Vantillian Shadow Boxing – Round One

Paul Manata is in attack mode and frothing at the mouth after he saw the little video I posted from Pastor Kielar exposing the danger of affirming irreconcilable paradoxes in Scripture, which, for the human existent are indistinguishable from every day run-of-the-mill contradictions. You can read Manata’s tirade here and here.  It’s important to keep in mind the definition of paradox used by Van Til and his supporters. Dr. Robert Reymond carefully defines what it is these men mean by paradox: “two truths which are both unmistakably taught in the Word of God but which also cannot possibly be reconciled before the bar of human reason….” Keep that definition in mind as we proceed.

In his defense of Biblical paradox, Manata assures us that “the paradox is a paradox only for us.”  He explains,  “It’s analytic, Sean. It results from an unarticulated equivocation on the part of the revealer.”  Note carefully, the paradox which cannot possibly be reconciled before the bar of human reason is due to “an unarticulated equivocation on the part of the revealer.” God just failed to reveal His mind to us in Scripture so as to avoid seeming contradictions stemming from His “unarticulated equivocations.”  That’s reassuring.

Manata goes on with the usual Vantilian bilge about paradoxical for us, but reconcilable for God:

Obviously, the paradox is reconcilable, at least by God. But why think we must be able to reconcile them? The dictionary says nothing about paradoxes needing to be resolved by us.

Indeed, the dictionary doesn’t say anything about paradoxes needing to be resolved by us. I mean, what else can you expect when God is guilty of “unarticulated equivocations” in His propositional revelation to His children.  But how does Manata or any Vantilian know there is no paradox for God? By an appeal to Scripture? Impossible, since according to Van Til “all teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory.” Thankfully, Manata doesn’t want to go quite as far as Van Til here, but he still asserts that for God there is no contradiction; no paradox.  Evidently, and in opposition to the paradoxical and equivocal testimony God has given us in Scripture, we are just to believe there is no paradox for God.

Magic “faith,” divorced from logic and Scripture, becomes the means by which he asserts “there is no paradox for God.” But how can he possibly know this?  Perhaps God either cannot or will not resolve the paradoxes that Manata assures us are the result of “an unarticulated equivocation on the part of the revealer.” Wouldn’t it be better to assume that any so-called “paradox of Scripture” is nothing more than the result of articulated error on part of the interpreter? At what point do Manata’s paradoxes become just regular old contradictions in Scripture? Is there a time limit? Perhaps the antinomies of Scripture are eternal and can never be resolved?

Beyond that, Manata has no way of knowing that the Bible contains even one “unarticulated equivocation on the part of the revealer.” He just assumes it.  Why? Because it’s unarticulated of course. It’s unsaid. It’s just an assertion he and Anderson use to defend their belief that the Bible teaches what appears to be contradictions to us, but for God, not so much. It’s an assertion that’s made completely apart from any Biblical evidence or inference, but it helps them sound all “RE” as they claim to be “rational” to all their colleagues in the faculty lounge for believing in an incoherent Scripture, and equivocating God,  and a contradictory faith (not that Manata hangs out in faculty lounges like Anderson, he just wants to look cool to all his Vantilian blog buddies).

Wouldn’t it make more sense, even as a matter of simple intellectual honesty, to conclude that if Van Til, Anderson and Manata are right and these so-called paradoxes of Scripture are logically irreconcilable, then perhaps God himself is contradictory? There is and can be no warrant in Scripture – since Scripture itself is contradictory – for asserting that God is non-contradictory.

In response to this last objection Manata said, “It would seem that it simply follows from the nature of an all-knowing God.” Would it now? Doesn’t seem that way to me. 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 assertion that God is “all-knowing” is the result of another “unarticulated equivocation on the part of the revealer.” God wasn’t really teaching us that He is “all-knowing,” perhaps He just equivocated on the word “all” or “knowing” or both?  Who knows? Since that is evidently the answer to any number of supposed Biblical paradoxes, why not one more?

