The Hole in Paul Manata's Donut (why his Transcendental Argument is dead)

By H.L. James

H.L. James

Back on November 29, 2003, Paul Manata published what he claimed would be the argument that would devastate Preterism. A very bold statement indeed. In fact, Paul Manata was so sure it would destroy Preterism, that he unwisely ended his argument with this quote: "what heresy is next, since this one is done!" Paul Manata called his new monster, "The Transcendental Argument Against Hyper Preterism" and even gave it a neat little acronym: "TAAHP." Sharp, witty, clever. But would his argument hold logical water? That was what the theological world wanted to know. This writer, for one, wanted to see someone FINALLY deal with the time statements of Jesus and His Apostles once and for all, since it is these time statements that are the foundation of the Preterist View and upon which the entire Preterist view is built. So, as any good investigator would, I, and others, began to poke, and prod, and jostle, and Jolt, and apply the scrutiny necessary anytime someone steps up to a theological debate with what they call a "devastating critique."

I must say before continuing, that the Preterist Archive, and the format that Todd Dennis has adopted there, has made it possible to really go over the TAAHP (and other articles) with a fine-tooth comb. This is because readers can post their own comments and critiques just below the articles that are posted on the Preterist Archive. Kudos to Todd Dennis and Glory to God for this feature. Because of this feature, the flaws in Paul Manata's reasoning can be slowly studied by simply reading the arguments of others in contrast to Paul Manata's argument. The arguments that are presented there to show the weaknesses in Paul Manata's reasoning are tight and succinct, and were of great help to this writer, mainly because they allowed me to observe how Paul Manata answered critiques of his reasoning. Each time Paul Manata "answered" a critique, it exposed deeper cracks in his reasoning and allowed me to better understand how he could arrive at his conclusions, and ultimately, how those conclusions could be undone.

As I observed Paul Manata's responses to individuals such as Michael Bennett and Mike Krall, I started to notice that there seemed to be some glaring assumptions that Paul Manata was making (underneath it all). I decided at that time to jump into the discussion with my own set of questions. I first devised a strategy that I hoped would, over time, cause Paul Manata to make certain admissions that would, in-turn, be the death of his great intellectual masterpiece. What I saw over the next few rounds of answers from Paul Manata would remove all doubt that his argument was far less than the "devastating critique" that he so immodestly claimed it to be. I would also gain a telling glimpse into the mind of the "futurist." I would again see, that even in the face of the mathematical exactness of the logical syllogism, a "futurist" will not abandon the emotional death-grip they have on their dying view. Like "The Precious" in Tolkien's trilogy, they become mesmerized by the power of the ring in their own hands. And like the poor creature from the caves, they protect their notions as if oblivious to the fact that God has placed His Word above His Own Name.

In this article, I will show, based on two statements Paul Manata made during our discussions published on the Preterist Archive, that Paul Manata himself has made his Transcendental Argument an impossibility and has thus killed his own argument (as I imagined he eventually would). All Paul Manata needed was enough time and enough rope. In a nutshell, here is how I structured my strategy (again, I have drawn extensively on the work of Michael Bennett, Mike Krall, K. Perkins, Scott Vento and others in the formation of my strategy):

I knew that Paul Manata was making certain "assumptions" in his argument. The first assumption I noticed was in his TAAHP itself. Paul Manata made the statement .: "HPs (hyper Preterists) believe that we are in the New Heavens and Earth (hereafter, NH and E) right now." This statement of Paul Manata hides the true argument of the Preterist regarding the New Heavens and New Earth, which is: "Jesus says that we are in the New Heavens and New Earth right now." Paul Manata thus creates a side argument which essentially says: "The Preterist believes" without showing WHY the Preterist believes these things (i.e. the words of Christ in his time statements), or reasons why the Preterist "shouldn't" believe these things (i.e. "why the Preterist is mistaken in his belief"). Manata is essentially arguing "The Preterist says," and not "the Preterist says that JESUS SAYS."

