Try a Blog (But Don't Try Triablogue)

NOTE: There is an important update to this post at http://theoparadox.blogspot.com/2013/05/trying-tiablogue.html

I share the following with a great deal of disappointment, both in myself and in the others involved.

For some time, I have looked up to Steve Hays at Triablogue, and I've also made no secret of my admiration for Paul Manata. Unfortunately, I must now disavow any recommendation of these men and their work.
    

Why? I wish I didn't have to say any of this. But I do.
     

For several weeks, Hays and Manata have been posting vociferously against some arguments David Ponter has presented regarding certain distinctives of Moderate Calvinism. This week I got into a related discussion with both Hays and Manata in the Triablogue comment box. The discussion went downhill and quickly turned into a mud slinging contest, with uncharitable personal attacks being launched from both sides. Hays then wrote a blog post about me, citing out-of-context phrases taken from comments I posted, interspersed with his cutting remarks. Hays harshly attacked my character, calling me a "yes-man" and a "cheerleader" for Ponter. Mind you, Hays has never met me, and has rarely interacted with me online. So I'm not sure how he justifies making those pronouncements.
    

After considering the whole situation, I concluded that one of Hays' criticisms was correct. I had engaged in ad hominem attacks, particularly with regard to certain remarks I had made about him. I also realized I had not conducted myself with appropriate respect or humility in our previous exchanges. I had become sarcastic and was starting to take things too personally. The ad hominem attacks from both sides were escalating, and we were violating clear Biblical standards. Proverbs 15:1 came to mind with great force and began to batter my conscience. Also, Colossians 4:6. What could I do? 
   

   
I decided it best to take responsibility for my actions and try to restore good relations with these Christian brothers. I wrote a detailed confession, asked their forgiveness, and requested further input from them if they felt there were other offenses that needed to be addressed. I also asked Hays to back up what he had asserted about me (my full responses are quoted at the end of this post).
 
The only response was from Hays: "Thanks, Derek."
 
No admission of wrong from his side. No affirmation of forgiveness and no request for forgiveness. No attempt at reconciliation. Worst of all, perhaps: no acknowledgement of the falsehoods that were brought to his attention.

   
The falsehoods were the reason I engaged in dialogue with Hays in the first place. He has labeled his posts about Moderate Calvinism with the misleading tag, "Anti-Calvinism." Take a moment to think about the significance of that. In Hays' estimation, moderate Calvinism equals ANTI-CALVINISM. The label is pure slander. Hays continues to do this despite the fact that he has repeatedly been shown conclusive proof that moderate Calvinism is a historically valid stream of Reformed Theology and is not in any sense "Anti-Calvinism." Norman Geisler and Randal Rauser are Anti-Calvinism. Classic/Historic/Moderate Calvinists like David Ponter are not. I find Hays' ignorance about these matters disturbing, and his stubbornness when corrected alarming. In my mind, his ongoing refusal to accept the facts and correct his own thinking disqualifies Hays from acting as a Christian apologist or a representative of mainstream Reformed thought. He has shown a persistent unwillingness to tell the truth about his opponents. He has smeared them with false charges and misrepresented their arguments. And he has not been willing to justify or recant slanderous remarks made about a brother.

    

In contrast, Ponter's response to Hays and Manata has been copiously fair and balanced. He has addressed the arguments presented rather than the individuals who presented them. His posts have lacked the insulting tone and deceptive selectivity of Hays' posts. Whether or not you agree with Ponter, his godly conduct in this debate has been unmistakable. This is a good example for me to learn from. This is admirable.

It is notable that Hays picked a fight with James White on the same day he attacked me. White perfectly described Hays' basic M.O. when he said:

"The ability to not only disregard the obvious meaning of my words, but to stretch to this incredible length, speaks so loudly to the length to which Mr. Hays is willing to go in the prosecution of his case against those he personally dislikes that I truly need to make no further comment. I simply ask the reader to compare what I wrote to his response, see how the substance of my reply was ignored, and that what he does say in response ignores my clear intent and purpose, and make your decision on the basis of the facts."

