PARADOX FILES, Vol. 20 - Every Theologian In History

"No one should be surprised if a theologian falls into contradiction with himself at times—especially if he (or she) writes much over a very long period of time. I’m a historical theologian and have studied the theologies of virtually every major Christian theologian from Irenaeus to Pannenberg (and beyond). In every case I find some tension, some element of conflict within the theologian’s own system."

--Roger E. Olson, source

I do not think Dr. Olson's intention in making this comment was to support the concept of theological paradox, especially since he has written disparagingly of that subject in the past. Although his statement was probably intended to say something about the natural human inconsistency which we all share, it may point to something much more significant.

Is it possible that a universal element of logical tension exists because there is an inherent limitation within "human reason" that prevents us from successfully systematizing the infinite? Is it possible that we are trying to squeeze timeless realities into temporal containers? Could we be working with eternal truths that do not arrange neatly into the categories we are working with and assuming by our human limitations?

Just a thought.

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 19 - ESV Study Bible on Acts 13:48

The ESV Study Bible's note on Acts 13:48 says it perfectly:

Throughout Acts, Luke affirms the sovereignty of God over all of life while at the same time affirming the significance of human activity, as evidenced by the remarkable human effort and sacrifice involved in proclaiming the gospel. Thus Luke, without contradiction, maintains a dual emphasis on divine election ("appointed") and on human response ("believed") ... The emphasis here in 13:48 is on the way in which divine sovereignty (appointment) results in the belief of the Gentiles, demonstrating that their belief was due to God's grace alone.

That's good stuff. THEOparadox approved!

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 18 - C. Michael Patton

Michael Patton recently posted an article entitled, "The Irrationality of Calvinism." It contains excellent, THEOparadox-approved commentary on theology in general and "Calvinism vs. Arminianism" in particular. His words echo my own reasons for rejecting Arminianism and becoming a Calvinist. At least one Arminian has responded to Mr. Patton's article (see here and here), and has ironically proven the point by entirely missing the point (the unhidden angst may have clouded the ability to understand).

This photo is shamelessly "borrowed" from Mr. Patton's post.

Here are a few excerpts from Mr. Patton's insightful article:

I am a child of Western thought. Therefore, I like to figure things out. If possible, I like to figure it all out. This causes problems between me and God sometimes, and I need to deal with it better. Sometimes I only really follow or engage with God when I get it. When things make sense to me, my intellectual anxiety is eased and my will can engage. Who? What? Where? How? and especially Why? Theological gurus call this “cataphatic” theology. Cataphatic theology emphasises God’s revelation and our understanding of it. Taken to an extreme, we can find ourselves in the arrogantly awkward position of, as A. W. Tozer put it, “trying to look God eye to eye.” When we have to understand everything, we attempt to trade our finitude for infinitude. And this should scare us to death. We need a healthy dose of “apophatic” theology. This emphasizes mystery. Our Eastern brothers and sisters normally get this better than we do. They are content without publishing a new theology book every year. They don’t normally write papers explaining the mysteries of the world, have societies discussing the nuances of our faith, or argue about too much. Taken to an extreme, this can lead to an unexamined faith, where people know what they believe but they have no idea why. And God did go through a lot of trouble to explain quite a bit of himself to us. While there are secret things that belong to the Lord (apophatic), the things revealed belong to us (cataphatic). We need balance. We need a cool yet passionate head about us. We need to hold some theological ropes very tightly, but we need to loosen our grip on others. There is quite a bit that we can know about God, but there are so many things that we don’t get and we will never get.

---------------------------------------------------------- 

I often hear people talk about Calvinism as a closed box system that forces everything to fall in line, even when we have to sacrifice biblical integrity to do so. I often hear the accusation that Calvinism is a system that makes rationality its primary goal. And this is often true. Sometimes Calvinists do attempt to fit things into a system and engage in questionable, logic-driven hermeneutics to do so. 

However, I think we need take a step back and see that while the shoe fits when it comes to some particular issues in Calvinism, these accusations are far from forming the bedrock of the primary issues in Calvinism.

