ALAN ROBUCK SAID:
In the linked article, the author says
Reformed thinkers today are met with a blistering set of powerful [analytic-philosophical] criticisms against the Calvinist scheme, and simply quoting Genesis 50 doesn’t cut it [in] today’s world.
I don’t know anything about the author, but I detect the stench of liberalism, with this allusion to “powerful criticisms” of, well, Christianity. Could any of the Triablogue crew at least summarize these philosophical accusations and their merits, if any?
It’s my impression that Triablogue is a Reformed site. But, as far as I can tell, the linked article claims that certain of the Reformed distinctives have been invalidated, or at least made doubtful, by certain findings of analytic philosophy. As a Reformed Christian, I’d certainly like to know if this is true.
Since the article is linked with no comment, I do not know what opinion of it is held by the Triablogue authors. So I’d like to know what opinion of the claim is held by the philosophically sophisticated Calvinists of Triablogue.
1. Manata can answer for himself. However, he’s a busy guy, so he has to make time-management choices.
2. The fact that I link to something doesn’t ipso facto mean I agree with everything it says. But in this case, I do agree with Manata’s review.
3. Triablogue is not officially Reformed. Rather, it’s top-heavy with Reformed contributors, myself included.
4. Before we comment further, let’s put the Manata quote in its larger context:
The comments on human freedom and providence simply repeated contemporary Reformed theologians’ seemingly complete unfamiliarity with the field of the metaphysics of human freedom, and one didn’t know for sure if libertarian free will was consistently affirmed or denied. There were the typical unhelpful comments like, “God is sovereign and we are free and it all works together somehow but we will never know how,” or, “we choose according to our nature,” etc. Drawing a picture of a little circle contained in a big circle and labeling them “human freedom” and “God’s freedom,” respectively, is hardly illuminating. So is saying that “human freedom is ectypal” equally unilluminating. Reformed thinkers today are met with a blistering set of powerful criticisms against the Calvinist scheme, and simply quoting Genesis 50 doesn’t cut it on today’s world.
I interpret Manata’s statement as follows:
5. Horton failed to rise to the challenge he set for himself. One goal he set for himself was to engage opposing positions. However, his treating of opposing positions on certain key issues is so cursory and uninformed that he fell short of his own goal. He tries to cover too much ground it too little time. His treatment is too superficial. And he doesn’t know his way around the opposing literature.
6. Horton also failed to appropriate insights from analytical philosophy which could be redeployed to refine and defend the Reformed position.
7. Horton also failed to answer the critics on their own level. For one thing, some critics are unbelievers. Therefore, they don’t acknowledge the authority of Scripture. Quoting Gen 50:20 begs the question.
Even if that were adequate for defensive apologetics, that’s inadequate for offensive apologetics.
8. Even when dealing with professedly Christian critics from rival theological traditions, the appeal to Gen 50:20 is insufficient. For one thing, they may offer a different interpretation which is consistent with their own position, but inconsistent with Horton’s. Therefore, Horton needs to exegete Gen 50:20 and defend his interpretation in response to alternate interpretations.
9. In addition, he needs to spell out in what respect Gen 50:20 is germane to the issue at hand. Human freedom and providence are complex issues, both individually and in combination. What aspects of human freedom and providence does Gen 50:20 address or implicate? What theoretical options does it rule out?
For instance, does Gen 50:20 present a theory of the will? Does Gen 50:20 present a theory of causation? Does it define a “choice”? Does it explain what makes something a bona fide choice? Does it distinguish between having choices and making choices? Does it distinguish between compatibilism and semicompatibilism? Does it interrelate and/or distinguish between agent-causation to event-causation? Does it adjudicate between hard determinism and soft determinism? Does it adjudicate between occasionalism and secondary causality? Does it explicate what grounds counterfactuals? Does it define possible worlds? Alternate possibilities?
10. Apropos (9), Manata may well believe that certain theoretical options are underdetermined by Gen 50:20. Although a coarse-grained text like Gen 50:20 can feed into a theoretical construct, Gen 50:20 is not, by itself, a detailed theory of anything in particular. It reveals a general truth, but lacks the specificity to single out one fine-grained position to the exclusion of other fine-grained positions.
Put another way, he may believe that while Gen 50:20 precludes certain theoretical options, that still leaves open a number of remaining options.
11. Finally, Manata faults Horton for failing to articulate a Reformed alternative. For quitting when the going gets tough, viz. “God is sovereign and we are free and it all works together somehow but we will never know how.” Isn't that a cop-out?
11. Finally, Manata faults Horton for failing to articulate a Reformed alternative. For quitting when the going gets tough, viz. “God is sovereign and we are free and it all works together somehow but we will never know how.” Isn't that a cop-out?
11. Finally, Manata faults Horton for failing to articulate a Reformed alternative. For quitting when the going gets tough, viz. “God is sovereign and we are free and it all works together somehow but we will never know how.” Isn't that a cop-out?
ReplyDeleteHey Steve, I agree with the rest of what you said but I think Horton is showing some pastoral sensitivity when he provides a statement like that. Most people (that I have spoken to anyway) would have a significantly more difficult time if I tried to go into the metaphysics of free-will with them but they can understand that Gen 50:20 rules out the vague idea have free-will that they're working with. I suppose this would fall under the situational perspective. I'm probably just taking your statement too strongly but feel free to correct me.
But in that event he needs to be consistent about the intended audience. To judge by Manata's review, and some of the commenters, Horton is working at cross-purposes. If he's going to write for popular consumption, fine. But in that event, why bring up von Balthasar et al.?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like a book that's too highbrow for the masses, but too lowbrow for the scholars.