Of course, in order to be a modern Vantilian, one doesn’t have to resort to accusing God of equivocation in His authorship of His perfect and holy Word. Vantilian David Byron claims that the reason for Biblical paradox is due to the fact that God has failed to reveal the necessary propositions required to harmonize the various truths in His Word. Not exactly equivocation (although it can certainly result in equivocation), just not enough information so that the truths of Scripture might cohere. Consequently, the Trinity may in fact turn out to be The Pentanity: Scripture simply doesn’t tell us about the Mother and the Daughter.  Given that Rome has basically deified Mary, perhaps Benedict and his team of Jesuits should incorporate Byron’s arguments.  Given their track record a Romanist Pentanity can’t be far off.  Can everyone say “Mother Theresa.”  Or maybe it is the Octinity, with the Dutch Uncle, Aunt, and Cousin thrown in.

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 heresies — some of these men have defended all in the name of “biblical paradox”? It is no coincidence that virtually all defenders of the false gospel of the Federal Vision are self-professed Vantilians. It’s no surprise either that virtually all of the Federal Vision opponents that happen to be Vantilians remain utterly incapable of doing anything to stop it’s advance  and instead call the FV men currently disturbing the church “our brothers in Christ.”  I guess one good  paradox deserves another.

Now, for those unfamiliar with Manata, he is well known to Scripturlists as an ubiquitous Internet bully infamous  for viciously lampooning Gordon Clark as the Pablo Escobar of epistemology. Manata compared Clark to a Methamphetamine dealer who cuts his crank (read Scripturalism) with poison and employs John Robbins and others, including yours truly, to push his drug on the unwary.

Admittedly, when I exposed Manata on the Greenbaggins blog for his unconscionable libel against Clark and Robbins, he feigned an apology stating he would remove the offending references, not because it was in bad taste or even sinful, but because he was evidently embarrassed by Lane Keister’s lack of  appreciation for the smear.  Keister, who is a fellow Vantilian (so I guess Manata expected a warmer reception for his so-called “humor”) wrote: “I would certainly not have used that metaphor with regard to Clark, as I certainly did not and do not regard Clark as dangerous.”

Calling Manata out again on his sinful treatment of Clark, who was easily the most important Christian thinker of the last century,  and Robbins, who was Clark’s most able and best known defender, became the catalyst for another tired attack on Scripturalist epistemology.

Steve Hays, one of Manata’s blog buddies and defenders, starts the ball rolling with the following:

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?

Now, I never claimed that one could know that Clark, Robbins, or even Manata exist. Frankly, since the word “exists” can be predicated on everything from hallucinations to Klingons, I would argue that everything exists. Regardless, perhaps “Gordon Clark” was the nom de plume of some ghost writer. I honestly have no way of knowing. Seeing that Paul Manata has posted under the name Tom Bombadil, perhaps Bombadil is really Manata or perhaps both are Steve Hays? The Internet is a funny place. Yet, somehow men like Hays and Manata think that if I cannot account for the existence of a given person apart from Scripture and can’t “know” they exist in the sense of a justified true belief, then any opinion I may have of these men, even if true, is therefore moot.

I have to wonder if these men while claiming to be Christians (something I also cannot know, but can only presume) would agree that Scripture does in fact prohibit false witness along with slander in many places including Colossians 3:8; “But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.”  So, the question is, does Manata and Hays think Gordon Clark and John Robbins are men? Notice, the question is not do they know they are men? This is important, because Hays is correct, if Manata really thinks Clark is a fictional character, then he can’t libel Clark anymore than he can libel Tinkerbell.

On the other hand, Manata has given no indication that he thinks Clark is a fictional character, therefore if Manata thinks Clark was a man he is under the command of Scripture not to slander Clark  (libel being just slander in written form) and is therefore guilty of sin.

The argument would be simply:

Scripture teaches that slander/libel is sin

Manata slandered/libeled Clark

Manata sinned against Clark

Notice, it doesn’t matter if Manata or I know that Clark is a man or that he exists. If Manata thinks Clark is a man then he is required by Scripture to admit he sinned against Clark, either that or explain how painting Clark as the philosophical equivalent of a crank dealer looking to create a bunch of strung out Scripturalist tweekers somehow isn’t libel.