----------------------------------------------------------

... the Calvinist is not satisfied with a redefining of God’s election to make it fit. To the Calvinists, man is fully responsible for his choice, yet God’s election is unconditional. This creates a problem. It creates great tension. For the Calvinist, this tension cannot, and should not, be solved. So how does the Calvinist live with this? How does the Calvinist answer the Why? questions? “Why does God choose some and not others? Why does he still find fault?” What is the Calvinist answer to the How? question? ”How can there be true freedom when God is sovereignly in charge of election?” We have no answer. We get off our stool and punt to apophatic theology. The tension is left intact. We place our hand over our mouth here and say, “Though we have no answers to why God did not choose people he truly loves, we will trust him without judgement.” We will redefine neither divine election nor human freedom to make them fit a more rational or logical system. While there is nothing wrong with using one’s reason to understand truth, there are problems when reason takes priority over revelation. If the Bible teaches both human freedom and sovereign election, we leave the two intact. If the Bible teaches that God loves everyone more than we can imagine and that God desires all to be saved, yet he does not elect some, we trust God’s word and live with unanswered questions. These two issues, human freedom and sovereign election, are not contradictory when put together, but they are a mystery.

 ---------------------------------------------------------- 

There is no need to solve all tensions, especially when the solution comes at the expense of one’s interpretive integrity. There are many tensions in Scripture. There are many things that, while not formally irrational, just don’t make sense. The doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, and creation out of nothing all fit this category. All of these are beyond our ability to comprehend. ... The issue of human freedom and unconditional election is in the same apophatic domain. We can’t make sense out of them and once we do, we have entered into error. There are many things God reveals that confuse us and baffle our thinking. They seem irrational. Yet we find God saying, “Chill. Just trust me. I’ve got this under control. While I have revealed a lot and I know you have a lot of questions, this is a test of trust. I love everyone but I did not elect everyone. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Will you trust me or will you redefine things?”

God’s sovereign unconditional election can stand side-by-side with man’s responsibility without creating a formal contradiction. We may not know how to reconcile these two issues, but that does not mean God does not know how. Their co-existence does not take away from their collective truthfulness.

I believe that the Arminian system sacrifices biblical integrity for the sake of understanding and doctrinal harmony. The Calvinistic system allows tension and mysteries to abide for the sake of Biblical fidelity.

As I said before, I have had people say to me (often) that they are not Calvinists because the system attempts to be too systematic with all its points for the sake of the system itself. I think it is just the opposite. The Calvinistic system creates more tensions than it solves, but seeks to remain faithful to God’s word rather than human understanding. I think it is a good illustration of how West meets East. Revelation meets mystery. Cataphatic theology meets apophatic theology. While Calvinism is not formally irrational, it is emotionally irrational. I get that. But I think we need to take both pills.

- C. Michael Patton (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/12/the-irrationality-of-calvinism/
)

In a later comment, Mr. Patton adds this:

Reason is always required. But reason does not cancel out mystery. We strive for the cataphatic until we sweat blood. Then, when no solution makes good sense of revelation, we allow mystery to come in and do it apophatic job. Again, think Trinity and you will see what I mean. Can you rationally understand the Trinity? If you can, you have just entered heresy. I think that there are five great mysteries in the Scripture that we cannot resolve:

1. Creation ex nihilo
2. Hypostatic Union
3. Dual nature of Scripture
4. Trinity
5. Human Freedom/Responsibility and Divine sovereignty (unconditional election included)

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 17 - Wayne Grudem

The eminent Evangelical scholar and theologian, Wayne Grudem, is the latest recipient of our famous t-shirt. These words of wisdom from his Systematic Theology text will tell you why.

We find in the New Testament that Jesus and the New Testament authors will often quote a verse of Scripture and then draw logical conclusions from it. They reason from Scripture. It is therefore not wrong to use human understanding, human logic, and human reason to draw conclusions from the  statements of  Scripture. Nevertheless, when we  reason  and draw what we  think  to be correct logical deductions from Scripture, we sometimes make mistakes. The deductions we draw from the statements of Scripture are not equal to the statements of Scripture themselves in certainty or authority, for our ability to reason and draw conclusions is not the ultimate standard of truth — only Scripture is. 

