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:
[1] The object, O, is circular.
[2] 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.
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 argumentsIf "symbol" were your only error, we'd be even. As it is, the above is simply more evidence of the emptiness of your position. Not one Reformed Confession, neither the Three Forms or the WCF assert insoluble paradoxes in Scripture or the existence of any set of biblical truths that are irreconcilable at the bar of human reason. Not surprising, neither do the Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteCan particular doctrines be improved upon? Needless to say the appeal to the idea of "substance" when dealing with the unity of the Trinity could be improved, but that is a topic already covered and arguably improved upon by Gordon Clark, the man you unconscionably libeled on this blog as a drug dealing Methamphetamine producer.
Now, I understand that Methamphetamines and being an impotent and pathetic bully are things you have some notable expertise in. So, perhaps I should caulk up your bad behavior to that leopard and his spots thing you mentioned in your previous post.
But, notice, you didn't address even one point raised in my reply to you. You simply evaded them.
One example of many is when I asked: How does Manata or any Vantilian know there is no paradox for God? By an appeal to Scripture?
You replied:
"It would seem that it simply follows from the nature of an all-knowing God."
Doesn't "seem" that way to me at all. If Scripture contradicts itself elsewhere, say, concerning the Trinity, the Incarnation, God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, particular election and God's so-called universal desire for the salvation of all, or any other place, perhaps the above is just another one of many paradoxical apparently contradictory Biblical statements.
If, with Van Til, we're to believe God is both numerically one person and three persons perhaps God is both all knowing and not all knowing at the same time? Perhaps God isn't a Trinunity of persons at all. After all, Vantilian David Byron claims that the reason for Biblical paradox in defense of his hero is that God has failed to reveal the necessary propositions required to harmonize the various truths in His Word. The Trinity may in fact turn out to be The Pentanity: Scripture simply doesn’t tell us about the Mother and the Daughter. Or maybe it is the Octinity, with the Dutch Uncle, Aunt, and Cousin thrown in. It would certain follow from Van Til, Frame, Byron, Anderson and the countless others who have followed Van Til in their "passionate embrace" of Biblical paradox.
But if that isn't enough to show the absurdity and blasphemy entailed in defending the idea of Biblical paradox, shall we revisit some of the incredible nonsense -- along with outright and open heresy -- some of of these men have defended all in the name of "biblical paradox"? It's no mistake that virtually ALL defenders of the false gospel of the Federal Vision are Vantilians, or even the FV opponents are incapable to do anything to stop it's advance instead calls the FV men our "brothers in Christ."
The only positive thing I can take away from this, besides being another reminder of the uselessness of wasting any time engaging the Vantilian pit bull, Paul Manata, is your rejection of Van Til's universal assertion that “all teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory.” I consider this real proof of growth and sanctification on your part. A sweeping assertion made by Van Til which you didn't even try to defend. Progress.
Sean, since you deny the existence of "insoluble paradoxes in Scripture or the existence of any set of biblical truths that are irreconcilable at the bar of human reason," I presume you have solved the paradoxes alleged by people like Anderson, and can reconcile the set of biblical truths which say, for example, that God is both one and three. Why don't you just do that, instead of huffing and puffing to blow our house down? All you've offered is bluster. Why don't you step up and show us if you have any bite to back up your bark?
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Bnonn
Sean Gerety: "So, you'd have to deal with those argumentsIf "symbol" were your only error, we'd be even."
ReplyDeleteManata: That makes no sense to me. You sound like Van Til. :-P
Sean Gerety: As it is, the above is simply more evidence of the emptiness of your position.
Manata: Are you an evidentialist now? Are you reasoning inductively? Isn't induction a "fallacy?" Can you make god on this claim? Show that you're justified in believing it by living up to your standards and deducing it from the Bible?
Sean Gerety: Not one Reformed Confession, neither the Three Forms or the WCF assert insoluble paradoxes in Scripture or the existence of any set of biblical truths that are irreconcilable at the bar of human reason.
Manata: So? What's this supposed to mean? And, again, you can live in ignorance if you wish, evidencing carelessness in your exchanges with others, but there is no claim that the paradoxes are absolutely and necessarily irreconcilable. Furthermore, the confessions don't teach your and Clark's Social Trinitarianism or neo Nestorianism. It doesn't teach that "persons are indeed propositions."
Sean Gerety: Not surprising, neither do the Scriptures.
Manata: Neither do the Scriptures what? Claim that there are paradoxes or claim that they are irreconcilable, or both? If the first or the last, that juts begs the question since it seems to me that that's what's in dispute, Sean. If the middle claim---that Scripture doesn't teach that there are irreconcilable paradoxes, then this falls prey to the carelessness objection as well as to standards of reasoning, e.g., thou shalt not argue ad ignorantium.
Sean Gerety: Can particular doctrines be improved upon? Needless to say the appeal to the idea of "substance" when dealing with the unity of the Trinity could be improved, but that is a topic already covered and arguably improved upon by Gordon Clark, the man you unconscionably libeled on this blog as a drug dealing Methamphetamine producer.
Manata: Sean, I don't think Clark's view is orthodox. Remember the claim: paradoxes arise when one wants to held both the desiderata of orthodoxy and rationality. Sure, you can maintain rationality, but you do so at the expense of rationality
Secondly, you know I didn't call Clark a methamphetamine drug producer. You're being dishonest again. I drew an analogy between drug pushers who pretend to push a pure product yet cut it with baking soda or suchlike. Likewise, Clarkians pretend they have a pure epistemology, yet they constantly cut it with what they would consider impure. Stated another way, your scaffolding is framed out of tons of extra-biblical propositions, yet you try to sell the building as being made only of biblical propositions.
Third, I took out all of the material you found offensive, so as to get you to deal with substance rather than dodge the arguments by spending time focusing on the incidentals. Yet all you have, it seems, are appeals to pity. If you can’t win arguments, try for hearts.
Sean Gerety: Now, I understand that Methamphetamines and being an impotent and pathetic bully are things you have some notable expertise in.
Manata: I have three kids, so at least I'm not impotent.
Anyway, it's funny to read your comments toward me while trying to paint the picture of me as someone mean and nasty.
And, how long do we have to wait for you to provide substance?
Sean Gerety: "One example of many is when I asked: How does Manata or any Vantilian know there is no paradox for God? By an appeal to Scripture?
You replied:
"It would seem that it simply follows from the nature of an all-knowing God."
Doesn't "seem" that way to me at all. If Scripture contradicts itself elsewhere, say, concerning the Trinity, the Incarnation, God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, particular election and God's so-called universal desire for the salvation of all, or any other place, perhaps the above is just another one of many paradoxical apparently contradictory Biblical statements.
Manata: I don't see how this responds to anything I wrote. First, there are no contradictions in Scripture. So you're still being careless and thoughtless in how you deal with the argument your objecting to.
Second, I don't see how this shows that God couldn't resolve the paradox---especially when he doesn't even have one for himself. He just knows why it arises for us.
Third, Anderson lays down conditions for paradox, and I agree with him on that. So, it can't be "just anything." You're stuck in a time warp, Sean. The debate has advanced. It is still substantive since you disagree with *any* paradox existing. yet, rather than engage the contemporary argument, as it stands in its strongest form, you settle for sophomoric and sophistic rhetoric that doesn't affect my position, the one you're presumably arguing against.
So, I did answer you and you have not yet engaged my answer. I also gave you other answers, that you failed to interact with.
This is typical, you frequently project your failings on others. Sean is a pit bull so he calls me one. Sean doesn't engage with my arguments but he projects and says I don't interact with his.
Sean Gerety: If, with Van Til, we're to believe God is both numerically one person and three persons perhaps God is both all knowing and not all knowing at the same time?
Manata: Sean seems to think that (1) if we believe there is a paradox in one area, then (2) perhaps there is one in all areas. But with the conditions laid down, as Anderson does, there is no reason to make this non sequitur. If there are some necessary conditions that need to be satisfied, then not just anything can be a paradox. It's like if Sean argued that striking two wooden matches together gives you fire, then how can you not believe that striking two ice cubes together will give you fire.
Anyway, the claim is that the persons are numerically identical with the Ousia, numerically distinct from each other. Anderson shows, fairly convincingly, that this is the is the orthodox position of the early church, the framers of the creeds.
Sean Gerety: "But if that isn't enough to show the absurdity and blasphemy entailed in defending the idea of Biblical paradox, shall we revisit some of the incredible nonsense -- along with outright and open heresy -- some of of these men have defended all in the name of "biblical paradox"? It's no mistake that virtually ALL defenders of the false gospel of the Federal Vision are Vantilians, or even the FV opponents are incapable to do anything to stop it's advance instead calls the FV men our "brothers in Christ."
Manata: I've lost count of all the fallacies. I'm defending and arguing for paradox based off what Anderson lays out in his book. Given that position, it would be inappropriate to appeal to paradox when it comes to faith/works, etc. So, this attack fails to land against the one you're supposed to be arguing with, Sean. It's simply guilt by association and poisoning the well. You're trying to avoid the argument by scaring people into disagreeing with me by bringing up an issue like the FV. Furthermore, anything can be abused Sean. People abuse Calvin all the time, for example.
Don't you have anything better than this? Anything that can do justice to that "great Clarkian legacy" you talk about? You're making it look anything but that bastion of rationality you claim for it.
Sean Gerety: Not one Reformed Confession, neither the Three Forms or the WCF assert insoluble paradoxes in Scripture or the existence of any set of biblical truths that are irreconcilable at the bar of human reason.
ReplyDeleteManata: So? What's this supposed to mean? It means you and your ilk are not remotely Confessional or orthodox. You’re love of paradox, which is nothing more than contradictions you attribute to Scripture, places you outside of the Reformed community you feign to be a member.