I have seen Hays consistently use these tactics with moderate Calvinists like David Ponter and Tony Byrne, and I have seen him use them against many others. Systematically and unrepentantly. This makes for a sad parody of Reformed Apologetics that can only serve to reinforce negative stereotypes. I stand with White in his conclusion:

"I pray the Lord's blessings on Steve, and on the whole Triablogue team. I simply pray he will recover his balance and seek fairness in his future efforts."

Until that happens, I recommend trying another blog. In the past I would have suggested Paul Manata's. But Manata has disgracefully stood with Hays on these matters and is now taking shots at other moderate Calvinists as well. So, for a more objective approach to Reformed Philosophy and Apologetics, I recommend these great sites:

    

Mike A. Robinson - God Does Exist: Applied Apologetics

James N. Anderson - Analogical Thoughts

    
I don't agree with these men on every point, and I don't imagine they agree with me on every point, but I have found I can count on them to be fair and respectful to their opponents. That adorns their arguments with grace and makes me much more willing to consider the merits.

   
Dear reader, those you admire will fail. Your friends will fail. I will fail and you will fail. But Christ will never fail. Keep your trust firmly set on Him, and you will not be shaken. Keep repenting, and you will not get far in your own selfish folly when it arises. Keep walking humbly with Him, and you will find rest for your soul. These are lessons I am learning . . . sometimes the hard way.

________________________________________________________________

 
My notes to Steve Hays and Paul Manata at Triablogue:
 

Steve and Paul,

This cut-and-paste job on my comments is a stacked deck. I could do the same using comments from you, but I'm not going to bother with it. I would simply invite readers to go back to the original comment threads and read my words in context along with the rest of the conversation. No defense, just a call for objectivity.

For my part, I admit I got too deep in this and resorted to some ad homs, and definitely employed some unnecessary sarcasm. In particular, my two "conclusions" about you, Steve, were offensive and uncalled for. I can see that my sinful pride fueled some of my words as our disagreement heated up. Please forgive me.

FWIW, the logic of my "formal argument" was intentionally ridiculous in order to make the point that one need not be a professional philosopher to realize calling moderate Calvinism "anti-Calvinism" is simply incorrect. Amazingly, you (Steve) continue to use and even defend this misleading label. I never considered that you would take my "argument" as a serious attempt at formal logic. So I guess I set myself up for your comeback.

That doesn't excuse the improper labeling of moderate Calvinism. On this point I will stand firm. It's a matter of Truth, and it is to your benefit to accept what I'm saying. Obviously, the choice is yours.

Now the three of us have had our little brouhaha and I hope we can all shake hands (metaphorically speaking) and take responsibility for what went wrong with the discussion.

BTW - I have always held that you are much better philosophers than I am. You'll get no arguments from me on that point. I hope you enjoy your abilities and use them for the glory of God, and speak Truth in love.

Blessings,
Derek (a.k.a. THEOparadox)

PS - nothing written above should be taken as sarcasm. These words are sincere and serious reflections on our recent experience of significant disagreement. If I have committed offenses that need to be addressed further, please give feedback and let's be sure we are fully reconciled as Christian brothers.
 

----

One other question: Other than agreeing with Ponter, was there something I did that led you to the conclusion that I am a "yes man"? I work very hard at thinking independently and speaking honestly to everyone in every circle I travel. I have lost jobs and strained friendships over this. No doubt I fall short sometimes, too. But this question is very, very important to me, so I would deeply appreciate any further thoughts on this point especially. Thanks.

PS - again I want to assure you there is no sarcasm here, and I am grateful for your willingness to bring to my attention the areas in which I have fallen short during our conversation.

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.

Three Good Reads in Reformed Theology

I've been enjoying these and finding them very beneficial.