What then are the limits on our use of our reasoning abilities to draw deductions from the statements of Scripture? The fact that reasoning to conclusions that go beyond the mere statements of Scripture is appropriate and even necessary for studying Scripture, and the fact that Scripture itself is the ultimate standard of truth, combine to indicate to us that we are free to use our reasoning abilities to draw deductions from any passage of Scripture so long as these deductions do not contradict the clear teaching of some other passage of Scripture.7 

This principle puts a safeguard on our use of what we think to be logical deductions from Scripture. Our supposedly logical deductions may be erroneous, but Scripture itself cannot be erroneous. Thus, for example, we may read Scripture and find that God the Father is called God (1 Cor. 1:3), that God the Son is called God (John 20:28; Titus 2:13), and that God the Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3 – 4). We might deduce from this that there are three Gods. But then we find the Bible explicitly teaching us that God is one (Deut. 6:4; James 2:19). Thus we conclude that what we thought to be a valid logical deduction about three Gods as wrong and that Scripture teaches both (a) that there are three separate persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), each of whom is fully God, and (b) that there is one God. We cannot understand exactly how these two statements can both be true, so together they constitute a paradox (“a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true”).8 We can tolerate a paradox (such as “God is three persons and one God”) because we have confidence that ultimately God knows fully the truth about himself and about the nature of reality, and that in his understanding the different elements of a paradox are fully reconciled, even though at this point God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isa. 55:8 – 9). But a true contradiction (such as, “God is three persons and God is not three persons”) would imply ultimate contradiction in God’s own understanding of himself or of reality, and this cannot be. 

When the psalmist says, “The sum of your word is truth; and every one of your righteous ordinances endures for ever” (Ps. 119:160), he implies that God’s words are not only true individually but also viewed  together  as a whole. Viewed  collectively,  their “sum” is also “truth.” Ultimately, there is no internal contradiction either in Scripture or in God’s own thoughts.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 34. Italics original. bold added for emphasis.

This is a good basic overview of the THEOparadox thesis. All of the salient points are there. Dr. Grudem deserves not only the t-shirt, but the THEOparadox hat, shoes, tie, bumper sticker, coffee mug, keychain, belt buckle and wall poster as well.

___________________________________________________________________

Dr. Grudem's Footnotes:

7 This guideline is also adopted from Professor John Frame at Westminster Seminary.

8 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, ed. William Morris (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1980), p. 950 (first definition). Essentially the same meaning is adopted by the Oxford English Dictionary (1913 ed., 7:450), the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1981 ed., p. 742), the Random House College Dictionary (1979 ed., p. 964), and the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (p. 780), though all note that paradox can also mean “contradiction” (though less commonly);  compare the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Macmillan and The Free Press, 1967), 5:45, and the entire article “Logical Paradoxes” by John  van Heijenoort on pp. 45 – 51 of the same volume, which proposes solutions to many of the classical paradoxes in the history of philosophy. (If paradox meant “contradiction,” such solutions would be impossible.) 

When I use the word paradox in the primary sense defined by these dictionaries today I realize that I am differing somewhat with the article “Paradox” by K. S. Kantzer in the EDT, ed. Walter Elwell, pp. 826 – 27 (which takes paradox to mean essentially “contradiction”). However, I am using paradox in an ordinary English sense and one also familiar in philosophy. There seems to me to be available no better word than paradox to refer to an apparent but not real contradiction.

There  is,  however,  some  lack  of  uniformity in the use of the term paradox and a related term, antinomy, in  contemporary evangelical discussion. The word antinomy has sometimes been used to apply to what I here call paradox, that is, “seemingly contradictory statements that may nonetheless both be true” (see, for example, John Jefferson Davis, Theology Primer [Grand  Rapids :  Ba ker,  1981],  p.  18).  Such a sense for antinomy gained support in a widely read book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, by J.I. Packer (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961). On pp. 18 – 22 Packer defines antinomy as “an appearance of contradiction” (but  admits on p. 18 that his definition differs with the Shorter Oxford Dictionary). My problem with using antinomy in this sense is that the word is so unfamiliar in ordinary English that it just increases the stock of technical terms Christians have to learn in order to understand theologians, and moreover such a sense is unsupported by any of the dictionaries cited above, all of which define antinomy to mean “contradiction” (e.g., Oxford English Dictionary, 1:371). The problem is not serious, but it would help communication if evangelicals could agree on uniform senses for these terms.