It was really at this point that I started to smell a rat. Paul Manata had structured his argument to focus on the fallibility of the Preterist, and not on the infallibility of Christ and His Apostles. Once Manata had done this, he could then call the "interpretation" of Jesus' statements into question without having to deal with the ACTUAL statements themselves (which he has no answer for). Manata was then free (so he thought) to make statements like "H.L., I do not assume that Jesus was wrong. I said your INTERPRETATION was." And: "if you were correct we would not be debating." The weakness in Paul Manata's argument began to crystallize in my mind. It had the same weakness that every argument against Preterism will ultimately exhibit, it didn't deal with the time statements of Jesus. Paul Manata had structured his argument so as not to go near the time statements and the infallibility of Christ. I knew at that moment that the TAAHP would fall if pressure was applied in this area. In fact, I knew, by all the answers that Paul Manata had given to all the other objections, that he was not going to go quietly. I knew that it would have to be HIS OWN WORDS that snared him ultimately. He had to come face to face with the irrefutable words of Christ and how he was butchering them. It was time to close the vice.

It was already well-established in the discussion between Manata, myself and others, that Paul Manata agreed and had openly admitted that Jesus said there would be no liars in the New Jerusalem. In fact, this was the crux of Manata's "proof" that the New Heavens and New Earth were not yet a present reality. Once he had sheltered himself inside this "proof," he was able to safely say that "if the Preterist is arguing theology, we must not be in the New Heavens and New Earth, because if we were, we wouldn't be discussing theology." This very statement however, would eventually be the undoing of Paul Manata's argument itself. In other words, by "agreeing" that Jesus said there would be no liars in the city, only then was Manata able to make his argument. What Paul Manata didn't know, is that by using the verse in Revelation 22:15 as his premise, he was implicitly agreeing to verse 12, a verse who's "pastness" would ultimately make his argument a logical impossibility and thereby cause it to fail.

Here is the verse under discussion:

(Revelation 22:12-15) "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last." 14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie."

Unwisely, Paul Manata based his entire argument on the notion that "if we were in the New Heavens and New Earth, there would not be 'whoever loves and practices a lie.'" He then concludes: "since there ARE those who 'love and practice a lie,' we must not be in the New Heavens and New Earth." Although the actual meaning of the phrase "whosoever loves and practices a lie" can be debated (since "loves" is in the text), the words of Christ, and His time statements cannot. They are emphatic.

What the above statements do, is create on the part of Paul Manata, an implicit "agreement" to the things being stated in those passages of Scripture. In other words, Paul Manata is saying implicitly, "What Jesus says here is true." I recognized that the implications would broaden. I realized that if Paul Manata was agreeing that the words of Christ were true, that I could press him on other words of Christ in the same passage and see what type of response I would get. It would be his responses to the next group of questions that would ultimately uncover the deadly logical flaws in the TAAHP and eventually bring the monster down.

I brought it to Paul Manata's attention that the verse he was using as the basis for his most important premise, was preceded by a verse where Jesus states: "I am coming quickly." I wanted to see if Paul Manata would take Jesus at His word with regard to the time statement, since I already had agreement that Paul Manata held the "liars outside the city" passage to be true. When I mentioned to him that he could not accept the "liars in the city" verse and at the same time reject the timing of the "I am coming quickly" verse, Paul Manata must have known he was in a very sticky situation. That's because, if he said "quickly" didn't mean quickly, he knew he would be opening up a can of worms that has brought down better men than he. So, in a move I had been anticipating, Paul Manata conceded to the fact that Jesus did indeed "come quickly" and fulfill that prediction. Paul Manata made the following two statements in writing in two consecutive posts on a page below his own Transcendental Argument:

"Now, Jesus did come in JUDGEMENT when He said he would,"

"Now, the BIGGEST CRACK in my argument, i.e., 'Jesus said he would come quickly' has been answered by pointing out that he did, in judgment."

These two separate admissions by Paul Manata, that "Jesus did come in judgment when he said he would," means that Paul Manata would have to accept all the elements of the judgment that he has admitted is a past event. In other words, if the judgment Paul Manata agrees is past, contained in it Green Elephants, then Paul Manata would be implicitly agreeing to Green Elephants being a past event. He may not be openly agreeing to it, but that is irrelevant since it is implied. The admission is still there "implicitly." If Paul Manata agrees to having the Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon Album, then Paul Manata is also "implicitly" agreeing to having the song entitled "money." They are together as a package. If Paul Manata were to say "I have the album but I don't have the song," we would know that Manata didn't have the album, since the album CONTAINS the song. If Paul Manata agrees that the judgment in Revelation 22:12 is past, then Paul Manata has implicitly admitted to everything that occurred in that judgment. In other words, if that judgment included handing out cotton candy, then Paul Manata has admitted that the cotton candy has already been handed out.