The title of Horton's systematic lends one to think it's not written primarily for the academic: "Theology for Pilgrims on the Way"
ReplyDeleteThe first dozen or so pages are interesting:http://www.zondervan.com/media/samples/pdf/0310286042_samptxt.pdf
Sadly, his treatment of the Trinity likely isn't particularly well-developed given the amount of space dedicated.
Hmmm. The link didn't post completely.
ReplyDeleteTry this: http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Product/ProductDetail.htm?ProdID=com.zondervan.9780310286042&QueryStringSite=Zondervan
click "Read Sample" beneath the image of the book.
I agree that Horton's target audience isn't entirely clear but, regardless of the learning of the audience, if the person in the audience is a Christian he should accept the authority of the Scriptures. How many times have I seen you (rightfully) rebuking some so-called Christian intellectual for being too smart to let God's Word speak for itself? The Bible affirms both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility so, in the end, that should be all that is required for them.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say that we should make no attempt to delve deeper (we should) only that our wrestling with the implications of Scripture cannot be separated from our conviction that it is our highest authority. So in then end, if you are not impressed with Horton's philosophical arguments, you realize that you are still morally obligated to believe what the Scriptures teach.
David, I suppose if we're going to do systematics like that, we could produce some 100 page systematics rather than 1,000+ page ones.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Horton doesn't seem to have a problem going into considerable detail on other matters, not resting content with "that's the way it is, deal with it" type answers. My money is on the odds that, as is the case with almost all contemporary Reformed theologians, Horton just hasn't kept up with the literature on the metaphysics of freedom and so just can't go beyond traditional Edwardsian platitudes, i.e., "we act according to our nature, so see, God didn't coerce us." We see similar things WRT paedobaptism. Reformed paedobaptists seem to simply *repeat* the older claims as if (a) it just hasn't "sunk in" yet for their poor, benighted baptist brothers and (b) there haven't been responses by contemporary baptists that have significantly moved the debate forward. In many cases, Confessional Reformed have become a parody of themselves. Once known for the most intellectual, up-to-date, and theologically well-informed of all evangelicals, and something of a "proud spot" for Reformed laity, they frequently re-hash old arguments as if the field hasn't progressed and are not only becoming more insular, but seemingly proud of such insularity.
Now, to his credit, Horton does seem more apt than his colleagues to interact with a broader *theological* tradition, but, sadly, as McCall and others have repeatedly pointed out, this still fails to transfer to areas of analytic theology/philosophy, as if they think it's their daddy's analytic school and so fear and loathe it.
Furthermore, here's what Horton says in a 9marks interview about what he's pulling from and incorporating.
“Michael Horton: These other summaries of the Faith have brought great clarity and blessing to God’s people. However, like Robert Reymond, I was interested in writing a system from a confessional Reformed perspective. I also wanted to integrate biblical theology with systematic and historical approaches and interact with other Christian traditions as well as contemporary voices, including non-Christians thought."
This just isn't the case in many sections, e.g., the one on freedom.
Paul, I've been expressing a more pastoral concern about whether or not it is ever okay to say to someone (regardless of intellectual abilities), 'You may not understand it but the Scriptures say so and therefore it must be so'. I think that, once you have provided the best reasons available to you and the person doesn't think much of your philosophical arguments then you have every right to appeal to the higher authority of Scripture without being accused of copping out.
ReplyDeleteI haven't said anything about Horton's ST or about whether or not a book that simply provides proof texts should count as a fine work of systematic theology.
I love analytic philosophy and share many of the same concerns that you and Steve seem to regarding the 'confessionalist' crowd who's favourite arguments invariably start with 'Oh you silly young, restless, and reforming person. Don't you know that [insert name of confessional document here] has answered this quite succinctly 300 years ago?' when, in actuality, it does no such thing because the objection has become more sophisticated over the past 300 years.
And yes, the arguments they tend to give against credobaptism are often ridiculously uninformed.
David,
ReplyDeleteThat answer is fine in some contexts, I think all would agree. But is the systematic theology the place for that, especially when there are answers at the ready that go beyond that? So I think most would grant your point. I do! But I don't think it's responsive to what you quoted from Steve. A pastorally sensitive answer would drain the resources and then say something like that. Right?
That makes perfect sense, Paul. I think we're all in agreement. I guess my problem was it sounded too much like a blanket statement against the use of that answer for my liking.
ReplyDeleteDAVID J. HOUSTON SAID:
ReplyDelete"I agree that Horton's target audience isn't entirely clear but, regardless of the learning of the audience, if the person in the audience is a Christian he should accept the authority of the Scriptures. How many times have I seen you (rightfully) rebuking some so-called Christian intellectual for being too smart to let God's Word speak for itself? The Bible affirms both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility so, in the end, that should be all that is required for them."
But Horton is "Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics" at WSC, so the question is whether his only aim is to expound the Christian faith in this book, or whether he is also in some degree attempting to equip the saints to defend the faith. If the latter, then he may be sending our troops into battle, armed with "advanced" crossbows, while the enemy has laser-guided machine-guns.
We're in agreement, Steve. And I love the analogy!
ReplyDeleteHere's a question: given the frequent use of "liberalism" in this blog, is it fair to see liberalism as a subcomponent of humanism; is it something related to humanism, but separate; or is it not related at all?
ReplyDeleteThe reason I ask, is that historically at least, liberalism as a term, is relatively modern, and seem to vary with usage.
Whereas humanism, even its modern philosophical sense, can be seen to be Biblical, all the way back to Babylon.
So, to the relationship between humanism and 'true faith' can be seen clearly in the bible, and judged accordingly (condemned), while the relationship between liberalism and the bible, seems less clear, and seems more to depend on other considerations.
That is, of course, unless liberalism is merely a subcomponent of humanism.