Dedicated to the devotional, exegetical and philosophical study of theological paradox in Conservative, Thoroughly Biblical, Historically Orthodox, Essentially Reformed theology . . . to the glory of God alone!

Saturday, April 25, 2009

The Logic of THEOparadox

What follows is a list of propositions, guidelines and principles which represent a balanced approach to theological paradox. These are the logical reasons for embracing paradox, standing in clear opposition to the assertions of those who exalt man's reasoning abilities beyond proper limits and at the same time minimize divine transcendence. These statements are an attempt to explain how a person can passionately and enthusiastically embrace Biblical paradoxes without in any way abandoning rationality, sound reasoning and common sense.

10 Affirmations of THEOparadox


1. God is perfectly logical, infinitely logical, and eternally logical.
In other words, contradiction and irrationality are not found in Him.
2. God's Word, The Bible, conforms perfectly to God's logic.
I am here affirming the logical coherence of Scripture.
3. Logic is the divinely authorized tool with which human beings must interpret Scripture.
Abandonment of logic is not an acceptable hermeneutic, for it would require the rejection of an essential and praiseworthy aspect of God's nature.
4. Human logic is an attempt to describe and explain divine truth.
Thus, as far as it goes, it is good and useful.
5. Human logic is imperfect, fallen and finite.
It is limited by our creaturehood and suffers from the effects of sin, so it inevitably falls short of its aim.
6. Human logic, no matter how mature or well developed, cannot correspond perfectly to divine truth.
This is nothing more than an affirmation of man's pervasive depravity and God's incomprehensibility. Man's logic is not always God's logic.
7. This lack of correspondence is not due to any irrationality on the part of God or the Bible. It is due entirely to man's creaturely status, his fallen nature and his stubborn dependence upon his own imperfect reason.
In other words, God is NOT the author of confusion. Rather, man is.
8. Where there is a lack of correspondence, there sometimes appears to be a contradiction of logic. This contradiction exists only in the mind of man and in the logic of man, not in God Himself, nor in His perfect Word.
In this I am affirming without equivocation that paradox, or apparent contradiction, is sometimes the furthest man can go in his attempts to explain divine truth. If a paradox cannot be resolved without removing essential aspects of divine revelation, the paradox is to be heartily embraced and affirmed in the face of all human logic - not because it is actually contradictory, but because human logic is insufficient.
9. Man's logic can correspond to divine truth only to the extent that God reveals both His truth and the way in which human logic corresponds to that truth.
To the extent that God describes what human logic cannot explain, there remains unsolvable mystery in man's knowledge.
10. God uses the paradoxes and mysteries which exist in man's mind as a tool for the furtherance of His purposes and the continuing revelation of His divine glory.
He is fully aware of our limitations, and accomplishes His will in His own way and by His own means - means which are comprehensive enough to involve mysteries and paradoxes resulting from the inherent imperfection in the logic of His children.

Let God's great glory be revealed, and man's fallen and finite mind be utterly humbled in consideration of these facts. Let man's pride be brought low as he realizes he is fallible, incapable and totally dependent on God's mercy.

SOLI DEO GLORIA!

5 comments:

  1. 5. Human logic is imperfect, fallen and finite.This is false and is where your entire love of paradox as means to instill a false and anti-Christian sense of humility falls to the ground. As Dr. Robbins noted long ago:

    "Logic - God’s and man’s - is unaffected by sin, just as arithmetic is. Man’s thinking is affected by sin, so we make mistakes in both logic and arithmetic. But our sin consists precisely in violating the rules of logic and arithmetic, which are the rules of God’s own thinking."

    You confuse the laws of logic, which are no so much human as they are divine, with errors in logic which is the result of the noetic affect of sin.

    You're entire THEOparadox is built on an errant and unbiblical premise. Frankly, that's just another name for sin.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sean,

    While writing point 5, I thought to myself that this would be the point where you would begin to disagree with me. You have correctly identified the point at which our viewpoints diverge.