Furthermore, the confessions don't teach your and Clark's Social Trinitarianism or neo Nestorianism. It doesn't teach that "persons are indeed propositions."I'm sorry if Clark’s arguments were beyond your grade level (assuming you even pretended to read either of his monographs), but at least Clark attempted to remove the meaningless and definition defying idea of “substance” from the traditional formations. Can the traditional formulations of the Trinity and Incarnation be improved? I think so. Were Clark’s argument a step in the right direction? Without question. Even the traditional formulations is not “apparently contradictory” despite its deficiencies -- unlike Van Til’s completely heretical formulation where God is said to be one person and three persons at the same time and in the same sense. As Van Til said:
“We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person.... We must maintain that God is numerically one, He is one person.... We speak of God as a person; yet we speak also of three persons in the Godhead.... God is a one-conscious being, and yet he is also a tri-conscious being.... [T]he work ascribed to any of the persons is the work of one absolute person.... We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person.... [W]e must therefore hold that God’s being presents an absolute numerical identity. And even within the ontological Trinity we must maintain that God is numerically one. He is one person.“
And, in case there was any way to mistake what Van Til was saying, Frame says: “For Van Til, God is not simply a unity of persons; he is a person.” As Dr. Crampton points out, ”This, to be sure, is not the teaching of orthodox Christianity, which maintains that God is one in essence (or substance) and three in persons.”
Third, I took out all of the material you found offensive, so as to get you to deal with substance rather than dodge the arguments by spending time focusing on the incidentals.The only reason you removed anything from your despicable liable against Drs. Clark and Robbins is because you were personally embarrassed when I brought up your mindless diatribe against Clark/Robbins on the Greenbaggins blog and Keister (a Vantilian I might add) and others got a little taste of the real Paul Manata and were appalled.
You have never offered any apology for your sinful portrayal of these men. If you were really sorry for the trash you wrote you would have removed the piece entirely and publicly apologized when you had the chance. To this date you have done neither.
Anyway, it's funny to read your comments toward me while trying to paint the picture of me as someone mean and nasty.
And, how long do we have to wait for you to provide substance?
I was quite confident your own words and behavior here were sufficient to condemned you, but if someone wants proof that you have changed very little, I suggest they read your own testimony here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/paul-manatas-wife-and-his-ugly-past.html
As far as I can tell you’re still the same little impotent bully you’ve always been, only your means have changed.
SEAN GERETY SAID:
ReplyDelete“Now, I understand that Methamphetamines and being an impotent and pathetic bully are things you have some notable expertise in. So, perhaps I should caulk up your bad behavior to that leopard and his spots thing you mentioned in your previous post.”
Many Christians are former drug users. Does Sean think that drug users are beyond the pale of the gospel?
As to the charge that Manata is a bully, I don’t know how Sean proposes to deduce that accusation from Scripture.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Manata is a bully. You can’t be a bully all by yourself. Bullying is a relation between two parties: a sissy and a bully.
So, if Sean feels bullied by Manata, and if that makes Manata a bully, then it also makes Sean a sissy.
Given a choice, I’d rather be a bully than a sissy.
SEAN GERETY SAID:
ReplyDelete“It means you and your ilk are not remotely Confessional or orthodox. You’re love of paradox, which is nothing more than contradictions you attribute to Scripture, places you outside of the Reformed community you feign to be a member.”
“I'm sorry if Clark’s arguments were beyond your grade level (assuming you even pretended to read either of his monographs), but at least Clark attempted to remove the meaningless and definition defying idea of ‘substance’ from the traditional formations.”
If Clark and his followers reject the Confessional formulation of the Trinity or Christology, then that would place them outside the Reformed community. If, by his own admission, Sean’s position is contra-confessional, then he repudiates the doctrinal standards which form the basis of Reformed communities. To share a common creed or confession is what brings them together, keeps them together, and distinguishes them from other religious communities.
SEAN GERETY SAID:
ReplyDelete“The only reason you removed anything from your despicable liable against Drs. Clark and Robbins is because you were personally embarrassed when I brought up your mindless diatribe against Clark/Robbins on the Greenbaggins blog and Keister (a Vantilian I might add) and others got a little taste of the real Paul Manata and were appalled. __You have never offered any apology for your sinful portrayal of these men. If you were really sorry for the trash you wrote you would have removed the piece entirely and publicly apologized when you had the chance. To this date you have done neither.”
How do these accusations follow from a Scripturalist epistemology? How does Sean deduce the existence of Clark, Robbins, and Manata from Scripture? How does Sean deduce the “liable” (libel?) from Scripture. Where does Scripture ever state, either explicitly or implicitly, that Manata libeled Clark or Robbins?
Or is Sean merely opining? But if his opinion falls short of knowledge, then what does Manata have to apologize for?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Manata libeled Clark. But, on Scripturalist grounds, Manata has no way of ever knowing that Clark is a real person. For all Manata knows, Clark is a fictional character, like Tinkerbell. At most, then, Manata is guilty of libeling a fictional character. Perhaps Manata owes a fictional character a fictional apology. Would that suffice?
Sean,
ReplyDeleteIt is really an exercise in futility to respond to you. It wouldn't be so bad if you offered something remotely resembling an argument so as there would be some pay off in reading the invective riddled posts.
Sean G: "It means you and your ilk are not remotely Confessional or orthodox."
Paul M: Wait, if the confessions don't mention some position, p, and someone, S, endorses p, that makes S ipso facto unconfessional? I'd like to see how that argument goes. (BTW, where does the confession say, "Persons are indeed propositions?"
Sean G. "You’re love of paradox, which is nothing more than contradictions you attribute to Scripture, places you outside of the Reformed community you feign to be a member."
Paul M: Again, I should point out that you're failing to engage your opponent's argument. Of course simply labeling that I affirm contradictions makes for an easy win. If you're satisfied with that, then that speaks volumes. If not, I suggest you start actually engaging the dialogue in a constructive manner.
Sean G: ."I'm sorry if Clark’s arguments were beyond your grade level (assuming you even pretended to read either of his monographs), but at least Clark attempted to remove the meaningless and definition defying idea of “substance” from the traditional formations.
Paul M: As I've stated numerous times now, I'll grant Clark some rational construction, I'm not granting orthodoxy. Modalism is "rational" too, just not orthodox. See the problem. You're not even engaging at the proper level.
Sean G: "Can the traditional formulations of the Trinity and Incarnation be improved? I think so."
Paul M: So you have no problem denying creedal forumlations yet remaining orthodox but when I merely affrim something the creeds or confessions don't even address, I am somehow not reformed? The logic is escaping me.
Sean G: "Were Clark’s argument a step in the right direction? Without question."
Paul M: For Sean, Clark cannot be wrong, ever. Sean must defend everything Clark does. You can see why in the arguments he uses against me. He claims that if I see a paradox at point A, I must see one at point B - Z. Thus, if Clark is wrong on even one point, perhaps he was wrong on everything else. Affording such infallibility to a man is strange for a Reformed Christian. Indeed, the confessions say, "men can err."
Sean G: "Even the traditional formulations is not “apparently contradictory”
Paul M: Of course, they were not explicitly contradictory. But they were implicitly so. To claim that they weren't without argument is to, again, beg the question.
Sean G: "The only reason you removed anything from your despicable liable against Drs. Clark and Robbins is because you were personally embarrassed when I brought up your mindless diatribe against Clark/Robbins on the Greenbaggins blog and Keister (a Vantilian I might add) and others got a little taste of the real Paul Manata and were appalled."
Paul M: No, Sean, I changed it to prove that you couldn't deal with the arguments when your excuse was taken away. Anyway, knock of the appeals to extra-biblical assertions that you are not justified in believing. Or do Clarkians think it is epistemically virtuous to gladly affirm unjustifiable opinions?
Sean G: "You have never offered any apology for your sinful portrayal of these men. If you were really sorry for the trash you wrote you would have removed the piece entirely and publicly apologized when you had the chance. To this date you have done neither."
Paul M: Again, I deny that I sinned in giving my analogy. You're engaging in political spin. Now, what you're supposed to do, as the heir to Clark thinking and Robbins' vitriol, is present an argument which can substantiate your claims. If not, you are blowing hot air, again.
Sean G: "I was quite confident your own words and behavior here were sufficient to condemn you, but if someone wants proof that you have changed very little, I suggest they read your own testimony here: [SNIP link to atheist website]"
Paul M: Sean, you can't win the argument so this is all you have. I am fully confident that my behavior has not been untoward with you, especially given the circumstances. Especially given your obvious attempt to get me to go down into the gutter with you so you can have your prophecy fulfilled. But, it's not working. I am staying on point. So I ask again: When can I expect you to engage my arguments at a substantive level.
Secondly, Sean, sending people to Loftus' site is apropos. See, you and your atheist friend have some things in common. Loftus could not handle debate at the substantive level. Was embarrassed repeatedly, and so needed to play the appeal to emotion card. Same with you.
Thirdly, it is highly odd for someone to condemn my harmless use of analogy in explaining the problems with Clark as sinful and then endorse and promote a website that claims I will beat my wife. Sean, you are your own worst enemy. Even at the pulling-heart-strings game, you lose. You beat yourself here too. Just like your epistemology beats itself. You don't have credibility when you complain about me using humor to explain what Scripturalists do, calling that sin, and then publicly link to sites which do worse, as it is obvious that that site is not even in the same league as my post on Clark---which I removed all material offensive to your virgin eyes.
So, Sean, you just can't get a break, can you? You are so hotheaded that you can't see that all your moves end up hurting you.
So, why not avoid the embarrassment and drop the appeals to emotion and grandstanding, engaging simply in the substantive issues.
Sean Gerety:
ReplyDeleteDo you have an answer for this?
You wrote in the combox here:
Sean G: "You have never offered any apology for your sinful portrayal of these men.Given that you know what I said in the discussion you refer to, namely:
"Hopefully he is appeased and hopefully he accepts my asking for forgiveness for the offence.http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/van-til-a-review-with-remembrance/#comment-49104
This is just like Robbins. He asked me to ask forgiveness for my attacks (he, of course, didn't need to). I did. He ended conversation with me, did not say he forgave, and ignored all future emails.
