Tuesday, October 04, 2011

TurretinFan's Criticism "May Be True" Per Hubner

Jamin Hubner has posted a response to my post that criticized his unsound argument

His post is something of a goulash of various points, from which I've extracted the parts seemingly related to my post.

He writes:
The last few posts on this blog have generated a flurry of responses. But unfortunately, very little is directed at the central concerns I have raised. Virtually none are written out of an interest in seeking the truth with love, nor from an understanding of what I myself even believe regarding Middle-Eastern conflict (Israel, Palestinians, etc.) as a whole, nor from a perspective that is even close to what a common man would say is “fair” or “balanced.” Middle-Eastern history can be a complex subject and I have much to learn. But it is unfortunate that in attempts to publicly untangle even small portions of history and draw a handful of conclusions, some usually fair-minded readers are hasty to generalize in ways that I think are very misleading (blog titles of “Supporting Arabs,” and such statements as “Hubner…is just a dupe for jihadists,” etc.), or just hasty to criticize in general.

That’s why I left a short annotated bibliography in the last post – so that if you’re truly interested in the truth, and not in the latest blogosphere drama, you can read some good books and draw your own conclusions. I don’t live on the internet folks. I hardly have time to read, let alone respond to those who critique my work. And this blog is but a small part of this ministry. That’s something to keep in mind as I make the following observations.
...
For one reason or another, Turretinfan (an able mind on Roman Catholicism and Reformed scholasticism) joined the discussion and believes I am making unsound arguments “supporting Arabs.” Of course, the title itself is loaded (“Supporting the Arabs with unsound arguments”). In principle, I do not support “Arabs” today or yesterday any more or any less than “Asians,” “Africans,” or “Germans.” I support whatever party is in the right/not in the wrong in any given context, and condemn the party that is in the wrong in any given context, regardless of ethnicity (shouldn’t we all?). Even, so, I don’t see my material “supporting Arabs” inasmuch as it tries to do history with more balance than the average Zionist/pro-Israel Christian. Turretin says that the McMahon correspondence didn’t actually promise the Arabs a state. This may be true, depending on what is meant by “assist them to establish what may appear to be the most suitable forms of government in those various territories,” and what is being asserted by the British in general during this period. Perhaps the Commissioner never intended to promise an Arab state, and Sykes (British diplomatic advisor) in the Sykes-Picot agreement (which undoubtedly did promote an Arab state) wasn’t really in step with the opinion of British Commissioner McMahon. Turretin can make that argument and it would lead to some interesting conclusions, though I’m presently not persuaded that the assertions in/behind the two documents are that different. Turretin says I am “blissfully unaware” of “the perceived English need to have the Arabs fight the Turks during World War I.” That’s odd, because Tur just quoted me a few paragraphs earlier where I said, “This promise was given in hopes of gaining Arab support for the British war efforts against Turkey.” Not sure if Tur was just sleeping at the wheel on that one, or misunderstood me, or what.

Time does not allow for a further response. I’d like to finish my response to Feldman but I fear that in this environment, it honestly wouldn’t be helpful to many (send me an email if you wish). And given how much energy has been invested in the blogosphere to not merely criticizing my material, but trying to cast a shadow on my integrity, character, etc., let it simply be said that if you have any serious doubts about my character, please, stop guessing and do the obvious: call my pastor, my parents, my siblings and cousins, my employer, my landlord, my current and former professors, my friends; go to RealApologetics.org and listen to my public lectures, debates, podcasts, and sermons; read my published books and essays; watch the youtube videos…and after all that, read my public profile, my blog, my google+ updates and then draw your own conclusions. I might be a Calvinist and I might believe the state of Israel has no religious significance today. But I can assure you, I don’t hate or favor any particular ethnicity over others, I don’t desire the destruction of present day Israel, and I don’t eat babies or Dispensationalists for breakfast. Go serve God and love your neighbor.
As to the actual issue I raised in my response, namely that Hubner's salesmanship of the evidence "promised that the Arabs would have their own state in Palestine" and "promised the Arabs an independent stable state – presumably the land/or within the land of Palestine," does not match the facts, Hubner's central response seems to be:

1. This may be true.
2. It depends on what a particular expression means.
3. Maybe Sykes was not in step with McMahon.
4. I (TurretinFan) "can make that argument and it would lead to some interesting conclusions.
5. He is not persuaded that the assertions "in/behind the two documents are that different."

I don't see how any of this is supposed to serve as a rebuttal to the argument that I did already make in my post. His response appears to amount to saying that maybe I'm right, but he's not convinced. This hardly seems blog-worthy. There's no counter-argument that he's offered that I need to refute.  My original post stands.

