I just noticed that Sean Gerety dropped by and offered a comment in the meta of my post critiquing his self incriminating approval of a badly reasoned argument which also made claims at odds with his view on paradox.
What does Gerety offer by way of response?:
I had wrote: The problems here are numerous. Obviously, the paradox is reconcilable, at least by God.
Gerety responded: How does Manata or any Vantilian know there is no paradox for God?
My reply: I would have thought that was rather obvious. In fact, if you check out Anderson's book, for example---and which you've said you've done---you'd note that the paradox is a paradox only for us. It's analytic, Sean. It results from an unarticulated equivocation on the part of the revealer. An example James used was that of flatlander and spacelander. Spacelander---a three dimensional being---reveals to a flatlander---a two dimensional being---the existence of a cone---a three dimensional object. He says something like:
 The object, O, is circular.
 The object, O, is triangular.
To ask how the above isn't resolvable for Spacelander is just operate at a highly shallow level of analysis. In fact, it's not even a paradox for Spacelander. So, God knows all the ins-and-outs, and he does his best revealing the nature of himself (analogously like a three-dimensional being) to us (analogously two-dimensional beings).
Furthermore, the doctrine is something true about God, it would seem that God would not be in a paradoxical situation regarding himself.
Gerety: By an appeal to Scripture?
Reply: It would seem that it simply follows from the nature of an all-knowing God.
Gerety: Impossible, since according to Van Til “all teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory.”
Reply: I reject that claim. Of course, all we need is at least one paradox and Gerety is refuted. So no need to focus on this issue since it would do nothing to save Gerety's dismissal of any paradox whatever.
Gerety: Without any reason the Vantilians command us to believe that for God there is no contradiction.
Reply: Um, first, let's knock of the sloppy language. There is no "contradiction" for us, either. There is not one for God either. None for neither.
I never thought I would have to give a reason for this. I didn't know that Gerety thought for God could believe in paradoxes about himself. Probably, whatever reason Gerety thinks is good for why God can't believe in paradoxes will work. But, it doesn't follow that there are not paradoxes for us. In fact, Anderson went to great lengths to show that there were---so long as the desiderata of orthodoxy is to be prized. So, you'd have to deal with those arguments. Of course, holding to some kind of social trinitarianism can help you with the paradoxical point, it's light on the orthodoxy point.
Gerety: Magic “faith,” divorced from logic and Scripture, becomes the means by which they assert “there is no paradox for God.”
Reply: Sean's so typical. His modus operandi is pejorative rhetoric divorced from logic and Scripture.
Gerety: But why wouldn’t it make more sense, even as a matter of simple intellectual honesty, to conclude that if Van Til and Manata are right and these so-called paradoxes of Scripture are logically irreconcilable, then perhaps God himself is contradictory?
Reply: Of course, neither Anderson or myself have claimed that they are irreconcilable for us; though it is a possibility. But, again, without anything else besides Gerety's suggestion that there may also be paradoxes for God, I have to say I find no reason to accept his claim that we have a problem here. Perhaps he can offer an argument?
It also seems just obvious that God can't be a contradiction. One reason might be, no true contradictions exist (apologies to dialetheists), God exists, hence, he's not a contradiction. Care to point out a flaw in that argument, Sean?
Gerety: There is and can be no warrant in Scripture - since Scripture itself is contradictory - for asserting that God is non-contradictory.
Reply: Really, this is sad. Gerety doesn't care to take the care required to honestly interact with opponents. Ironic for a defender of careful, precise, logical, and a rigorous use of language as Gerety is.
Gerety: I’m actually very encouraged by Manata’s poorly written and wild rant,
Reply: It's sad Gerety feels the need to constantly argue at such a puerile and sophomoric level.
Gerety: because it is just more evidence that Vantilans are losing ground and are desperate.
Reply: Is Gerety an evidentialist? Anyway, since Gerety is such a fearless defender of reason, would he care to demonstrate how "Paul's poorly written and wild rant" leads to the conclusion "Vantilians are losing ground and are desperate"? Or is this another unargued assertion?
Gerety: They’re entire epistemic enterprise has been exposed for the theological fraud it is. I guess just more reason to keep banging my “symbol.”
Reply: "They're entire epistemic enterprise..."? Didn't we just read something about "poorly written?"
Anyway, I'd like to see if Gerety can muster up an argument to actually defeat the argument given in response to his embarrassing support of such poorly argued material. Or is repeated gradstanding and posturing all we have to look forward to?
Oh, and I expect the next response from Gerety will include the relevant deductions from Scripture to show that he knows all that he's jawing on and on about. See, his "epistemic enterprise" has been shown to be self-referentially incoherent years ago. Clarkians like Gerety have never recovered, thus all they can do is gnash their teeth and try to yell more loudly than their opponents.