Student like teacher, I guess.
Anyway, Sean got what he wanted. He excells when the debate takes these kinds of turns. He has no clue what to do when the debate requires clear, rigorous, careful and cautious thinking, so he turns the debate as quick as he can into an emotionally draining trading of barbs and irrelevancies.
SEAN GERETY SAID:
ReplyDeleteI was quite confident your own words and behavior here were sufficient to condemned you, but if someone wants proof that you have changed very little, I suggest they read your own testimony here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/02/paul-manatas-wife-and-his-ugly-past.html
***********************
Sean is now committing the sin of gossipmongering. Does Sean attend church? If so, his pastor or elders should be notified. Church discipline is clearly in order.
Gossip hardly pertains to a public testimonial Paul Manata published on the web. Try harder.
ReplyDeleteSean,
ReplyDeleteNevermind.
Paul
Do you have an answer for this?Indeed I do, it was as self-serving and as phony an apology as I've ever read. Reading it now for the second time merely confirms the kind of insincere and dishonest man you really are.
ReplyDeleteNotice above you have no regret for what you wrote. You even say you did not sin even in your scurrilous and unconscionable comparison of Drs. Clark and Robbins with crank drug pushers. And to answer Steve above, I don't care what you were in your previous life.
Regardless of your disagreements with these men, they were both your elders in Christ. It would be as if I were to compare Van Til, Bahnsen and Frame to serial pedophiles raping the minds of their young students. But, as much as I disagree with these men, I would never advance such a sick analogy to make a point. You evidently can't see the difference which is why you can't see your actions as sinful.
You are a slanderer of the brethren and I'm convinced your hatred for Scripturalists knows no bounds. People often hate the things they can't or will not understand. In your case, your hatred extends to other Christians. But, you do admit to being angry a lot. Seems to me this is all par for the course.
Hi Sean. You've had a lot of opportunity here to show that you're the better man, and that your arguments have bite, but you've continually chosen to keep snarling and slavering instead. So the only reasonable assumption at this point is that Paul was right: it's actually you that's the impotent pitbull. If you had teeth, you'd have used them by now. Anyone reading this can see that you're continually choosing hateful invective over thoughtful debate. You won't even represent Paul's position correctly, let alone interact with it. You've poisoned the well, burned strawmen, attacked the man, engaged in hypocritical labeling (viz applying different standards to yourself as to Paul re confessional orthodoxy)...and at no point have you done anything except these things.
ReplyDeleteHow a man defends his position says a lot about that position. If your position were as rational as you claim, you would have defended it rationally. Instead, what we've seen here is an angry, foolish man lashing out at those who have exposed his ostensibly rational position to be no more than a cult of personality.
Regards,
Bnonn
SEAN GERETY SAID:
ReplyDelete"Regardless of your disagreements with these men, they were both your elders in Christ."
I'm still waiting for you to justify that sort of claim according to a Scripturalist epistemology. Show us the process by which you deduce from Scripture that (a) Clark and Robbins were real men; (b) they were elders; (iii) Manata libeled them.
How did you acquire this extrabiblical information about Clark, Robbins, and Manata?
Sean, this is an elementary test of your sincerity and honesty. Why do you keep ducking the question?
Do you think people won't notice that you're ducking the question? Do you think I'll stop asking if you keep ducking the question?
When you constantly dodge the implications of your own epistemology, that's a backdoor admission that you don't really believe in your stated epistemology. And if you don't believe in it, then why should anyone else?
Sean,
ReplyDeleteSo I take it that I am correct that you have nothing by way of substantive rejoinders. Duly noted. Your silence is deafening.
Sean Gerety Said..."Regardless of your disagreements with these men, they were both your elders in Christ. It would be as if I were to compare Van Til, Bahnsen and Frame to serial pedophiles raping the minds of their young students.
ReplyDelete**********
No, you just call your elders in Christ (Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame) heretics and irrationalists.
On Sean's scale, it's better to call your elders heretical than draw mild analogies to drug pushers who cut their own pure stash with impurities.
As I said, you're your own worst enemy, Sean.
Sean,
ReplyDelete1.) Who exactly is Paul currently bullying? I mean, is he bullying you, the guy on youtube you linked to, or some other guy?
2.) SEAN: "And to answer Steve above, I don't care what you were in your previous life."
If you don't care about a believer's previous life, why then bring it up? Why bring up Paul Manata's life before Christ? Can you address the current wrong of Manata without taking the cheap shot from Manata's unregenerate past? I think you should apologize for this low blow.
3.) You have been charging Manata for being a bully, a bull, a slanderer and a hater of Scripturalism, but these are poor substitute for rational arguments.
4.) We're now at least 17 comments for this post, and so far I'm not impressed with what I see. I'm always wondering how a Scripturalist would respond to the questions of Scripturalism's epistemology. As an observer, it seems like there is a willful dodging of the dilemma raised by Steve Hays of your epistemology, which I will quote so you know exactly what is bothering me:
"I'm still waiting for you to justify that sort of claim according to a Scripturalist epistemology. Show us the process by which you deduce from Scripture that (a) Clark and Robbins were real men; (b) they were elders; (iii) Manata libeled them.
How did you acquire this extrabiblical information about Clark, Robbins, and Manata?"
Sean Gerety:
ReplyDeleteYou have been outclassed and out-argued. Your karate's a joke.
These Clarkians seem to be the Christian counterpart to the Randians... interesting.
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for you to justify that sort of claim according to a Scripturalist epistemology. Show us the process by which you deduce from Scripture that (a) Clark and Robbins were real men; (b) they were elders; (iii) Manata libeled them.The problem you pose Steve is not just a problem for Scripturalists. As John Robbins pointed out long ago and in response to M. Sudduth, "The statements and commands in Scripture apply to all our thoughts, whether they rise to the level of knowledge or not. We are to bring every thought into captivity to Christ, that is, into captivity to Scripture."
ReplyDeleteNow, I realize that RE folks have lowered the epistemic bar considerably to where opinion along with necromancy and so-called "Natural Theology" (an enterprise Van Til rightly called antichristian) are now sources of knowledge. But if you think Clark and Robbins were real men and Paul's superiors then Manata's disgusting personal attack against these men is sin. Sin that you clearly defend and endorse.
But what really is Manata's objection to Scripturalism? That what we call knowledge is limited to those things either set down in Scripture or deduced therefrom? Wow, what a horrible thing for Christians to believe! (I guess we need to throw out the first chapter of the WCF). That we distinguish, along with the Bible, between three noetic states: knowledge, opinion, and ignorance. I realize that Manata and others here on Triblogue do not so distinguish and deny that knowledge requires any account or needs to be justified. Perhaps this explains why Manata continuously attacks and ridicules Christians who deny Biblical paradox, limit the source of knowledge to God's propositional revelation in Scripture, and who believe the proper role of the theologian is to solve apparent contradictions and harmonize Biblical paradoxes, not to defend and promote them as fetishes to promote devotion in worship.
FWIW I believe the idea that Scripture teaches insoluble paradoxes encourages laziness in Bible study, commends ignorance, raises biblical theology along with its ever elastic exegesis over systematics and sound Reformed hermeneutics, and elevate clerics and academics, especially those of the Vantilian stripe, into a new priestly class who alone can peer into the Biblical stew of apparent contradictions, antinomies, tensions, analogies, and insoluble paradoxes and demand assent to their contradictory view of truth on the basis of nothing more than their own authority.
FWIW I have requested a review copy of Anderson's book from the publisher. Manata seems to think he has advanced the discussion beyond Frame, Bahnsen, Byron and other apologists and defenders of Vantilian paradox. I'd be pleasantly surprised if Anderson has moved the discussion in any substantive way beyond what he wrote on Van Til FEM. I seriously doubt it. If I'm wrong, I will publicly admit my error.
Now that our brother John W. Robbins has gone home to be with the Lord (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/inmemoriam.php), who are the leading Scripturalists out there (besides Vincent Cheung and W. Gary Crampton)?
ReplyDeleteWhere do they gather on the net to chat, blog or post in forums? I'm surprised that people still hold to Scripturalism since it's been so thoroughly refuted by Steve, Paul and Aquascum (whoever he/she is).
http://www.proginosko.com/aquascum/
Also, will someone please "leak out" Aquascum's identity? Why does he/she continue to hide himself/herself? (heh)
Or is it that everyone knows who he/she is, and I'm the last person who still doesn't know? hehehe
Mr. Gerety,
ReplyDeleteI would like to know where in the Bible God has promised (either explicitly or implicitly) to have inspired Scripture so that there would not be any "apparent (i.e. seeming) contradictions" in its teaching(s)?
Especially since we know that God inspired Scripture in such a way that only those regenerated by the Holy Spirit can properly interpret its teaching.
Beyond that, we know from Scripture that "the deceived and the deceiver belong to God" (Job 12:16), and that God deceives reprobates (probably both temproral and eternal reprobates) (2 Thess. 2:11; 1 Ki 22).
Why couldn't God have inspired "apparent contradiction" in Scripture to 1. require the exercise of faith for believers, and 2. give the false impression that there are Biblical contradictions/discrepancies/errors to those who want to reject the Bible.
Blaise Pascal made some relevant comments in his famous Pensées:
563 The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it.
577 There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them, and make them inexcusable.—Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Sébond.
574 All things work together for good to the elect, even the obscurities of Scripture; for they honour them because of what is divinely clear. And all things work together for evil to the rest of the world, even what is clear; for they revile such, because of the obscurities which they do not understand.
562 It will be one of the confusions of the damned to see that they are condemned by their own reason, by which they claimed to condemn the Christian religion.