As to the remainder of his post, what value is it?  He impugns his critics' motives and character and waxes on and on about himself.  Many of his accusations are vague, but I'll address one of the trifling points he raises that seems clearly directed at me:
... some usually fair-minded readers are hasty to generalize in ways that I think are very misleading (blog titles of “Supporting Arabs,” ...
...
Of course, the title itself is loaded (“Supporting the Arabs with unsound arguments”). In principle, I do not support “Arabs” today or yesterday any more or any less than “Asians,” “Africans,” or “Germans.” I support whatever party is in the right/not in the wrong in any given context, and condemn the party that is in the wrong in any given context, regardless of ethnicity (shouldn’t we all?). Even, so, I don’t see my material “supporting Arabs” inasmuch as it tries to do history with more balance than the average Zionist/pro-Israel Christian.
The only one generalizing here is Hubner.  The arguments I addressed were those supportive of the Arabs and their claim that Britain promised them a Palestinian state.  That title does not indicate Hubner supports Arabs in general or that he supports them more or less than Asians, Africans, or Germans.  It doesn't indicate that he has ethnic prejudice.  Finally, won't a balanced treatment sometimes support one side and sometimes another?  If so, then there is no conflict between the title of the post and Jamin's claim to balance.  After all the title of my post didn't say that Hubner always supports the Arab position against the Jewish people.

In short, Hubner's complaint over the title of the post was unfounded and guilty of the very thing he accused me of - generalization.  I note that Hubner indicated that he hardly has time to read those who critique his work and that "Time does not allow for a further response."  Perhaps if he squandered less of it attacking the motives and character of his critics, he'd have more time for considering the arguments and revising his position.

-Turretinfan

5 comments:

Natamllc said...

TF,

first off, again you display such maturity that takes some getting use too; brilliant that God operates with His Grace and Wisdom through men!

An example of what I am saying can be realized when pondering your very last sentence, here, cited again:

Perhaps if he squandered less of it attacking the motives and character of his critics, he'd have more time for considering the arguments and revising his position.

I would hope Jamin would take a cold shower, or, go outside, smell the fragrance of flowers, or, sit by a trickling water fountain or something to get him back to neutral emotionally and let brothers like you help him move forward through all this stir about who is right, who is wrong?

With that in mind I proffer some verses that seems to me collectively focus at least in part some of what the problem is that the world is facing these days as Middle East tensions increase? They ain't going anywhere, Jews, Arabs, land squabbles and the like; not until, at least, God does something about it, like send Christ back for those who are eagerly waiting for His return?

Psa 9:13 Be gracious to me, O LORD! See my affliction from those who hate me, O you who lift me up from the gates of death,
Psa 9:14 that I may recount all your praises, that in the gates of the daughter of Zion I may rejoice in your salvation.
Psa 9:15 The nations have sunk in the pit that they made; in the net that they hid, their own foot has been caught.
Psa 9:16 The LORD has made himself known; he has executed judgment; the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands. Higgaion. Selah
Psa 9:17 The wicked shall return to Sheol, all the nations that forget God.
Psa 9:18 For the needy shall not always be forgotten, and the hope of the poor shall not perish forever.
Psa 9:19 Arise, O LORD! Let not man prevail; let the nations be judged before you!
Psa 9:20 Put them in fear, O LORD! Let the nations know that they are but men! Selah


This narrative provides some insight into just how this Psalmst thought about his nation and the nations of the world and how he sees God intervening in them all. Here he writes as a representative of the God of the daughter of Zion and he gives us an understanding about where and who from the poor and needy will receive their salvation.

As we realize in other Psalms, God is actively involved in the affairs of all nations, not limiting Himself to just the children of the daughter of Zion:

Psa 86:8 There is none like you among the gods, O Lord, nor are there any works like yours.
Psa 86:9 All the nations you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name.
Psa 86:10 For you are great and do wondrous things; you alone are God.

...

Psa 89:11 The heavens are yours; the earth also is yours; the world and all that is in it, you have founded them.

...

Psa 135:4 For the LORD has chosen Jacob for himself, Israel as his own possession.
Psa 135:5 For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.
Psa 135:6 Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.


So I guess we can take sides? I have been chosen to stand on the side of the Elect and I am glad for that cause there seems to be coming into the world some serious national expressions of who is right and wrong!

Jay said...

You quote Hubner as saying, "Virtually none are written out of an interest in seeking the truth with love, nor from an understanding of what I myself even believe regarding Middle-Eastern conflict (Israel, Palestinians, etc.) as a whole, nor from a perspective that is even close to what a common man would say is “fair” or “balanced.”
A: He is being quite obtuse and pedantic there.
B: It would be important to establish whether the modern state of Israel has eschatological significance, as I think we all agree that the Scriptures are filled with many examples of where God's choice, God's action, or God's motive would not be what the creature finds "fair" or "balanced", and such judgment by the creature is in fact irrelevant, per Romans 9:20-21.

Rhology said...

Hubner:
Go serve God and love your neighbor.

LIKE MINISTRY!!!!!

Francis Turretin said...

Jamin quoted only a part of what I wrote in his response to my comment in which I used the phrase "blissfully unaware." I wrote: "It seems that that author of the argument is blissfully unaware of the reality of the massively powerful and expansive Ottoman Empire (based in Turkey, but expanded all over) and the perceived English need to have the Arabs fight the Turks during World War I." Apparently, he feels I was wrong about the second part, based on a line he used in his post. Without the first part, though, he probably didn't understand the reality of the second part, even though he had a general notion.

Sergius Martin-George said...

I have but two words for you:

Jammin' Hubris