Now, what exactly is Paul Manata admitting to by making the admission that the judgment in Revelation 22:12 is a past event? Well, if the New Heavens and New Earth was part of that judgment, Paul Manata has implicitly admitted to the New Heavens and New Earth being a past event, which destroys his argument that "we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth." It would not matter that he has not openly admitted it. He has admitted it by implication and has therefore admitted it nonetheless.

So, how do we determine if Paul Manata has actually made an admission that destroys his argument that "We're not in the New Heavens and New Earth" and claims the New Heavens and New Earth are a present reality? In other words, how do we show that Paul Manata is actually stating: "We ARE in the New Heavens and New Earth, but WE CANNOT be in the New Heavens and New Earth." We have to determine if the "judgment" he has admitted to being a past event, is the judgment spoken of elsewhere in the same text as being that which would usher in the New Heavens and New Earth. If it is identical, Manata has destroyed his own argument by making implicitly contradictory statements in his own testimony. In fact, anyone who agrees with the Transcendental Argument has also made the same implicit contradictory statements.

Before we can get to the bottom of this problem, we must first understand the nature of identity. I'd like at this point to use my own adaptation a quote from J.P. Moreland's excellent book, "Scaling the Secular City." Suppose you know that someone named H.L. James exists and that the author of this article exists. Assume further that you do not know that H.L. James wrote this article. If someone asked you whether H.L. James is identical to the author of this article, how would you decide? How would you determine that the "two" individuals are identical instead of being two different people? If you could find something true of H.L. James which is not true of the author of this article or vice versa, then they would be different people. They could not be identical. For example, if H.L. James lives in California but the author of this article does not, they would be different people. On the other hand, if everything true of one is true of the other, "they" would be one person.

In general, if "two" things are identical, then whatever is true of the one is true of the other, since in reality only one thing is being discussed. However, if something is true of the one which is not true of the other, then they are two things and not one.

The technical term for this is sometimes know as the "indescernibility of identicals." The mathematical equation to express this notion is as follows:

(x) (y) [(x=y) ---> (P) (Px <---> Py)]

The above equation simply states that for any entities x and y, if x and y are really the same thing, then for any property P, P is true of x if and only if P is true of y. If x is the judgment in Revelation 22:12-14 and y is the judgment in Revelation 20:11-15, then to prove that Manata's admissions destroy his argument, x must be identical to y. On the other hand, if something is true of the judgment in Revelation 22:12-14 which is not true of the judgment spoken of in Revelation 20:11-15, then the "two" judgments are not identical. In order to see if these judgments indeed speak of one judgment thereby trapping Manata with his own words of admission, let's look closely at the properties of "both" and see if they are indeed "one event."

When we look at Revelation 22:12, we see that Jesus is saying: "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work." So we see from this passage that Jesus was "coming quickly" and that His "reward" would be with him to "give to every one according to his work." So, here we have three "properties" of this judgment that will help us in our investigation. We have the "timing" of it (i.e. quickly), we have the fact that there will be rewards, and we have the fact that they will be given "to every one according to his work."

Paul Manata has already admitted in his own words that the judgment I've just mentioned from Revelation 22:12 is a past event. Even if Paul Manata "didn't mean" to say that the "rewards" part and the "give to each one according to his works" part are both also past, he has done so "implicitly" since they are both contained in the judgment he has admitted to being a past event. This in and of itself is devastating to Paul Manata's argument (and his futurist view, I might add).

Paul Manata has admitted to the "rewards" and the "every one according to his works" as past, implicitly in his admission. The obvious question is, "Did Jesus come quickly," "Did He come with His reward with Him?" And, "Did Jesus reward everyone according to their works?" Remember, Paul Manata has already agreed that this judgment (which contains the rewards given to every one according to their works), is a past event. This means that the "rewards" and the "give to every one according to his works" are also past events, since they are obviously contained in the judgment Paul Manata says is past.

All that said, it still doesn't prove whether the judgment Paul Manata has admitted as being past, is the same judgment spoken of in Revelation 20:11-15, so let's take a look at "that" judgment and see if we find "identicalness" with the judgment Manata says is past.