    If you are seeking common ground, you might note that on points 1 through 3, and possibly 4, we would be in perfect harmony.

    Some might say our difference on point 5 is semantic. To test this, simply replace the term "logic" with "use of logic," and see how it reads. I think you could apply this through all 10 points and my propositions would still make sense.

    Ultimately, however, I think our difference in thinking has to do with the doctrine of total depravity and divine transcendence. You seem to want to place us on an even playing field with God, mentally. What is most troubling about this is that there are incredibly smart and logical people who know more about logic than you or I, and who use it much more effectively - and yet their conclusion is that God does not exist.

    God didn't send His Only Begotten and well-beloved Son into the world in order to teach us a better use of logic. The Logos presents a different logic that requires the "renewing of our minds." For "things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart [i.e. mind] of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him" are found by us in Christ. And what will the logical mind of the most intelligent unbeliever do with these things? As Paul indicates, "the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." It is only when we begin to taste of God's holy logic through the enabling of the Spirit that we can accept the supra-logical truth of the Gospel. In Adam, all mankind fell into a lower logic, resulting in an "earthly wisdom" that keeps him believing lies rather than the truth of God revealed. Anyway, this seems to be the consensus of the New Testament writers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ultimately, however, I think our difference in thinking has to do with the doctrine of total depravity and divine transcendence.I think you're only half right. A major part of the divide between Clark and Van Til was over the question of incomprehensibility. Van Til asserted a qualitative and not just a quantitative difference between the thoughts of God and man. Van Til stressed that there was NO univocal point of contact between God's thoughts and mans. Clark rightly noted that Van Til's position leads to abject skepticism.

    As far as the question of total depravity, you attribute your failure to harmonize various doctrines and truths of Scripture to Scripture, not to your own stupidity and ignorance. And when in your faulty exegesis of Scripture you run into contradictions, you merely rename them paradoxes and assert there are no contradictions for God. This is thinly veiled neo-orthodoxy and existentialism where we are to have faith in faith and Christianity is divorced from reason and leaps into the absurd.

    Rather than contradictions acting as big red warning flags calling you to go back and check your premises, or even that more work needs to be done searching the Scriptures, you folks go marching blindly on imputing contradictions to God's word while bowing in worship at these various points of tension that exist in your own mind. Not to put too fine a point on it, but your love of paradox is a form of idolatry.

    You seem to want to place us on an even playing field with God, mentally. What is most troubling about this is that there are incredibly smart and logical people who know more about logic than you or I, and who use it much more effectively - and yet their conclusion is that God does not exist.So your answer is to surrender the laws of logic at any given point, bow your head, and confess God's word *does not* cohere and irrationally embrace what you know are contradictory doctrines. Frankly, it is people like you who give atheists all the ammo they need.

    Thankfully, Reformers didn't share your low view of Scripture and logic. Even if they weren't able to solve every difficulty of Scripture, they knew that God's revelation presented to the mind not antinomy and irreconcilable paradoxes where we are to hope against hope that there are no contradictions for God, but rather a "consent of the parts." That the truths of Scripture could not be broken. That if two doctrines contradicted one another then one of the two must be wrong. They believed that Christianity was a rational religion and God's propositional revelation in Scripture was the result of the rational mind of God.

    God didn't send His Only Begotten and well-beloved Son into the world in order to teach us a better use of logic.Seems to me that the Lord's use of logic was impeccable. I think we can learn a lot from the arguments He advanced.

    The Logos presents a different logic that requires the "renewing of our minds." Are you saying that there is a different logic for God and man? This is new. I don't even think Van Til went this far, although in places he does seem to suggest that the laws of logic are created.

    And what will the logical mind of the most intelligent unbeliever do with these things? As Paul indicates, "the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."None of the verses you cite advance a "different logic," rather the necessity for belief. To unbelievers God's word is foolishness. It's sad when self-professing Christians say much the same thing.