Years ago Michael Sudduth with the help of another one of Clark’s critics tried to trap Dr. Robbins in a similar ruse. One of Clark’s critics wrote:

If it is not possible for us to know that we exist or to have self-knowledge, as Clark says in response to those who suggest that self-knowledge is a species of extra-Biblical knowledge, how is it possible to know that we are sinners in need of grace? It seems that the latter must presuppose the former.

Sudduth replied:

… I think Clark would say that it is sufficient that you believe it. I believe I heard Clark provide an answer like that on the…Clark and Hoover debate. You believe that you exist and are a sinner, just as you hold opinions on many things. But you know that sinners are in need of grace (because that is in Scripture). So you deduce the conclusion that you are in need of grace. Problem is, I think, that one might ask whether the conclusion is known if it is deduced from two premises, only one of which is an item of knowledge. I agree. This is a problem.

To which Robbins replied:

All men are sinners.

Michael Sudduth is a man.

Therefore, Michael Sudduth is a sinner.

The syllogism is valid. Do you deny that Michael Sudduth is a man? If so, you have a problem.

It matters not that Scripture nowhere says that Michael Sudduth is a man. If you think you are a man, you are required by the syllogism to think that you are a sinner.

The syllogism remains valid however you arrived at the conclusion that Michael Sudduth is a man. If you happen to think you are an angel, Christ came to save sinners, not the righteous. You have excluded yourself from salvation.

It matters not whether you have knowledge or true belief of the minor premise. The conclusion follows. The syllogism is valid.

This is enough to render Hays’ objection sterile and to demonstrate that he fails to even touch Scripturalist epistemology.  Hays and Manata are throwing a lot of punches, but hitting nothing but air.  That’s because Hays and Manata are just game players who like to thump their chests  claiming to have shown Scripturalism to be self-refuting, but are just unwilling to do the work.  To do that, Hays or Manata would have to show that the Scriptures really do teach insoluble paradoxes that are forever beyond the bar of human reason. This would admittedly render the Scriptures, taken in and of themselves and as the axiom or starting point for the Christian faith, contradictory and self refuting because we would know then at least some of Scripture is false.  That’s because one side of any given contradiction must be, and not may be, false.

To refute Scripturalism requires they refute Clark’s axiom and the axiom of the Christian faith; the  Scriptures.

Yet, even when it comes the “full-bucket difficulty” of the Trinity, Manata concedes:

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 [see Clark’s groundbreaking treatise on The Trinity – SG], it’s light on the orthodoxy point.

One would have thought that even for these paradox mongers the desiderata of orthodoxy would be that it be first and foremost Biblical.  Evidently not according to the law firm of Manata, Anderson and Hays. They clearly desire something entirely different.

Notice above that these men assert, rightly or wrongly, contradictions in traditional confessional formulations.  I can only assume they’re referring to the Reformed Confessions.  If correct, one would think that rather than imputing errors found in the secondary standards to the Scripture, they would view  the existence of any paradox or apparent contradiction in the traditional formulations as giant clues that more work needs to be done. Didn’t the Confession writers assert that the Scriptures present to the mind of men “the consent of all the parts” and that the meaning of Scripture is “not manifold, but one”?  Evidently not according to Manata, Anderson and Hays.

Perhaps if men like Manata, Anderson and Hays spent more time trying to solve any of the remaining the so-called “paradoxes of Scripture,”  rather than attributing them to “an unarticulated equivocation on the part of the revealer,” they might actually contribute something worthwhile to Christ’s church.  If the traditional formulations need improvement then they should be revised in the light of Scripture. It wouldn’t be the first time in history  confessional statements have been revised. I thought we left the infallible teaching of the church hoax to Roman Catholics.

Stay tuned for round two….

Explore posts in the same categories: Theology, Van Til