
Like most other Calvinists, I would point to multiple "fine distinctions" in order to sustain the appeal to compatibilism.

I would begin by defining compatibilism a little differently, as the basic belief that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. The theory that "freedom" is being free to do as one chooses despite having no ability to do otherwise is just one form of compatibilism among many interesting options. Personally, I do not prefer that approach, and only oppose "Libertarian Free Will" or "power of contrary choice" to the extent that they, by definition, rule out compatibilism (in the broad sense). I agree with your contention that "free will" is mysterious, that it is "situated" within a context of limitations, that it is fully realized only by Christian conversion, and I believe that it is much more "genuine" than most of today's Calvinists will admit. Augustine was not afraid to use the term, and even Calvin hinted at a broader freedom of choice. There was a stream of historic Reformed thought along this line (Jeongmo Yoo has an interesting book on this topic).

Next, I would appeal to a distinction between "natural ability" and "moral ability" in saying that we are naturally capable of choosing other than we do, even if not morally capable (thus, in some sense we have the power of contrary choice). I have the natural ability to give away my possessions or to steal, but I might only have the moral ability to do one of them in a given set of circumstances. I don't have the natural or moral ability to choose to jump to the moon (although I do have the ability to attempt to jump to the moon). Moral ability is limited, not necessarily by God's decree, but by our own will (or moral character). In essence, ironically, the very will to choose is what limits the range of choices!

Finally, I would appeal to a distinction within God's secret decree between the foreordination of good and the foreordination of evil. Good arises always with God's direct action and involvement, by grace, and not from the creature alone. Evil arises only with God's inaction, from the creature's own moral nature, as God permits the creature to act on its own independent will. In other words, He ordains to allow evil to occur apart from His own direct action, by permission only (yet with complete foreknowledge and a design to permit--and then remedy--all of the evil that occurs). Thus, nothing happens because it is merely pre-determined. Good happens by God's predestination, providence and promise, while evil happens by His permitted purpose (with both good and evil being thus pre-determined in some sense, and worked into His overarching plan). As you know, the origin of the first evil remains mysterious on these grounds; however, we would categorically deny any possibility or implication that evil arose from God Himself (perish the thought).

This is, of course, a very abbreviated form of a more complex argument (actually an entire philosophical construct) that is employed by Augustinian thinkers to explain how God could foreordain (or decree, pre-determine/pre-program, etc.) all things without ever touching, committing, positively willing or becoming culpable for moral evil. There are plenty of Calvinists, Lutherans, and other Augustinians, who can expound these topics much better than I.

As a concluding note, I want to make it clear that I am not attempting to refute what you have written or formally debate the issue (doubtless you would outmaneuver me!). We are laying out two very different and incompatible philosophical approaches that are employed to make our theologies tenable in our own minds. As a part of my ongoing education and understanding of the Arminian viewpoint, I very much appreciate your time and care in stating your position clearly, and in treating the other position charitably. Great stuff!

Blessings in Christ,
Derek

PUPPETS: Another Epic Calvinist-Arminian "Debate"

Having a little "chat" with some Arminian brothers over here:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/muppet-calvinism

I do not know how I get myself into these tangles. Well, maybe I do know how, and should instead wonder "why?" Admittedly, it was hard to resist commenting on the graphic that was posted as a discussion starter:

Lovely Caricature, eh?

Whatever the case, the discussion may be helpful for those who want to understand how the Bible affirms human freedom in compatibility with a robust, meticulous and exhaustive divine sovereignty. The question on the table is: "Does Calvinistic theology make man into a mere puppet?"

A proper understanding of Calvinistic theology (the non-hyper variety), divine sovereignty, human responsibility and Biblical compatibilism (which is not necessarily equivalent to the many forms of philosophical compatibilism) will lead to a decisive "NO" on this question. However, some who argue against Calvinism delight in throwing up the old canard of "Your theology makes us into puppets!"