A paradox is certainly acceptable in systematic theology, and paradoxes are in fact inevitable  so long as we have finite understanding of any theological topic. However, it is important to recognize that Christian theology should never affirm a contradiction (a set of two statements, one of which denies the other). A contradiction would be, “God is three persons and God is not three persons” (where the term persons has the same sense in both halves of the sentence).

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 16 - Augustine of Hippo

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) is held in high regard as one of the most profound and influential thinkers in the history of the Church. In 421 AD,  he wrote a short handbook on the Christian faith called Enchiridion of Faith, Hope, and Love. The book is a commentary on the Apostles' Creed and the Lord's Prayer, and contains some of Augustine's most foundational theological convictions in concentrated and abbreviated form. The excerpt below shows Augustine's incipient Calvinism and paradoxical compatibilism, as expressed in Chapter IX of the Enchiridion. In the midst of these thoughts, as he wrestles with the twin realities of God's sovereign mercy and man's responsibility to believe, we find Augustine almost unable to say anything beyond the words of Scripture themselves. He repeats the same Scripture verse 6 times in an attempt to explain the inexplicable! This cautious, God-honoring Biblicism is commendable, and it deserves a t-shirt.

But now, can that part of the human race to whom God hath promised deliverance and a place in the eternal kingdom be restored through the merits of their own works? Of course not! For what good works could a lost soul do except as he had been rescued from his lostness? Could he do this by the determination of his free will? Of course not! For it was in the evil use of his free will that man destroyed himself and his will at the same time. For as a man who kills himself is still alive when he kills himself, but having killed himself is then no longer alive and cannot resuscitate himself after he has destroyed his own life - so also sin which arises from the action of the free will turns out to be victor over the will and the free will is destroyed. "By whom a man is overcome, to this one he then is bound as slave." This is clearly the judgment of the apostle Peter. And since it is true, I ask you what kind of liberty can one have who is bound as a slave except the liberty that loves to sin?

He serves freely who freely does the will of his master. Accordingly he who is slave to sin is free to sin. But thereafter he will not be free to do right unless he is delivered from the bondage of sin and begins to be the servant of righteousness. This, then is true liberty: the joy that comes in doing what is right. At the same time, it is also devoted service in obedience to righteous precept.

But how would a man, bound and sold, get back his liberty to do good, unless he could regain it from Him whose voice saith, "If the Son shall make you free, then you will be free indeed"? But before this process begins in man, could anyone glory in the good works as if they were acts of his free will, when he is not yet free to act rightly? He could do this only if, puffed up in proud vanity, he were merely boasting. This attitude is what the apostle was reproving when he said, "by grace you have been saved by faith."

And lest men should arrogate to themselves saving faith as their own work and not understand it as a divine gift, the same apostle who says somewhere else that he had "obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy" makes here an additional comment: "And this is not of yourselves, rather it is a gift of God - not because of works either, lest any man should boast." But then, lest it be supposed that the faithful are lacking in good works, he added further, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God hath prepared beforehand for us to walk in them."

We are then truly free when God ordereth our lives, that is, formeth and createth us not as men - this he hath already done - but also as good men, which he is now doing by His grace, that we may indeed be new creatures in Christ Jesus. Accordingly, the prayer: "Create in me a clean heart, O God." This does not mean, as far as the natural human heart is concerned, that God hath not already created this.