576 God has made the blindness of this people subservient to the good of the elect.
Gerety: The problem you pose Steve is not just a problem for Scripturalists. As John Robbins pointed out long ago and in response to M. Sudduth, "The statements and commands in Scripture apply to all our thoughts, whether they rise to the level of knowledge or not. We are to bring every thought into captivity to Christ, that is, into captivity to Scripture."
ReplyDeleteManata: So does this mean you don't know and cannot justify that (a) Clark and Robbins were real men; (b) they were elders; (iii) Manata libeled them.
Question: If the only justified beliefs are believed explicit propositions or deducible propositions from Scripture, all else being unjustified opinion, then are you claim in that you are publicly condemning me for sin based on nothing other than your mere opinion?
Also, if you were serious about all of this, you would approach me privately, and then with another. So, that you don't take the Bible seriously here might imply you don’t really take your charges against me seriously but, rather, focus on it to avoid debate.
Gerety: "Now, I realize that RE folks have lowered the epistemic bar considerably to where opinion along with necromancy and so-called "Natural Theology" (an enterprise Van Til rightly called antichristian) are now sources of knowledge."
Manata: Scripturalist Translation: Knowledge is true belief with account or justification, where this later is cashed out as meaning a proposition in Scripture or deducible from Scripture.
Hence, given this stipulation, by which the above follows, then "RE folks" lower the bar.
But of course anyone can stipulate their views and then claim that all other views fall before it. What we want to know, Sean, is where is your argument for all of this?Gerety: "But if you think Clark and Robbins were real men and Paul's superiors then Manata's disgusting personal attack against these men is sin. Sin that you clearly defend and endorse."
Manata: But Steve linked Clark with Tinkerbelle a few comments up. Are you going to demand he repent?
Also, I made no disgusting personal attack. My claim: "Like drug dealers frequently cut their pure product with baking soda or suchlike, Scripturalists do the same by constantly mixing in the impure (extrabiblical propositions) with the pure (biblical propositions) and then selling this as if it were a pure product.
I think you're being over dramatic. Also, and this is serious, I wonder if you are crazy or just a hypocrite. You call your "elders" heretics. How can you turn around and attack my mild analogy in this way given your attacks over the years. Really, I'd like you to make this intelligible. Is it just because I made Scripturalism look silly in that post? Are you just venting?
Gerety: "But what really is Manata's objection to Scripturalism? That what we call knowledge is limited to those things either set down in Scripture or deduced therefrom?"
Manata: No, it's that it is self-defeating (at least how you and other present it). See, you can't "deduce" what you just said, hence, it is self-defeating. That means, you couldn't know it.
However, I would be willing to look at a deduction if you have it. Here's your chance, Sean. Deduce Scripturalism for us.
Gerety: "Wow, what a horrible thing for Christians to believe! (I guess we need to throw out the first chapter of the WCF)."
Manata: See, Sean, this is what people have been talking about. You make fantastic claims that are not obvious to most, and then instead of backing it up, at the crucial moment, you use emotively loaded language and offer a throw away comment intended to do work while it actually does't do any. It's a bully tactic. As if to disagree with you is to disagree with the confession. Furthermore, the confession is not the Bible and I saw no relevant deduction in there. I also didn't know the divines had entered into the epistemological dialogue in ch. 1 of the Confession.
So, you were asked to back up your claims, to show that you knew or are epistemically justified in your accusations against me, and you can't (?) do it.
Again: If a Christian doesn't know or is not justified in making an accusation, and he has made one, then he needs to repent.
Care to show me where I'm off in that? If you can't, then internal rationality demands you repent, Sean.
However, I'm not serious (besides the fact that you wouldn't repent). I don't need you to repent or ask forgiveness. I'm satisfied pointing out that on your own terms your own logic would require you to, yet your belief that you don't need to is enough to show some huge internal and presuppositional tensions in your thinking.
See, that's my point. I have no desire to turn this into an emotional rant, I simply point out objective problems you have, Sean.
Gerety: "That we distinguish, along with the Bible, between three noetic states: knowledge, opinion, and ignorance. I realize that Manata and others here on Triblogue do not so distinguish and deny that knowledge requires any account or needs to be justified."
Manata: Of course this is just downright false. I do deny that it is necessarythat any and all claims to knowledge need to have propositional evidence in its favor, or a justification for it. However, if you reject that then you have an infinite regress as well as the problem that you do not know your axiom to be the case. If you do, then you would need to justify it. Then justify that justification, etc.
Gerety: "Perhaps this explains why Manata continuously attacks and ridicules Christians who deny Biblical paradox"
Manata: The problem here, besides the fact that it's only your mere opinion, is that anyone reading my posts will see that this all just false. I bring up objective points.
Gerety: "FWIW I believe the idea that Scripture teaches insoluble paradoxes encourages laziness in Bible study, commends ignorance, raises biblical theology along with its ever elastic exegesis over systematics and sound Reformed hermeneutics, and elevate clerics and academics, especially those of the Vantilian stripe, into a new priestly class who alone can peer into the Biblical stew of apparent contradictions, antinomies, tensions, analogies, and insoluble paradoxes and demand assent to their contradictory view of truth on the basis of nothing more than their own authority."
Manata: Of course asserting the above is one thing, actually taking the time to demonstrate these accusations, show how they stick, interacting with the primary sources, etc., is quite another thing.
For you see, the above seems totally foreign to how I view the matter. In fact, I disagree at every point. In fact, I think it is obvious that Gerety is wrong here. Calling men like Anderson lazy, a commender of ignorance, etc., just seems obviously false. It's rather like the new atheist's claim that theists are all irrational and suffer from mind viruses. Seems to me all one needs to is point to a Plantinga, for example.
Gerety: "FWIW I have requested a review copy of Anderson's book from the publisher. Manata seems to think he has advanced the discussion beyond Frame, Bahnsen, Byron and other apologists and defenders of Vantilian paradox. I'd be pleasantly surprised if Anderson has moved the discussion in any substantive way beyond what he wrote on Van Til FEM. I seriously doubt it. If I'm wrong, I will publicly admit my error."
Manata: Really, Sean? You just requested a review copy? You're going to read it now and see if he advances the discussion?
Well, how do you reconcile what you just said with what you said on your blog a week ago? To wit:
****************
From what I’ve read of the book I found nothing “weighty” or any of his arguments particularly strong — or even original for that matter. It sounds like the same old defense of Vantilian nonsense that I’ve heard for years. Just another rehash of tired arguments made by men like David Byron, John Frame, David Bahnsen, Doug Jones and others. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but seeing that Anderson is the author of Van Til FEM I hardly think his book in defense of biblical contradictions, which he and other Vantilians wrongly call “paradoxes,” will offer anything new.
http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/showing-van-til-the-door/#comment-875
****************
As i said, Sean, you're your own worst enemy.
Indeed, given what you've said in this comboxes, it is hard to believe that you've read it at all. Based on what you said at your blog (the quote above), it didn't look like you've read any of it.
But, you give the impression that you read "his arguments" and didn't "find them weighty," which means you went a far way into the book, chs 5 and/or 6.
Moreover, why order a review copy? What is going to change? You didn't find "any" of his arguments "weighty." Based off your reading it's just a "rehash" of "tired" arguments. So why say you will publicly admit that you're wrong if the book doesn't advance the discussion? You read enough of the book to know that it doesn't! So, you can't spin out of this. It's not like you can say you just skimmed the book. You read enough to publicly claim that it doesn't advance the discussion.
So, you show that you:
1. Hold a self-defeating epistemology.
2. Make accusations for which you have no justification and hold only a mere opinion on, while at the same time believing you shouldn't do this.
3. Misrepresent my epistemology, and RE.
4. Misrepresent the view on paradoxes, again.
5. Argue fallacious and in a self-serving way.
6. And either lie or stretch the truth so far as for it to be unrecognizable.
All of this results from your devoted adherence to all things Clark. You must defend it at all costs that you even have no problem being less than truthful. However, we know the "spin" is coming.
Jonathan said:
ReplyDelete---
These Clarkians seem to be the Christian counterpart to the Randians... interesting.
---
If by that you mean they're rude, insufferable know-it-alls who lack class, manners, substance, and scruples, yet who perceive themselves as being the (somehow always in the extreme minority) champions of reality while everyone else are deceived dimwits and a waste of neurons, then I can totally understand why you find them similar.
Psst to Sean:
ReplyDeleteYou may have noticed the weird formatting in your comments, after the italicized portions. The line breaks are disappearing.
FYI, this is due to a (new?) code bug in the blogger comment system. If your line ends in a close-tag of any kind--< /a>, < /b>, < /i>, etc--then the subsequent line breaks disappear.
The hard way to fix it is to add some < /br> tags, to manually create line breaks. The easy way is to make sure that a closing tag isn't the last thing on the line. Add a period or comma after the closing tag.
So instead of this:
-----
< i>quoted text < /i>
response text
-----
Do this:
-----
< i>quoted text < /i>.
response text
Paul Manata:
ReplyDeleteYou quoted Sean Gerety as claiming:
>>"From what I’ve read of the book I found nothing “weighty” or any of his arguments particularly strong—or even original for that matter."<<
This was a Ninja move on your part. What I wonder is this: Isn't it the case that James Anderson uses a lot of Al Plantinga's epistemology in making his case? I think it is true. Given that it is, how can Sean Gerety claim, after reading the relevant sections of the book, that it is "unoriginal?" Is it considered normal for defenders of paradox to employ Al Plantinga's epistemology as a major plank in their defense? I have also read your review of James Anderson's book and recall something about "MACRUEs". Is that also something I could find by looking in the indexes of other defenders of paradox?
Annoyed writes:
ReplyDelete“I would like to know where in the Bible God has promised (either explicitly or implicitly) to have inspired Scripture so that there would not be any "apparent (i.e. seeming) contradictions" in its teaching(s)?”
