Horton's agnosticism

In his systematic theology, Michael Horton seems to endorse the Eastern Orthodox distinction between God's essence and his energies. As I've noted in the past, this leads to radical agnosticism:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/theological-illusionism.html

Union with Christ

http://reformedforum.org/ctc200/

"The stench of liberalism"

 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?