In the Revelation, chapter 20, verse 11-15 we read:

(Revelation 20:11-15) "Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."

Looking at the above passage, we immediately see what appear to be similarities between "this" judgment, and the one mentioned in Revelation 22:12. What is probably most interesting are the phrases:

• "And the dead were judged according to their works,"
• "And they were judged, each one according to his works"

These phrases are identical to the phrases from chapter 22, verse 12. Now, we know from elsewhere that this judgment, where "every one" is judged "according to his works" results in the giving out of rewards. Probably the most compelling proof is that given by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans:

(Romans 2:5-9) "But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who "will render to each one according to his deeds": 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness -- indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;"

So we see here that the Apostle Paul calls this day "the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God." We see two things going on in this phrase. Notice how the Apostle Paul calls it a "day of wrath" AND "revelation of the righteous judgment of God." Paul also points out that Eternal Life and Eternal Damnation would be handed out on this day, and he said that on that day, God would "render to each one according to his deeds."

It is clear from these passages, that the judgment spoken of in Revelation 22:12 is identical to that in Revelation 20:11-15. To make the point even more firm, we look at chapter 22, just a few verses before verse 12, and we find the following:

(Revelation 22:6-7) "Then he said to me,"These words are faithful and true." And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place. "Behold, I am coming quickly! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book."

So, here we see John saying that the things contained in this book were to "shortly take place." This is just a few verses before the verse that Paul Manata has publicly admitted to being a past event. Notice how verse 7 above says the same thing that the verse Paul Manata claims is past states. Verse 7 quotes Jesus saying: "Behold, I am coming quickly." Then He says "blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book." Why did Jesus say that? The Apostle John tells us right at the beginning of the letter:

(Revelation 1:3) "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near."

So, the blessing to those who read, hear and keep those things which are written in it, was because the time was near? What time was near? The same time that Jesus said was near in chapter 22, verse 6-7? What time was near? The time of Jesus' "coming quickly?" Paul Manata has already answered this question for us before the entire world. Paul Manata has admitted that this judgment, that would bring Eternal Life and eternal damnation, this same judgment where Jesus would "reward" "each one according to his works," this same judgment that was "at hand" and that Jesus was "coming quickly" to execute, happened back then over 1900 years ago as Jesus said it would. Notice how I didn't say "as the Preterist says it would."

Paul Manata has admitted that this same judgment, that would end in the destruction of Satan, Death and Hades, and the dead who's names were not written in the Lamb's book of life, that would "shake the heavens" and remove the old covenant so that the heavenly and its New Jerusalem might remain, the same judgment that would usher in the New Heavens and New Earth, that would be the inheritance in which God would be their God and they would be His people, the same judgment that would bring about destruction on Jerusalem and its temple, the same judgment that would bring the throne of God and of the Lamb into the center of the city so that the spring of the water of life could flow out to the world, the same judgment where the controversy over who were the true sons of God would be once and for all settled, Paul Manata has openly, and publicly admitted that THIS judgment is a past event, and why shouldn't he? To say that the judgment in Revelation 22:12 is a past event simply agrees with God's Word.

Paul Manata's TAAHP (Transcendental Argument against HyperPreterism) has many problems structurally in terms of logic. However, I think the real problem is that Paul Manata doesn't seem to yet be clear on what he believes regarding these issues. On the one hand, Paul Manata believes we are in the New Heavens and New Earth, but says its a "different one" than that of Revelation 21 and then only "in a sense." Paul Manata admits that Jesus came in judgment "quickly" as He predicted, but doesn't see the implications of this admission.

At the time of this writing, Paul Manata has chosen not to add further comment to the page where his argument is published, citing the accusation that Preterists refuse to answer his questions. The record clearly shows that not only have Preterists taken considerable time to answer his questions, we have taken considerable time to answer his entire argument, including the breaks in his logic. Paul Manata may have indeed found proof that we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth. I don't agree that he has, but I do say that IF he has found proof that we cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth, it does not prove Preterism a heresy, it proves Christianity a fraud and it's Author, Finisher, and High Priest a liar, since it is Christianity's Author, Finisher, and High Priest who says we are..., no, that we MUST BE in the New Heavens and New Earth.

To you, His beautiful Wife.

H.L. James