For one, Jesus refutes the Pharisees who sought to stone Him in John 10 by reminding them that “the Scripture cannot be broken.” Similarly, the Confession writers assert that one of the central evidences for the truth of Scripture is “the consent of all the parts,” not paradox, antinomy and contradictions.
If Van Til is correct and all Scripture ends in paradoxes (or even some of the truths of Scripture), which, by his definition, defy harmonization, what becomes of any application of Acts 15:15: “And with this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written...”? If there is as Van Til maintains “no ‘master concept’ from which the whole of Christian doctrine may be logically deduced” (if Christianity is not a logical system), then what difference does it make if a doctrine agrees – or disagrees – with “the words of the Prophets”? According to Van Til and his chief apologist John Frame, the “words of the Prophets” also end in apparent contradiction, and there can be no hope of logical harmonization. Christianity, for the Vantilian, is a hodgepodge of conflicting “truths,” and the belief that there is “no contradiction for God” is nothing more than a blind leap of un-Christian “faith.”
Why couldn't God have inspired "apparent contradiction" in Scripture to 1. require the exercise of faith for believers, and 2. give the false impression that there are Biblical contradictions/discrepancies/errors to those who want to reject the Bible.I think Vantilians and their ilk do believe God inspired “apparent contradictions in Scripture to “exercise” faith and even worship as we are to bow our minds before these contradictions as tangible encounters with their imagined Creator/creature distinction. This was certainly Frame’s position and his answer was that we’re to have “faith” that for God there are no contradictions. Of course, and as mentioned, this is nothing more than having faith in faith.
To your point 2, if you are correct and that if God has inspired “apparent contradictions in Scripture,” which to the human existent are indistinguishable from ordinary contradictions, then you wouldn’t be giving a false impression to unbelievers that the truths of Scripture do not cohere and that there is no consent of the parts, but a very real impression that I’m sure serious atheists reading this blog and confessions such as your take to heart.
Annoyed writes:
ReplyDelete>>“I would like to know where in the Bible God has promised (either explicitly or implicitly) to have inspired Scripture so that there would not be any "apparent (i.e. seeming) contradictions" in its teaching(s)?”<<
Sean Gerety writes:
>>"For one, Jesus refutes the Pharisees who sought to stone Him in John 10 by reminding them that “the Scripture cannot be broken.”<<
I don't know about this Sean. Does, "Scripture cannot be broken" mean, "there are no paradoxes in God's revelation to man"?
That seems, prima facie, like a stretch. It is certainly not obvious, as many godly and theologically savvy Christians (putting aside whether they were right or wrong to do this for the moment) have asserted that there are paradoxes in Scripture, and not just followers of Cornelius Van Til. Since I am pretty sure that these men also knew Jesus' words in John 10, this would mean that your reasoning doesn't, at the least, "jump off the page," as it were. This would mean that you would have to go further than just quoting the text and then claiming that it means what you say it does if you want to give a persuasive defense for your answer to Annoyed Pinoy.
Also, your claim at least requires this suppressed premise: "Paradox breaks Scripture," and in the relevant sense of "break" too. So you would have to actually demonstrate all of this if you want, as I am sure you do, to present an argument worthy of the name.
So, would you mind enlightening me as to how your argument follows by laying out your thinking on the matter more explicitly?
Thank you,
* The Ninja *
Gerety: "That we distinguish, along with the Bible, between three noetic states: knowledge, opinion, and ignorance. I realize that Manata and others here on Triblogue do not so distinguish and deny that knowledge requires any account or needs to be justified."
ReplyDeleteManata: Of course this is just downright false. I do deny that it is necessarythat any and all claims to knowledge need to have propositional evidence in its favor, or a justification for it. However, if you reject that then you have an infinite regress as well as the problem that you do not know your axiom to be the case. If you do, then you would need to justify it. Then justify that justification, etc.This is the typical grandstanding that I have come to expect from you. You bellow what epistemic justification do I have to call your characterization of Clark and Robbins sin or even that they are men. Of course, Scripture is replete with commands on how we are treat and view our elders, Hebrews 12 will suffice: “Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?” I don’t think your characterization of Clark as a meth producer and Robbins his dealer appropriate even if you think Scripturalism is self-refuting nonsense. And, yes, this is my opinion along with the idea that Clark and Robbins were men. By the same token, you can no more account for Clark and Robbins than I can, for all you know there never were any men called Clark or Robbins, and it’s you’re opinion that you have not sinned in treating these men as contemptible drug dealers. Clearly, both us cannot be right and, seeing you cannot accept correction at least from me, it’s fine with me to leave it in the Lord’s hands. I think you crossed the line and claiming you’ve apologized for your actions because you removed some references in your post because they offended me is not an apology. It’s your actions that you should be sorry for.
Again, if I were to compare VT & Co. with serial pedophile rapists, the analogy would perhaps be apt, but in my view it would cross a line that you cannot even see. For the record, I have no problem with Aquascum or Sudduth’s so-called “refutations” of Scripturalism. They at least kept their attacks out of the gutter.
Finally, to address your last point, the Scriptures cannot be proved. Axioms are chosen not deduced. The Bible alone is the Word of God is the presupposition or starting point upon which Christianity rests. As the prophet said; “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”
Manata: Really, Sean? You just requested a review copy? You're going to read it now and see if he advances the discussion?
Well, how do you reconcile what you just said with what you said on your blog a week ago? To wit:
From what I’ve read of the book I found nothing “weighty” or any of his arguments particularly strong — or even original for that matter. It sounds like the same old defense of Vantilian nonsense that I’ve heard for years....
That’s easy Paul, I’ve read your review of the book along with snippets elsewhere. If you’re now accusing me of lying you really need to be more careful. Besides I’ve been reading Anderson for years on the old VT discussion group and interacted with him briefly concerning some red flags raised by some of the things I’ve read concerning his very book on the Puritan boards It's you who are your own worse enemy Paul and then some.
Sean,
ReplyDeleteSo it looks like I brought up some problems and gave answers directly in response to something you ask me and rather than stay on point you use the discussion on epistemology as a pretext to comment on my old post on Scipturalism.
Again, you are making charges that you don't know and cannot justify. But you believe this is sinful. So, ON YOUR OWN STANDARDS it is YOU who is acting sinful.
Moreover, I never called Clark a meth producer of Robbins a meth dealer. I called Clark the producer of Scripturalism and Robbins a dealer of Scripturalism. get it right.
You then further indict yourself. You claim that calling Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame "pedaphiles" would be "apt", but then think you escape any problem because you never actually assert it in a post, though you do in your mind. Sean, do you really think you're helping yourself out? I don't even need to interact with you, you beat yourself just fine.
So, not only does internal consistency call for you to remove your charge---because you cannot make charges based on unjustified opinions---you do the same thing you think is sinful. This is self-defeating.
Sean Gerety: " don’t think your characterization of Clark as a meth producer and Robbins his dealer appropriate even if you think Scripturalism is self-refuting nonsense. And, yes, this is my opinion along with the idea that Clark and Robbins were men. By the same token, you can no more account for Clark and Robbins than I can, for all you know there never were any men called Clark or Robbins, and it’s you’re opinion that you have not sinned in treating these men as contemptible drug dealers."
Manata: You're not going far enough, you also don't know your own epistemology!
Gerety: "Finally, to address your last point, the Scriptures cannot be proved. Axioms are chosen not deduced."
Manata: So you don't need to justify all knowledge, or do you not know your axiom?
Moreoever, how do you know what you just said? Did you deduce it from the Bible? Does the Bible talk about axioms, deductions, etc?
After I caught Gerety lying, he spins it thus:
"That’s easy Paul, I’ve read your review of the book along with snippets elsewhere. If you’re now accusing me of lying you really need to be more careful. Besides I’ve been reading Anderson for years on the old VT discussion group and interacted with him briefly concerning some red flags raised by some of the things I’ve read concerning his very book on the Puritan boards It's you who are your own worse enemy Paul and then some."
1. Of course you clearly implied that you had read the book.
2. I deny that you have read my review, so that's another lie. If you read it then your memory is horrible because you constantly misrepresent the position and you also said it doesn't advance the discussion---which my review clearly points out it does. Can you tell me where in my review it is laid out that Anderdson's solution is "just like" every one else's? See, you made specific claims which are contradicted by the empirical evidence. Even if you didn't agree with my review, you couldn't claim that it was the same stuff as Frame &c.
3. You interacted with Anderson on the puritan board where he had to constantly correct you and point out parts of his book that were in direct oppisition to what you claimed was his position.
Sorry, the above isn't enought to even remotely defend the claim you made on your blog. The best reading of you is that you were terribly careless.
And, you do have problems with Sudduth and Aquascum. Shall I paste in all the things you've said about them? Quit lying Sean, it is sad to see.
I don't know about this Sean. Does, "Scripture cannot be broken" mean, "there are no paradoxes in God's revelation to man"?
ReplyDeleteThat seems, prima facie, like a stretch. It is certainly not obvious, as many godly and theologically savvy Christians....Gill writes concerning “and the Scripture cannot be broken” that it the truths of Scripture cannot be made null and void; whatever that says is true, and, there is no contradicting it, or objecting to it.
If there is no contradicting Scripture then it follows that Scripture could not contradict itself. Perhaps the Westminister Divines weren’t particularly “theologically savvy Christians” either since they too claimed that in Scripture there is a consent of all its parts and that the meaning of Scripture is one and “not manifold.” The Westminster Confession affirms, echoing Scripture itself, that truth is characterized by the logical and harmonious relationship of propositions, not by “apparent contradictions,” antinomies, or insoluble and inscrutable paradoxes.