I would like to take a moment to roundly scold those vocal Calvinist apologists who haven't sufficiently nuanced their compatibilism, and would seem to lend support to the charge. While I am at it, I'll also scold those Arminians who know what Calvinistic theology teaches and refuse to admit that their puppet analogy is a ridiculous caricature.

Then again, who in this world even cares if some obscure Calvinist scolds them?

II Samuel 7:18 Then King David went in and sat before the LORD and said, “Who am I, O Lord GOD, and what is my house, that you have brought me thus far?

The End of a Long and Interesting Debate

For several weeks now, I have been engaged in discussion with a non-Calvinist brother named Matt. Matt has taken a position of incompatibilism, stating that God cannot both sovereignly foreordain all things and simultaneously permit evil to occur through the exercise of genuine freedom on the part of the creature. He believes Calvinism makes God the "author of evil" and leaves man without moral freedom or responsibility. As one might expect, I argue that this understanding is incorrect.

Thus far, there have been 26 separate volleys in this informal debate, which originally took place in the comments at this post: http://atheologyintension.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/2376/

Matt has also taken the time to post each comment as a separate blog post on his site.

Below is my final summary response. I would imagine Matt will reply to this, and that his response will be the end of our discussion (for now, at least). Here is my closing argument:

Matt, 

Thank you for taking time to reply and for all of the work you have undertaken in reorganizing our comments into individual posts. 

I will make a few final comments here, and then leave off. This has been a most interesting exchange, and I am grateful for the time and thoughtful attention you have given to it. 

You can imagine my disappointment in finding your last two posts fraught with the same mischaracterizations of Calvinism that prompted me to write to you in the first place. Here on posts numbers 24 and 25, you demonstrate a total misunderstanding of key Calvinist convictions, proving to me that I have utterly failed to dislodge these misapprehensions from your mind. Throughout our discussion, and especially in these latest posts, you present Calvinism in an utterly inaccurate way, and as a theological position which would actually be blasphemous, heretical, destructive, and entirely inconsistent with Scripture, if the position was actually held by anyone. I cannot think of any mainstream Calvinist who has ever held to the kind of belief you define as Calvinism. Even many hyper Calvinists would cringe at some of the propositions you tell us Calvinists must affirm. 

As such, I find your sudden shift to a demand for “argumentation,” rather than “assertion,” to be curious. Your persistently repeated misstatements about the beliefs of Calvinists have prompted me to attempt to clarify what Calvinists actually believe versus what you claim they believe. This is, of course, not a matter of mere logical proof, but of historical analysis. I chose not to inundate you with endless quotations proving that real Calvinists don’t actually believe what you say they believe. A visit to calvinandcalvinism.com will provide veritable mountains of proof. Therefore, beyond the following quotation, I will simply suggest you study the actual beliefs of dozens of historic Calvinist leaders, from the Reformation onward, which have been carefully documented at that site. Best of all, everything there is surrounded by extensive context in order to lessen the possibility of misinterpretation. 

Here is what the Westminster Confession explicitly states concerning God’s sovereign foreordination and the origin of evil: 

“The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (WCF 5.4) 

This is what Calvinists actually believe. The Calvin and Calvinism site referenced above will show you various ways Reformed thinkers have logically reasoned through the implications. You may say that this is self-contradictory and impossible. To you, perhaps it is. To them, and to me, it is not. 

Note that the WCF does not deny permission of sin, but affirms it, insisting that the permission is not without God’s bounding, ordering and governing of the sins that are permitted. You have stated that the language of permission is an Arminian approach. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don’t think the WCF is an Arminian creed. Can you now see, from the WCF, that the language of permission is actually, historically speaking, a stock Calvinist answer to the question, and that this is exactly opposite to the beliefs you presented as “Calvinism”? Frankly, if Calvinism was what you claim it is, I would join you in staunchly opposing it. I would actually go further and condemn its adherents as anti-Christian heretics. Fortunately, Calvinism takes a position exactly opposite to the one you say it affirms regarding the goodness of God and the origin of evil. 