Once again, lest anyone glory, if not in his own works, at least in the determination of his free will, as if some merit had originated from him and as if the freedom to do good works had been bestowed on him as a kind of reward, let him hear the same herald of grace, announcing: "For it is God who is at work in you both to will and to do according to his good will." And, in another place: "It is not therefore a matter of man's willing, or of his running, but of God's showing mercy." Still, it is obvious that a man who is old enough to exercise his reason cannot believe, hope, or love unless he wills it, nor could he run for the prize of his high calling in God without a decision of his will. In what sense, therefore is it "not a matter of human willing or running but of God's showing mercy," unless it be that "the will itself is prepared by the Lord," even as it is written? This saying, therefore, that "it is not a matter of human willing or running but of God's showing mercy," means that the action is from both, that is to say, from the will of man and from the mercy of God. Thus we accept the dictum, "It is not a matter of human willing or running but of God's showing mercy," as if it meant, "The will of man is not sufficient by itself unless there is also the mercy of God." By the same token, the mercy of God is not sufficient by itself unless there is also the will of man. But if we say rightly that "it is not a matter of human willing or running but of God's showing mercy," because the will of man alone is not enough, why, then, is not the contrary rightly said, "It is not a matter of God's showing mercy but of a man's willing," since the mercy of God by itself alone is not enough? Now, actually, no Christian would dare to say, "It is not a matter of God's showing mercy but of man's willing," lest he explicitly contradict the apostle. The conclusion remains, therefore, that this saying, "Not man's willing or running but God's showing mercy," is to be understood to mean that the whole process is credited to God, who both prepareth the will to receive divine aid and aideth the will which has been thus prepared.

For man's good will comes before many other gifts from God, but not all of them. One of the gifts it does not antedate is - just itself! Thus in the Sacred Eloquence we read both, "His mercy goes before me," and also, "His mercy shall follow me." It predisposes a man before he wills, to prompt his willing.

(Augustine, Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love, translated by Albert C. Outler, c. 2006 Relevant Media Group, pp. 38-42)

As I was beginning to set down a few comments on this ancient affirmation of theological paradox, I turned to the end notes and found this astute analysis from the translator, which says it better than I could:

From the days at Cassiciacum till the very end, Augustine toiled with the mystery of the primacy of God's grace and the reality of human freedom. Of two things he was unwaveringly sure, even though they involved him in a paradox and the appearance of confusion. The first is that God's grace is not only primary but also sufficient as the ground and source of human willing. And against the Pelagians and other detractors from grace, he did not hesitate to insist that grace is irresistible and inviolable. . . . But he never drew from this deterministic emphasis the conclusion that man is unfree and everywhere roundly rejects the not illogical corollary of his theonomism, that man's will counts for little or nothing except as passive agent of God's will. He insists on responsibility on man's part in responding to the initiatives of grace

(ibid. 74-75)

There you have it - an undeniably compatibilistic Augustine. Share this with your Arminian  and hyper-Calvinist friends, and invite them to embrace the beautiful balance which fully recognizes divine sovereignty and human responsibility with a modest, Biblical sensibility that acknowledges every good gift - including the gift of faith - as originating in God alone.

And, if you are a believer, thank God for giving you this good gift in Christ.
 

Click here to listen to John Piper's message on the life of Augustine.

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 15 - Brad Bigney

I've Got Questions about Election and Predestination . . .

That was the title of pastor Brad Bigney's recent message about the paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. His remarks are insightful and balanced, emphasizing the greatness of our God and the meagerness of our capacity as fallen creatures. For this humble and God-honoring approach, he gets a THEOparadox t-shirt!

Click Here to Listen (MP3)

A few sobering quotes from the message . . .

"You're never going to escape a measure of mystery in the Bible."

"The issue really boils down to: how comfortable are you with a measure of mystery in all that we know about God and what He's doing - including as it relates to salvation?"

"Your human logic will never be fully satisfied."

"There's no way we're going to be able to fully understand the whole scope of God's work."

"When mystery is kept alive humility will characterize you."

You might also like this one about divine incomprehensibility, it is super!

Your God is Wise and Loving yet Unsearchable (MP3)

For 18 pages of faith-building sermons like these - approximately 360 messages - visit this link:

http://www.graceky.org/index.php?c=sermons

It's the single most reliable sermon resource I know of. The style and content are along the lines of John Piper, C.J. Mahaney/Sovereign Grace Ministries, Paul Washer, and Paul Tripp. Messages here are usually topical, but LOADED heavily with insightful Biblical content and great theology. There is a strong emphasis on application, with plenty of encouragement and exhortation. Messages are available in multiple audio formats, and there are downloadable PDF outlines, too.