#1 The first "good read" is this group of extended quotations from some leading theologians regarding the secret and revealed will of God. This is direct source material, so you can get it from the proverbial horse's mouth. I like this bit from Calvin:

"In fine, give up all fondness for your puerile dilemma, for the Scriptures assure me of the secret will of God; asserting what I have learned from them I do speak of an ascertained truth; but because I do not reach so great a height, I reverently adore with fear and trembling what is too sublime for the angels themselves. Often therefore in my writings I admonish my readers, that on this subject nothing is better than a learned ignorance; for those rave like madmen who arrogate to know more about it than is fit."

And this one from Jonathan Edwards caught my attention:

"... all that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, he either is willing they should be, or he is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them."

Apparently Edwards never met an open theist! God alone knows if Edwards will ever meet one in the future (think about it).

_____________________________________________________________

#2 A second "good read" is Paul Manata's Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology - A Contemporary Introduction. Lots of deep philosophical stuff here. Manata has a gift, and I am grateful that he uses it to advance good theology! He argues that Reformed Theology is, by definition, both deterministic and compatibilistic, and decidedly unaffirming of libertarian free will. It's all worth reading and considering, and well documented, too.

_____________________________________________________________

#3  The third "good read" is David Ponter's response to James Anderson's attempt to reconcile the Free Offer of the Gospel with a provisionally Limited Atonement using Newcomb's Paradox (see here and here). It's a deeply complicated argument, but worth thinking about. To me, this is a little bit like Gandalf vs. Saruman (I won't say which one is which). Although James Anderson is a personal hero for expounding so brilliantly on theological paradox, in this case I concur with Ponter (also a personal hero for expounding brilliantly on historic Moderate Calvinism) in his closing remarks:

"Anderson wants to argue that if a moderate Calvinist insists that limited atonement precludes a sincere offer, he must accept that election likewise precludes a sincere offer, for the same reasons. However, a proper rebuttal rejects the assumed univocal relationship between limited atonement and election in relation to the sincere offer, such that one can counter that limited atonement is incompatible with the free offer, while election is not. The only avenue Anderson can have, as I see it, is to attempt to claim that we should see election as equally incompatible with a sincere offer (given our assumptions?). But on what grounds could he suggest that? and does he really want to argue that in the first place? Perhaps Anderson might say both election and limited atonement bare a paradoxical relationship to the sincere offer. My reply would be limited atonement and the sincere free offer entail a contradiction (you cannot offer what you are not able to give), while election and the free offer entail a paradox (one offers, by revealed will, what one does not intend to give, by secret will). We would say we are warranted in rejecting the contradiction, while retaining the paradox. Anderson could only claim that one can indeed sincerely offer what one is not able to give."

The issues in these three "good reads" are tied together, and each of them has bearing on both hyper Calvinism and Arminianism (mind you, I'm not saying any of the people mentioned in this post are hyper Calvinists - far from it - only that the issues covered have direct bearing on refuting that error). To be balanced, I believe we must hold to the paradox of God's revealed and secret wills which are united perfectly in the glorious mystery of His eternal wisdom; we must hold to the paradox of compatibilism so that man is responsible for his actions under the total sovereignty of God; and we must hold to the Free Offer of the Gospel backed up by an infinitely powerful atonement, which, paradoxically, is not intended to save all people. Thank God it saves some!

Great Quote From D.A. Carson

You'll have to visit Paul Manata's "Aporetic Christianity" site to see it.

Here is the Link: http://aporeticchristianity.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/one-reason-aporetic-situations-arise/

I've listened to several of Carson's sermons in the past year. Although he is an A-level scholar, he has a gift for explaining complex concepts in the most understandable terms. He is gentle yet passionate, quietly provocative, Gospel-centered and deeply edifying in content. He reminds me of a Reformed Ravi Zacharias.

Carson also advocates theological paradox in the form of compatibilism.