Of course, Paul also referred to the Scriptures as perfect or complete (1Cor 13:10) along with James (Jas 1:25). It’s hard to see how the Scriptures can be considered perfect if it containes antinomies and insoluble paradoxes, which, we are told by at least some Vantilians, is the result of God’s revelation being incomplete.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/04/sean-of-dead.html
ReplyDeleteSean,
ReplyDeleteSorry, grasshopper, that just doesn't cut it. Let's say I granted everything you said. Still, none of it would back up your claim that there could not be paradoxes in Scripture.
You also seem to be unable to stay on the point (of my ninjato). I want to deal with John 10 right now. Gill's claim seems like it could be fully endorsed by those who affirm that there are some paradoxes in Scripture. I also hasten to add, simply paraphrasing Gill, even if he were relevant, would not be enough to underwrite your claim.
Now, I ask again: Would you mind showing how John 10 supports your answer to Annoyed Pinoy?
Thank you,
* The Ninja *
After I caught Gerety lying, he spins it thus:
ReplyDelete"That’s easy Paul, ....
1. Of course you clearly implied that you had read the book.Paul, the only one here who is a liar is you and a not particularly good one at that. I wrote "from what I've read...." If that in your small and closed mind means that I've read the book then I guess you are not just playing the idiot after all.
But, again, you prove what an impotent little bully you still are. We're done here.
Sean Gerety: "For the record, I have no problem with Aquascum or Sudduth’s so-called “refutations” of Scripturalism. They at least kept their attacks out of the gutter."
ReplyDeleteSean Gerety: "BTW, does this Aquascum have a real name? Further, why would anyone take seriously a man who 1) is obviously too cowardly to use his real name, and, 2) uses an alias that invites the reader to equate him with pond scum?"
Ninja writes:
ReplyDelete"I want to deal with John 10 right now. Gill's claim seems like it could be fully endorsed by those who affirm that there are some paradoxes in Scripture."
Let me be clear, there are paradoxes, properly understood in Scripture. But stating dogmatically that the paradox of this or that, be it God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, God's particular election and God's supposed desire for the universal salvation of all (two so-called paradoxes which have been harmonized), or any number of paradoxes deemed by "savvy theologians" as insoluble, with the caveat that there are no contradictions for God, isn't a paradox. It's a contradiction for us. To call it a paradox then is disingenuous and wishful thinking at best, and, at worst, an open libel against God's Word.
So, I fail to see how those who affirm Biblical paradox (in the sense Van Til and his followers mean it) could agree with Gill here, much less the Confession writers. If Scripture contradicts Scripture at least at the bar of human reason it is no less a contradiction of Scripture.
Sean Gerety said...
ReplyDeleteAfter I caught Gerety lying, he spins it thus:
"That’s easy Paul, ....
1. Of course you clearly implied that you had read the book.
Paul, the only one here who is a liar is you and a not particularly good one at that. I wrote "from what I've read...." If that in your small and closed mind means that I've read the book then I guess you are not just playing the idiot after all.
4/27/2009 11:09 AM
Ummmm, Sean, you left something out, let me help
"From what I’ve read of the book..."
Gerety: "But, again, you prove what an impotent little bully you still are.
Manata: How so? Because I quoted you making claims at odds with what you've said elsewhere? And, Sean, you can't win at a substantive debate, so you wanted this to go down this road to justify your dodging of substantive issues and to justify your repeated attacks on my. The only problem, I didn't give you what you wanted and so now you're just left claiming that I'm a bully without any empirical support.
Gerety: "We're done here".
Manata: Promise? I hope so.
Sean Gerety: For the record, I have no problem with Aquascum or Sudduth’s so-called “refutations” of Scripturalism. They at least kept their attacks out of the gutter.
ReplyDeleteSean Gerety: Then why is it that Dr. Sudduth and other of Clark´s critics seem only capable of leveling abusive ad hominem attacks and vain and petty caricatures of Clark´s position like the ones you provide above?
Interpretation: So you don't have problems with "refutations" that are "only" made up of "ad hominems," and to argue "ad hominem" is not to place an "attack" in the "gutter"??
Sean, you're your own worst enemy. You've now been caught lying in multiple areas.
SEAN GERETY SAID:
ReplyDelete“The Bible alone is the Word of God…”
Is that merely your opinion? Or is that an object of knowledge? Is it a true statement? If so, how do you know it’s true–given your theory of knowledge?
“Gill writes…the Westminister Divines…claimed…”
But, on your epistemology, you don’t know what Gill wrote or the Westminster Divines claimed.
Why do you keep acting as if you know things you don’t? Are you hoping we’ll forget the implications of your own position?
“Of course, Paul also referred to the Scriptures as perfect or complete (1Cor 13:10) along with James (Jas 1:25).”
How do you know what they said? How do you even know that Paul or James were real men? Isn’t that just your opinion?
“It’s hard to see how the Scriptures can be considered perfect if it containes antinomies and insoluble paradoxes…”
Show us how you deduce that conclusion from Scripture. Where does Scripture indicate that a paradox is an imperfection?
I’d like to see you translate your many assertions into Scripturalist terminology. Every time you make a claim, Sean, you should add the Scripturalist disclaimers so that everyone can see what you claim actually amounts to.
Why don’t you do that, Sean?
Hi Sean,
ReplyDeleteThanks. I will take your final reply as an indication that you cannot show that John 10 means that God would not reveal paradoxes.
I also note that above Paul Manata claimed that there is no claim that the paradoxes are necessarily insoluble, but it is possible that they might be.
Lastly, if you can't see how they could agree with Gill then I don't know what else to say. It seems that you are just set on claiming that they are affirming contradictions and since Gill says that there are no contradictions, they, therefore, can't agree with Gill. But surely in your more honest moments you must see that this is nothing other than stacking the deck in your favor. I fact, didn't Paul Manata offer page numbers in this very post where the distinction between believing contradictions and merely apparent contradiction was made. You don't seem like a very fair or honest debater, Sean Gerety. As a ninja, civil combat is prized for me, I leave you to battle other similar barbarians.
Thanks,
* The Ninja *
Being somewhat new to these ideas could I get some clarification?
ReplyDeleteFor example, it seems that one has to start at some point or with something and proceed from there no matter how one defines knowledge or truth. So the “scripturalist” would say that he starts with the bible and derives all truth from it. Is the main issue then that one group says *ALL* truth comes or is derived from the bible and another group says NO, not *ALL* truth comes or is derived from the bible?
Forgive if this is overly simplistic, just trying to see what the main issue is in this debate.
That's a good start, Ben.
ReplyDeleteOf course, we don't really start with the Bible. For example, babies don't read the Bible. They lack the know-how to read. They lack a sufficient knowledge of the world.
One can start with the Bible in the sense of using the Bible as a primary standard. That's not the same thing as starting with the Bible as our only source of knowledge–which is impossible.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSo to a “Scripturalist” the only place that one can go to get *TRUTH* is the bible? To them the bible is the sole source of *truth* and if it does not come or can be deduced from the bible it is not *truth*.
Just one more thing to clear it up in my mind, it seems that another issue is with saying things in the bible are “apparent contradictions” and perhaps some things are not solvable to the human mind, say like God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Would there be anything wrong with saying that those two are harmonious, but at this time my mind can not harmonize them. Not to say that they haven’t been or are or will be harmonized by man. Just stating that perhaps at this moment I cannot harmonize those two concepts, but not saying that they can never be harmonized this side of heaven.
BEN SAID:
ReplyDelete"So to a 'Scripturalist' the only place that one can go to get *TRUTH* is the bible? To them the bible is the sole source of *truth* and if it does not come or can be deduced from the bible it is not *truth*."
If it can't be deduced from Scripture, then, at best, it's mere opinion.
Annoyed Pinoy said...
ReplyDelete“Also, will someone please ‘leak out’ Aquascum's identity? Why does he/she continue to hide himself/herself? (heh)__Or is it that everyone knows who he/she is, and I'm the last person who still doesn't know?”
Well, that’s tricky to pin down. Aquascum used to be a he until “he” underwent gender reassignment surgery, at which point “he” became a she. After that, “she” became a pangender, then a bigender, then an ambigender, and then an agender. Last I heard, Aquascum is now an intergender.
Ben said,
ReplyDelete"So to a “Scripturalist” the only place that one can go to get *TRUTH* is the bible? To them the bible is the sole source of *truth* and if it does not come or can be deduced from the bible it is not *truth*.?
I think it's important to distinguish between alethic scripturalism AE and strong SES.
Respectively:
[AS] There are no truths that are not expressed in Scripture.
[SES] There are no truths that can be justified that are not expressed in Scripture.
You were presenting Scripturalism as [AE], but some would opt for [SES]; then, there are some opt for "weak" epistemic Scripturalism, WES, etc.
I think it is clear that [AE] and [SES] are as paradigm a case for obviously false and absurd positions as have ever been nominated for that title.
The consensus seems to be that the more interesting varieties [AE] and [SES] are obviously false, other varieties (to the extent that they get spelled out at all), are just uninteresting.
Overall, Scripturalism is either obviously false or uninteresting.
sorry: [SES] = strong epistemic scripturalism
ReplyDeleteThe twists and turns of debates and argument can sometimes be pretty heated, where both sides can be passionate. There is nothing in of itself wrong with passion, however, one thing is clear for the Christian, that in the midst of the argument a believer must not sin by lying.
ReplyDeleteThe Clarkian versus other Reformed apologists debate still rages today, after decades of the disciples of both men still dialogue over several related issues. Whatever the issue, one shuold not be stooped down to the level of lying. It is sinful and does not glorify God.
Over at Triablogue, there is an exchange between Clarkian Sean Gerety and Paul Manata. After Paul Manata raised concern about whether Sean Gerety has read James Anderson's book on Christian Paradox when Gerety did not, Sean writes,
Paul, the only one here who is a liar is you and a not particularly good one at that. I wrote "from what I've read...." If that in your small and closed mind means that I've read the book then I guess you are not just playing the idiot after all.
"But, again, you prove what an impotent little bully you still are."
