This popped up on the site meter:
I would like to steer you clear of the Triablogue crew. They are certainly intelligent sharp cookies, but they are roundly centered in the ‘kind of Calvinism’ that this blog severely opposes in orientation.
I’m not suggesting that Steve doesn’t argue forcefully and cogently, but it’s exactly that that in my mind does not substantiate his Calvinism (his logical/causal reasoning) — and he thinks it does.
A few quick comments:
1. It’s true that at a substantive level, my five-point Calvinism, with its supralapsarian theodicy and all, is probably the antithesis of Bobby’s Barthian/Amyraldian synthesis, filtered through Kendall/Torrance/Bloesch et al.
2. But in another respect I find his comment a bit odd. From what I can tell, one of his primary targets is the Confessional Calvinism espoused by Scott Clark. However, Triablogue is a very different beast from Heidelblog.
3. Apropos (2), methodologically speaking, Bobby’s blog shares an ironic degree of affinity with Heidelblog.
Like Scott Clark (as well as Richard Muller), Bobby’s penchant is to cast the major issues in terms of historical theology rather than exegetical theology. He has an essentially Hegelian methodology. The history of ideas–in their dialectical refraction.
By contrast, I’ve offered far more exegetical support for my theology than I see Bobby doing on his blog. His master’s thesis has an exegetical orientation, but that’s hardly front and center on his blog.
4. It’s true that I sometimes argue on purely “logical” grounds, but that’s chiefly when I’m fielding “logical” objections to Calvinism by Arminians.