    It is only when we begin to taste of God's holy logic through the enabling of the Spirit that we can accept the supra-logical truth of the Gospel. "Supra-logical truth of the Gospel." What sort of mystical gibberish is this? Are you saying the Gospel defies logic? Again, this is a new one. But, I admit, as a good student, you are taking the irrationality of Van Til and your teachers to it's logical conclusion. Can neo-orthodoxy and the irrationalism Kierkegaard be far behind? Seems to me you're already there.

    In Adam, all mankind fell into a lower logic, resulting in an "earthly wisdom" that keeps him believing lies rather than the truth of God revealed. Anyway, this seems to be the consensus of the New Testament writers.The problem with Adam is that He didn't believe God, but rather believed his wife and the lies of the serpent. He thought that truth could be found quite apart from God's word and that he too could be "as God." Again, none this demonstrates one "logic" for man and another for God. A is A and not Non A for God and man.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've enjoyed these posts, Derek. This one in particular is a well-reasoned and more important biblically informed statement of your position. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Barry,

    Always good to hear from you, brother. We're getting into the philosophical groundwork of THEOparadox, and while it is not the part I enjoy most, it is important and it does help us to stay focused and balanced. I'd much rather delve into the joys of exegesis and the wonders of exploring God's exact Words in their heart-impacting vividness. I'd much prefer to study the multi-faceted diamond of divine brilliance known as the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But we'll get back to those things shortly.

    Sean,

    Rather than a point by point response, I'll let the readers of this blog evaluate the validity of your arguments and the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the way in which you have characterized (or mischaracterized) my position. I would encourage readers to compare your statements with what I wrote in the post (and what I've written elsewhere, too).

    Oddly enough, you've ignored all the ways this post overtly agrees with several of your deeply held beliefs. It represents a clear repudiation of some of the things you say Van Til taught, and a very real concession to some of the claims you yourself have made. You've also made it a point to accuse me of the very opposite of the statements I've made. For example, you say:

    "As far as the question of total depravity, you attribute your failure to harmonize various doctrines and truths of Scripture to Scripture, not to your own stupidity and ignorance."

    Actually, what I said was precisely the opposite of that:

    "7. This lack of correspondence is not due to any irrationality on the part of God or the Bible. It is due entirely to man's creaturely status, his fallen nature and his stubborn dependence upon his own imperfect reason."

    You still seem to be swinging away at a "straw man." As I said before, you're beating the tar out of him. However, he doesn't look anything like what I'm advocating.

    You have persisted in equating my position with Van Til's. The things I know about Dr. Van Til leave me with some good impressions and SOME immediate disagreements. My impression of Gordon Clark is about the same. I don't completely agree with or follow either one of them as far as I can tell, but I've found both of them helpful in certain respects. I've also found you helpful, but it's a bit more difficult because you come into the discussion with so much vim.

    I believe we have reached the end of this conversation, which is really a carry over from what recently transpired on your site. If you wish to write another comment here, please refer to the rules that have been posted on the sidebar of this blog from the very first day. If you do not follow the rules, I will not be able to publish your comments. I enjoy a good discussion, even a heated argument now and then. But this blog is primarily a place for edification and fellowship. There is helpful correction, which I welcome. There is also healthy disagreement, which I tolerate. There is even heated debate, if necessary. But when it comes to constant friction and fruitless arguments, I will not be a party.

    Thank you for the time and attention you have given to this discussion. Your thoughts have been respectfully heard.

    In Christ,
    Derek Ashton

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to respond to anything written in the posts, or to the comments left by others. All comments are reviewed before they are published.

Please be charitable. If you disagree, do so with grace. Keep your words positive, focused, and on-topic. We don't expect everyone to agree, but we do expect everyone to treat everyone else with respect and grace, speaking the truth in love.

Thanks!
Mgmt.