(Comment dated: 4/27/2009 11:09 AM by Sean Gerety)
Remember the quotation "from what I've read...", for you shall see it again. As one can see above, Gerety admits that he has not read the book, and he asserts Manata is just bullying him. About half an hour before this comment, Sean Gerety wrote with a stern warning to Paul Manata about accusing him of lying,
"That’s easy Paul, I’ve read your review of the book along with snippets elsewhere. If you’re now accusing me of lying you really need to be more careful."
(Comment dated: 4/27/2009 10:26 AM by Sean Gerety)
Sean Gerety makes it clear that he just read Manta's review of Anderson's book, and "snippets" of it elsewhere and has "not read the book".
One must be careful to accuse Gerety, or anyone, of lying. The truth is though, Sean Gerety did lie here, and that's unfortunate. Remember the quote "from what I've read..." that Sean Gerety mentioned earlier? Where was the quotation "from what I've read..." originally from? And what follows after the "..."? The original quote was from Gerety, in a comment in his blog where he said at http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/showing-van-til-the-door/#comment-875,
"From what I’ve read of the book I found nothing “weighty” or any of his arguments particularly strong — or even original for that matter. It sounds like the same old defense of Vantilian nonsense that I’ve heard for years."
(Comment dated: April 22, 2009 at 10:30 pm at http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/showing-van-til-the-door/#comment-875)
Gerety was caught in a lie by Paul Manata. Take heed, what the Word of God says,
" You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44)
Gerety, this is a spiritual issue. You should repent to God. You should make a public apology. Give God the glory, instead of allowing your pride to take root by not repenting.
Gerety, this is a spiritual issue. You should repent to God. You should make a public apology. Give God the glory, instead of allowing your pride to take root by not repenting.
ReplyDeleteGerety was caught in a lie by Paul Manata. Take heed, what the Word of God says,
Manata caught Gerety in NOTHING. What a bloviating bunch of old boars. I did not lie. Saying that "from what I've read" or even "from what I've read of the book" does not imply that I've read the book. Either way it means the same thing. What did blind man Manata think I meant when I said from what I read? Tea leaves? Sudduth's Ouija Board?
Manata fabricated his false charge out of thin are and typically takes his opponents purposely out of context.
I have read snippets of the book and not just from Manata's long and glowing review. I never said or even implied that I have read the book. So why don't you put this one to rest or you will be rightly accused of lying Sir and I suppose reveal your own heritage.
Gerety,
ReplyDeleteThat would be fine except:
Recall the fib I caught you in WRT Sudduth and Aquascum, to wit:
Sean Gerety: For the record, I have no problem with Aquascum or Sudduth’s so-called “refutations” of Scripturalism. They at least kept their attacks out of the gutter.
Sean Gerety: Then why is it that Dr. Sudduth and other of Clark´s critics seem only capable of leveling abusive ad hominem attacks and vain and petty caricatures of Clark´s position like the ones you provide above?
Sean Gerety: "BTW, does this Aquascum have a real name? Further, why would anyone take seriously a man who 1) is obviously too cowardly to use his real name, and, 2) uses an alias that invites the reader to equate him with pond scum?"
Now, WRT your claim about Anderson's book, even if correct, this is still hard to square with what you says concerning what he read. You indicated he read my review, yet if you had you wouldn't have made the comments you did concerning the book's arguments (whether you agreed with them or not). Indeed, one of the *main* comments about the book, that you even get from those hostile to its argument (e.g., Dale Tuggy), is the *uniqueness* of the argument. So, I'm not sure other analysis of your claim help. However, if this is indeed all you've read, then your comments about the book (e.g., any of its arguments, etc.,) at your blog seem to be out of place, overreaching.
You also said he read "snippets" *as well* as my review, *as well as* interacting with James on the pb, *as well as* reading the Van Til list, etc., so, that would seem to leave room only for the book qua bound material. If not, what else? James never had it on line. So, I'm unsure any charitable analysis could help Sean.
So, Sean, if you haven't read the book, then you shouldn't make such strong claims about it. And, if you have read what you say you have, then you wouldn't have made thne claims you made.
I also wonder why you'd buy the book if you read my review. I do cover those areas that show the argument unique, yet you say that you don't even find those "unique." They're "the same" as the arguments by Frame &c. The problem is, they aren't. So, your own interpretation still testifies against you. Couple that with the untruths you uttered above re: your not having a problem with the "refutations" that are put forth by "cowards" and are "only" abusive ad hominem arguments, and you're not looking completely honest.
Hey Paul, you said that strong epistemic Scripturalism holds the view that:
ReplyDelete[SES] There are no truths that can be justified that are not expressed in Scripture.
(Where "expressed in" is understood, I think, to mean "stated as a proposition in, or deducible from stated propositions in".) But it seems to me that this is a somewhat inaccurate representation. After all, presumably a strong epistemic Scripturalist would agree with the statement that a truth is justified merely in virtue of God knowing it. Therefore, whether or not a truth is expressed in Scripture is irrelevant to its justification, at least in an externalist sense. So [SES] would be better phrased:
[SES*] There are no truths that human beings can be justified in believing that are not expressed in Scripture.
Or, put more precisely:
[SES**] A person S is justified in believing some proposition p iff p is expressed in Scripture.
But this is also not entirely accurate, since presumably the Scripturalist does not believe that S is justified in believing p merely in virtue of p being expressed in Scripture—rather, there must be some causal connection between p being expressed in Scripture, and S's believing that p. If p is the proposition that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", a Scripturalist would presumably deny that S is justified in believing p in the event that S did not believe p in virtue of its being expressed in Scripture (say, in the event that he believed it in virtue it being revealed to him by a magical fairy). So we should reformulate [SES**] as follows:
[SES***] S is justified in believing p iff S believes p in virtue of p being expressed in Scripture.I wonder if Sean could confirm that this is an accurate representation of his view. If so, it would seem incumbent upon him to show that [SES***] is expressed in Scripture, as otherwise strong epistemic Scripturalism is manifestly self-refuting. In fact, allow me to make this challenge:
Sean: I deny that [SES***] is expressed in Scripture. Therefore, if it is your position, I find it to be self-referentially absurd. It should be a simple matter to either correct me on what your position actually is, or to prove me wrong if [SES***] accurately represents it.
Sean,
ReplyDelete1.) "I did not lie. Saying that "from what I've read" or even "from what I've read of the book" does not imply that I've read the book. Either way it means the same thing."
What do you think of what John Robbins use to say, you should have been the one to make it clear what you mean? From the beginning that is: In the original quote.
By the way, I'm going to read your book you author with Robbins pretty soon...
D,
ReplyDeletePart of the problem is in getting Scripturalists to explain, precisely, what they believe.
Anyway, see the Aquascum page where ehe demonstrates, via primary sources, Cheung's SES-kind of views.
Anyway, You write:
"Hey Paul, you said that strong epistemic Scripturalism holds the view that:
[SES] There are no truths that can be justified that are not expressed in Scripture.
(Where "expressed in" is understood, I think, to mean "stated as a proposition in, or deducible from stated propositions in".) But it seems to me that this is a somewhat inaccurate representation".
I dunno how inaccurate it is. Here's some quotes by Scripturalists:
**********
Robbins summarizes his and Clark’s position: “Epistemology: The Bible tells me so… Scripturalism does not mean, as some have objected, that we can know only the propositions of the Bible. We can know their logical implications as well… Now, most of what we colloquially call knowledge is actually opinion: We “know” that we are in Pennsylvania; we “know” that Clinton - either Bill or Hillary - is President of the United States, and so forth. Opinions can be true or false; we just don’t know which. History, except for revealed history, is opinion. Science is opinion. Archaeology is opinion. John Calvin said, “I call that knowledge, not what is innate in man, nor what is by diligence acquired, but what is revealed to us in the Law and the Prophets.” Knowledge is true opinion with an account of its truth.
It may very well be that William Clinton is President of the United States, but I do not know how to prove it, nor, I suspect, do you. In truth, I do not know that he is President, I opine it.
Sean’s Scripturalist friend on the puritan board: “Yes, from a Scripturalist worldview, if a proposition can not be deduce from Scripture, then we can’t “know” if it’s true or false.”
Gerety says knowledge is limited to: “that which can be known to Scripture and all those things necessarily deducible from Scripture.”
Vincent Cheung: “”All knowledge comes from biblical propositions and their necessary implications”
Gary Crampton in his review of Reymond shows his disagreement: “And more than once he refers to knowledge being justified by means of history and experience (478, 678), whereas Scripture alone is the sole means of justifying knowledge,…”
**********
You write: After all, presumably a strong epistemic Scripturalist would agree with the statement that a truth is justified merely in virtue of God knowing it".
Reply: Of course, that doesn't really help when talking about how humans know. We're talking about human epistemology here. That's the context of dialogue assumed by all parties. See below.
You write: "Therefore, whether or not a truth is expressed in Scripture is irrelevant to its justification, at least in an externalist sense".
Reply: I can trust that you now see that this is false of we are to go by the claims of Scripturalists themselves. However, I share your intuition that they make obviously false claims.
You write: So [SES] would be better phrased:
[SES*] There are no truths that human beings can be justified in believing that are not expressed in Scripture.
Or, put more precisely:
[SES**] A person S is justified in believing some proposition p iff p is expressed in Scripture".
D, this is assumed by all parties to the debate, you're being pedantic I think.
Furthermore, note that I said "truths that can be justified" and you are talking about "justified in believing." Note the subtle difference. I'm talking about giving an account (Robbins words). You're talking about "justified in believing." Those are not coterminous.
You write: "But this is also not entirely accurate, since presumably the Scripturalist does not believe that S is justified in believing p merely in virtue of p being expressed in Scripture—rather, there must be some causal connection between p being expressed in Scripture, and S's believing that p".