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 14 - John MacArthur

This year, R.C. Sproul's Ligonier Ministries Conference focused on "Tough Questions Christians Face." Dr. John MacArthur addressed the question, "Does the Doctrine of the Divine Decrees Eliminate Human Will?" MacArthur's answer radically affirmed Biblical paradox and divine incomprehensibility, while also radically affirming the clarity and reliability of Scripture. His words rang with the humility of a man who has wrestled with the twin truths of God's sovereignty and human responsibility, and found himself standing in baffled awe before the transcendent wisdom of God, as revealed in His Word.

Here are some excerpts from MacArthur's message . . .

"This is a very, very important question, and I think . . . for folks who are new to . . . Reformed theology, this is the big hurdle to get over. If God is sovereign - if God is in control of absolutely everything - then what place does human responsibility play? . . . It is also, I think, the most pervasive, nagging question in the minds of people who have already embraced Reformed theology, who still grapple with the solution to how divine sovereignty and human responsibility work together. It is unquestionably a paradox, at least apparently. Certainly it is not contradictory to God, nor is it contradictory in reality, but it appears to us to be contradictory. I know all of you have struggled with this question, all of you have. I have. It's not a question that goes away. You don't get a short answer. In wanting to prepare my thoughts for this occasion . . . I began to read everything I could find on how human responsibility comes together with divine sovereignty. What I got was a lot of philosophy, a lot of rational thinking, a lot of reasoning, a lot of adjectives, qualifying absolutely everything, but I really didn't get any satisfaction."

"I want you to see the way Scripture handles this issue. There is a reason why nobody yet has given you a fully satisfactory answer, and I know no one has. You may be a teacher of Reformed theology, and you haven't read or heard a really satisfactory answer to this difficult dilemma from the standpoint of human reason. Where you have to go with this is to set all of that aside and just see what Scripture says."

"The Scripture never equivocates on presenting these two great side by side realities in the very same place. . . . Human responsibility both for faith and culpability for unbelief is crystal clear, and it is put in the passages where sovereignty is emphasized strongly."

"The Bible doesn't tell you one side of this in this book, and then four books later sneak in the other side. It's in the same place over and over and over again. . . . I can't resolve this. You just need to enjoy the pain. . . . and you certainly don't want to come up with a hybrid in the middle which denies the reality of both. They are what they are. And if you're under the illusion that you can figure it out, you're on the level of a man who thinks he's a poached egg."

Can I just encourage you? Have you been struggling with this? Of course you've been struggling with this! . . . these two things go together and there is no explanation beyond that. You're there. . . . you've got it."

"You say, 'look, I'm struggling a little bit with this.' Good. It means you're human. . . . Are you surprised that you're struggling with this? Get over it. Who do you think you are? 98% water. Are you kidding me? Why should you expect to understand this? . . . This is way beyond us, but we love these truths, don't we? We love the truth of divine sovereignty. We embrace the truth of human responsibility. And we cherish Gospel duty. . . . These mysteries for us are inconceivable, incomprehensible, unfathomable, unsearchable. You don't need more information . . . You got it."

"Listen folks, not your individual intellect or our collective intellects are going to be able to comprehend the incomprehensible, inscrutable mind of God."

See the video here:

http://www.christianity.com/ligonier/?speaker=macarthur2

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 13 - Henry Mahan

I found an excellent message titled "Orthodox Paradoxes" by Henry Mahan, a well known "Sovereign Grace" Baptist who has enjoyed a fruitful preaching ministry for over 50 years. Here is Mahan's bio from sermonaudio.com:

Henry T. Mahan was born in Birmingham, Alabama August 1926. He began pastoring at the young age of 21 and has wide experience in the pastoral ministry, having been pastor of Thirteenth Street Baptist Church, Ashland, Kentucky, for over 50 years. He also travels widely as a conference speaker and evangelist. What draws the positive reaction from people all over the world to Henry Mahan's preaching is not primarily the man, but the message. It is not the preacher so much as the One preached. Listeners know that each one of these sermons will honor their precious Savior and lift up the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Pastor Mahan believes in the sovereign free grace of God. He sees all of God's plan and purpose directed toward one end of glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ in the salvation of sinners. His sermons are God honoring, Christ exalting, and places the Savior at the forefront of our attention, the worth of Christ's blood and righteousness on the lips of every saved sinner. If you love the God-honoring preaching of God's sovereign grace, you will not be disappointed in the preaching of Henry T. Mahan!