In one sermon, I was delighted to hear him address the famous dilemma of the "immovable rock." You've heard it before:

Can an omnipotent God create a rock so heavy he is unable to move it? Say "no," and He must not be omnipotent. Say "yes," and it's the same result.

Carson wisely observed: this question doesn't point us to a limitation on the part of God; it points us to a limitation on the part of logic.

Brilliantly humble answer, that.

We might add: Since God IS omnipotent, He is not the least bit threatened by ridiculous questions!

We might further add that God can cause the rocks to cry out in praise, make them gush with fresh water and follow people around, and raise up sons for Abraham from them. Just look at what he's done with a handful of dirt.

Christianity is so ... Aporetic

Paul Manata has been posting some wonderful articles at a new blog called Aporetic Christianity. With a philosophical flourish, he lays out the basic values that drive THEOparadox: God's infinite greatness, man's fallenness and finitude - and the pure, holy bafflement which sometimes results when they meet. If I can find a picture of him somewhere, Manata will surely be wearing one of our famous t-shirts soon.

Check out his article about the meaning of "Aporetic" and you will quickly see why.

Paradox Under Fire ... and Impressively Defended

Paradox is under fire here:
http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/showing-van-til-the-door/

And it's impressively defended here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/04/showing-gerety-door.html

You'll find the same video of Mark Kielar making his case against theological paradox in both places. Many are lining up behind Kielar's illogic and affirming their disgust with divine mystery, even calling Van Til a heretic. Readers of this blog will instantly recognize the problems with the video. In the Triablogue post, you'll find Paul Manata capably dismantling the video's arguments and offering helpful correction.

Despite what some are implying, the debate over paradox is not equal to the Van Til vs. Clark controversy. Van Til vs. Clark was a Reformed Civil War, and in some ways it continues today. The real debate is between those who believe the human mind is capable of reconciling all that is presented in the Bible, and those who believe God has left some information unrevealed in order to humble our proud minds, test our faith and delight our hearts in accordance with His eternal purposes. Very few things are as engaging to the human mind as a difficult paradox. Van Til and Clark argued this in their own unique way, but theirs is not the definitive case. One may reject or greatly modify Van Til's thought and still embrace Biblical paradoxes. And one may strenuously oppose Clarkianism without becoming "irrational."



Ultimately, paradox is not to be our focus. Paradox is a means to an end. It serves as a tool to deepen our understanding of the Gospel. It is a philosophical instrument with practical uses: to make us more dependent on God, to make us less confident in ourselves, to make us more like Christ, to form His character in us, to aid us in explaining God's greatness to those who may wish to understand. It is strange that some who oppose our view rush quickly into accusations of irrationality, while ignoring the fact that we are only proposing a logical limitation of human understanding and a fitting exaltation of the sovereign transcendence of the Holy One. We are not in any way denying the rules of logic or the inherent rationality of God's mind as the origination of ALL TRUTH.

I left comments on both posts. Here is what I said on "God's Hammer" . . .

Sean,

Sadly, the alternative to embracing Biblical paradox is the proud exaltation of human reason above God’s infinite wisdom. All of us are better served by humbly bowing our hearts and logical explanations before the Almighty Father. If any person grasps the minutest grain of truth, it is of His pure mercy.

I do not know if Van Til was right or wrong, or to what extent. But I am certain that God’s ways transcend the finite logic of the best human minds.

Despite all the cheering going on here, Kielar’s video is fraught with problems. I commend James Anderson’s book, Paradox in Christian Theology, as an antidote. Also, you will find a wealth of quotations from men like Charles Spurgeon who loved the way God outwitted them and worshipped Him more as a result. They saw Him high and lifted up, and themselves mere worms.

When we come face to face with God, every one of us will realize that we have been outmaneuvered by a wisdom unlike anything we’ve imagined. Better to acknowledge it now and prepare for that day with a corresponding humility.

Grace & peace,
Derek Ashton