Of course you can see that I am working only with what Scripturalists give me. Obviously the Scripturalist believes that a person is justified only if he can give an "account," which means he would have to go to chapter and verse. Note I said that there are no truths that can be *justified*, this presupposes that the relevant agent justifies his knowledge claims by apeal to Scripture or showing deductions.
What do you think of what John Robbins use to say, you should have been the one to make it clear what you mean? From the beginning that is: In the original quote.That's good advice and I confess I thought I was clear, but I wasn't expecting Manata to take my words out of context, make a wild inference, and then beat me over the head with it. Like I said, the man has a habit of taking his opponents out of context and then doing a lot of end zone dancing and chest thumping.
ReplyDeleteHere is the quote in it's entirety:
"From what I’ve read of the book I found nothing “weighty” or any of his arguments particularly strong — or even original for that matter. It sounds like the same old defense of Vantilian nonsense that I’ve heard for years. Just another rehash of tired arguments made by men like David Byron, John Frame, David Bahnsen, Doug Jones and others. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but seeing that Anderson is the author of Van Til FEM I hardly think his book in defense of biblical contradictions, which he and other Vantilians wrongly call “paradoxes,” will offer anything new."
Now, notice, I make reference to Anderson's Van Til FEM work and then surmise that I didn't think his book would offer anything new. I would have thought that any fair minded person would have read that and would see that I had not read the book, was not making any pretense of having read the book, or even remotely implied that I did. Yet, I'm accused of being a liar. Of course, I was under no illusions when I came here that Manata is a fair minded man. I said before, I consider him the perpetual little bully he's evidently always been, pre regeneration or not, and the above is just one more example of why.
Hey Paul—
ReplyDelete> [SES**] A person S is justified in believing some proposition p iff p is expressed in Scripture".
D, this is assumed by all parties to the debate, you're being pedantic I think.
I don't think so. Note that I said "iff" (ie, if and only if), not merely "if". Only a Scripturalist would agree that one is justified in believing some truth if and only if that truth is expressed in Scripture.
Furthermore, note that I said "truths that can be justified" and you are talking about "justified in believing." Note the subtle difference. I'm talking about giving an account (Robbins words). You're talking about "justified in believing." Those are not coterminous.
Sorry to be slow, but could you explain the distinction? I thought that I was talking about "giving an account". I was trying to clear up the ambiguity in the phrase "truths that can be justified", since a proposition can either be internally or externally justified, and I wasn't 100% clear on which you meant (unless I have missed a third category?) We seem to be speaking of internal or subjective justification, since we all agree that truths which God knows are externally or objectively justified.
That being the case, what's the difference between internally justifying some proposition, and giving an account for the truth of that proposition? Aren't those just different ways of talking about a functionally identical process?
Sean,
ReplyDeleteYou'll notice that I immediately granted your explanation and brought up the problems your new explanation brings up. If anyone is dancing, it's not me.
Hey Paul—
ReplyDelete> [SES**] A person S is justified in believing some proposition p iff p is expressed in Scripture".
D, this is assumed by all parties to the debate, you're being pedantic I think.
I don't think so. Note that I said "iff" (ie, if and only if), not merely "if". Only a Scripturalist would agree that one is justified in believing some truth if and only if that truth is expressed in Scripture".
D,
What is agreed is that we are talking about humans. One could get pedantic with you and claim that since "God is a person" then the above doesn't work for God and you gave a false theory since Scripturalists would deny it. So, I was talking about you picking on me for not putting the "human being" part in there.
"Sorry to be slow, but could you explain the distinction? I thought that I was talking about "giving an account". I was trying to clear up the ambiguity in the phrase "truths that can be justified", since a proposition can either be internally or externally justified, and I wasn't 100% clear on which you meant (unless I have missed a third category?)".
Sure,
One can be justified in believing some proposition, say, he sees a bluebird outside his window without being able to justify that proposition, or, give an account.
Anyway, I don't believe Clarkians are externalists at all, so, again, I thought my claim was proper given the context of dialogue I made it in.
annoyed pinoy to deny scripturalism is utter blasphemy, now do I sound like vincent cheung?sean gerety dont think you can beat steve in a cogent,rational argument.
ReplyDeleteAs Sean can now see:
ReplyDelete"From what I've read of the book" is a common way to refer to what you have read from or out of the actual book.
See here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22from+what+I%27ve+read+of+the+book%22&btnG=Search
So, at best Sean was unclear like Van Til ;-), and even his clearing up of the matter is highly suspect.
So, we have these problems so far.
(*) The problem of being unclear and the clearing up still the consistency of mud.
(*) The problem of not interacting with anyone at a substantive level.
(*) The problem of feigning that he has no problem with other critics of Scripturalism while he also was shown to have called those critics "cowards" who can "only" offer "abusive ad hominems" as their "criticims."
(*) The problem of self-referential incoherency.
(*) The problem of internal irrationality in the form of presuppositional tension.
(*) The problem of projecting his flaws onto others.
Did I leave anything out, Sean?
Paul Manata:
ReplyDeleteYou forgot,
(*) Claiming that John 10 means that 'God's revelation would/could not contain paradoxes' while not being able to support that reading.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteSean was not lying. He was making paradoxical claims!
His contradictions are merely apparent contradictions, even though they may be insoluble in this life!
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThat may be. Given how unclear he's been, it wouldn't suprise me if he were a crypto Van Tillian whose main goal has been to make Scripturalism look bad, and horribly so.
However, if he is a Scripturalist (which he doesn't even know if he is), it's worse. On Sean's terms he doesn't know that he didn't say "I [Sean] read the book." If he doesn't that, he doesn't know that he lied when he later implied he had not read the book. So, Sean doesn't even know if he hasn't lied yet he dogmatically insists that he hasn't. His dogmatisim doesn't match the level of justification he has for those dogmatic claims (on his own terms). He also doesn't know that I [me] "took anything out of context." All of this is based on what he must believe are his mere, unjustified opinions. Really, you culdn't make such an absurd position up. Yet, maybe Tertullian was right when he probably never said: "I believe it because it's absurd."
P—
ReplyDeleteSo, I was talking about you picking on me for not putting the "human being" part in there.
Heh, I wasn't picking on you dude. I was just trying to get things straight in my mind.
Anyway, I don't believe Clarkians are externalists at all, so, again, I thought my claim was proper given the context of dialogue I made it in.
Fair enough. Again, it was I who was unclear on the externalist/internalist question as regards Clarkians.
Thanks for clarifying that anyway.
Regards,
D
D,
ReplyDeleteYou were picking on me like one might pick at an onion to get at deeper layers, no evaluative content involved. :-)
Anyway, it seems clear that the un-spelled-out statements of Clarkians that I posted make for a self-defeating enterprise in at least an austerely prima facie way; however, I'm always open to an analysis which escapes the problems people have been posing to them for quite some time now.
I'm always open to an analysis which escapes the problems people have been posing to them for quite some time now.Given your closed minded bigotry and hatred, that would be a first.
ReplyDeleteI've spent enough time over here being your punching bag.
Vantilian Shadow Boxing - Round One
All,
ReplyDeleteThis is not a thread, it's a ROPE!
What is most ineresting to observe here is the way in which Tennant and Manata disagree with each other. There is enough respect and grace between them to tolerate a difference of opinion or to strain out the difference until it is gone. And they part as brothers in Christ, without all the spitting and punching. They don't unnecessarily offend one another. Shouldn't this be the model? Call me an idealist...
I subscribe to Paul's (that is, the Apostle's) statement, "Let God be true, and every man a liar," as a literal and realistic description of mankind (and God). All of us are liars in the sense that we have uttered lies, believed lies, and cherished lies at some point in time (and I'd go so far as to say we've done it post-conversion, universally). FWIW, Gerety's original comment about "... what I've read of Anderson's book ..." was written to me, and I did not take it to mean that he had read a literal, bound copy of the book. I think there's enough in Sean's own words to disprove his Scripturalist arguments without resorting to branding him a liar over an unclear reference.
It's just another (rhetorical) paradox (and I think even Sean believes in rhetorical paradoxes): every honest person will admit to being a liar. And what every one us desperately needs is mercy. And yes, I did deduce it from Scripture.
I'm no proponent of Sean's viewpoints. In fact, I think they're mostly absurd and unfounded nonsense (which is approximately what he thinks of mine). But if we're going to engage with him, let's fight fair and stick to the real issues.
Hope I don't hang myself on this "ROPE." I do very much appreciate the way Paul Manata, Steve Hays and others here at Triablogue are demonstrating the truth and logical consistency of orthodox Reformed theology against the false impressions generated by certain extremists.
Grace & peace,
Derek Ashton
Thanks Derek. That was very gracious of you. I appreciated it.
ReplyDelete"FWIW, Gerety's original comment about "... what I've read of Anderson's book ..." was written to me, and I did not take it to mean that he had read a literal, bound copy of the book. I think there's enough in Sean's own words to disprove his Scripturalist arguments without resorting to branding him a liar over an unclear reference."
ReplyDeleteOf course, Derek, this leaves out everything else that developed from that statement. And, Sean doesn't get a break for being unclear. He rails on Van Til for that time and time again. I hold Sean to Sean's standard.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteAgreed. You've more than proven the problems with Sean's arguments. I would have pointed to the sheer viciousness of his rhetoric as a major problem, also (maybe you did and I missed it - or forgot). Frankly, I'm impressed with his use of sarcasm, but not in a good way. Vituperative speech is not a virtue among most Christians.
He's already responded with a new post, where he is trying to salvage his arguments from this thread. Sort of like diving for pieces of the Titanic. And of course he's making further attacks on the crazy paradox-affirming nut cases over here. Does this never end?
Derek
And of course he's making further attacks on the crazy paradox-affirming nut cases over here. Does this never end?Not as long as I live and breath or ya'll come to your senses and repent of your deplorable attack on God's holy, inerrant, and perfect Word. But I do appreciate your proper self-identification.
ReplyDelete