Throughout our discussion, I have argued from numerous Biblical texts that the Calvinist’s position is both reasonable and logical. You do not accept my arguments, and that is okay with me. But it would be dishonest for you to claim I haven’t presented arguments for my position. 

You have asserted that Scripture itself is not sufficient to decide the question under consideration, and have demanded logical proof and argumentation, insisting that these are sufficient to determine the question. In my view, you have elevated human reason above Scripture by discounting the possibility that direct Biblical propositions can settle the question, and implying instead that the reasonings of your own mind can settle it. My position on this is reciprocal to yours. I hold that clear Biblical propositions DO undeniably settle the matter, whether or not the reasonings of my mind (or yours) can attain to the divine logic undergirding the divinely revealed answer. In other words, my core epistemological presupposition is that Scripture itself is more reliable and trustworthy than fallible human logic. I am honestly surprised that you disagree on this point (although it is possible that I have misunderstood your position on this). 

Matt, it is unfortunate that you misrepresent my views on logic and paradox in a way strikingly similar to the way you misrepresent Calvinism. The reason may be that I have not explained well enough, or that you have honestly misunderstood, and hope it boils down to one these (or a combination of both). Here again, I can only seek to clarify my position and argue from Scripture. 

I can certainly appreciate the logic of your arguments and illustrations regarding things like “married bachelors,” etc. My answer to all of this is simple: matters of divine ordination and human freedom cannot be oversimplified in this way. Sure, there are plenty of either/or dichotomies in our world. Married or not married. Pregnant or not pregnant. Speeding or not speeding. Everyone understand this. However, the existence of either/or dichotomies does not invalidate the possibility of both/and synergies (which are sometimes presented as false dichotomies). What about this one: square or circle? In two dimensions, this really is an either/or dichotomy. But in three dimensions, we have the cylinder, a “square circle.” We also have square triangles (pyramids) and circular triangles (cones). So . . . what if we human beings could only conceive of two dimensions, and an all-knowing God who sees three dimensions told us something is both square and circle? Would we argue with Him, and say that His claim is illogical? Or would we trust that on His level of understanding it is possible for a cylinder to exist? Stated simply, I view divine ordination and human freedom not as a married vs. bachelor issue, but as a square vs. circle issue. We see squares and circles where God sees cylinders. And again I ask, what prevents God from being able to do things like this? Is He not on a higher level than we are? Is He not wiser? Smarter? More knowledgeable? More capable? 

You may think all of this is illogical. You are free to think so. However, I just laid out a sound logical reason for you to affirm and trust God’s harmonious use of both foreordination and genuine human freedom. This is not all as simple as 2+2=4. We are dealing with infinities here. In human experience, we don’t have anything exactly like eternal, divine “ordination” to compare with or argue from. To fully understand exactly how all of this works, we would have to be eternal, divine, all-wise, all-good and all-powerful. I’m just guessing that those shoes don’t fit either one of us, Matt. 

Finally, I want to thank you once again for a challenging and enjoyable conversation. I pray you will be mightily used by God in the work He has given you to do, that you will continue to grow in your love for Christ and your knowledge of Him, and that your entire life will be blessed and prospered in Him. I also hope that a large cylinder shape is ordained to be set up somewhere in the New Creation, and that we may freely decide to meet under its shadow for a continuation of this discussion, with a fresh insight and understanding that magnificently humbles us both through a recognition of how little we actually apprehended when we engaged in this discussion. And there we shall worship the Lamb together! 

Until then, many blessings, brother. 

In Christ,
Derek Ashton

Where in the World is Paul Manata?

Paul Manata's "Aporetic Christianity" blog mysteriously disappeared awhile back, and I wasn't able to find him for a few months. But now, at last, I've tracked him down! He has been posting HERE since April.

I'm thankful for the work of Reformed philosophers like James Anderson and Paul Manata. Any Christian who is interested in logic and philosophy will find the work of these men to be an invaluable resource.


The video below is an old debate between Manata and atheist Dan Barker. It's both informative and fun to listen to.