Among other things, Mahan discusses the paradoxes of faith & works, the Trinity, the Incarnation, God's sovereignty & human responsibility, active election & passive reprobation, divine love & wrath, law & grace, and the sinner/saint paradox. This is a very encouraging message that gives helpful perspective on the struggles of the Christian life.

Quotes:

"One of the evidences that a person has not been taught of God - has not been taught of God . . . has not heard that voice from heaven in his soul, he has not learned of the Father - is when a man continually has problems with the orthodox paradoxes."

"You can't handle a paradox unless you're taught of God."

Well said.

Listen to it here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72106144825

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 12 - A.W. Pink

A.W. Pink (1886-1952) gets one of our famous t-shirts. Although Pink is regarded as the consummate "ultra-high" Calvinist, and although he is considered by some to have been an actual hyper-Calvinist during at least a period of his life, it is clear from the excerpt below that Pink became a firm believer in theological balance and paradox. He is well known for denying that God has any love for the non-elect. On that matter, he was certainly expressing a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, and was at odds with Calvin and every other mainstream Reformed theologian in history. If Pink had applied some paradoxical thinking to the topic, he would have moved into a more balanced position. But we all have our blind spots.

The excerpt below is from an article written by Pink in 1936, in which he tenaciously argues against the hyper-Calvinist's denial of "duty faith" (duty faith refers to the fact that God commands every person to repent and believe the Gospel, and therefore it is everyone's "duty" to do so). It is important to note that Pink is not denying the validity and usefulness of reason or logic, as such. Rather, he is showing how "human" reasoning stands opposed to divine, inerrant Truth. Human logic is good as far as it goes, but in dealing with divine matters there is a need for revelation, which exceeds the capacities and categories of mere human logic. In other words, God's ways cannot be mapped out mathematically by the human brain.

Pink also wrote a book about the attributes of God, in which he made some very strong statements in favor of the doctrine of incomprehensibility. Perhaps he will win another t-shirt for that. But for now, enjoy A.W. Pink's bold attack on theological imbalance - complete with a strong appeal to the concept of paradox.

"Now if we resort to human reasoning it will logically follow that it is quite useless to exhort the unregenerate to turn unto God or come unto Christ; yea, to exhort those who are utterly incompetent to respond, will appear to be most inconsistent and the height of absurdity. But, my reader, the things of God cannot be encompassed by human reason, and the moment we attempt to measure them by the line of our "logic," we open the door for Satan to deceive by his subtleties. He will tell us that if the Lord our God be one Lord then He cannot be a plurality of Persons, and that if we hold to three Divine Persons we are most "inconsistent" in affirming the unity of God. Satan will tell us that if God be Love then He will never banish any of His creatures to everlasting woe, and that if we hold to eternal punishment of the wicked we are altogether "inconsistent" in believing in the Divine benevolence.

What, then are we to do? This: repudiate all reasoning upon spiritual things as utterly worthless, and believe with the simplicity of a child whatever God's Word teaches. The Apostles held firmly the revealed truth of a glorious and victorious Messiah, and they could not "harmonize" with that fact a humiliated Messiah that would be crucified: the two things appeared to be altogether "inconsistent" and contradictory. But to them Christ said, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25).That, my reader, should be a lasting warning to us of the utter inadequacy of human logic and philosophizing upon Divine things! We must turn from the vain reasonings of the Unitarian, and while holding fast to the Unity of the Divine nature, we must also believe there are three co-equal Persons in the Godhead. We must turn from the vain reasonings of the Universalist, and while holding fast to the love of God, we must also believe in the eternal punishment of His enemies. And why? Because Holy Scripture teaches both!

In like manner, we must turn from the vain reasonings . . . of the hyper-Calvinist, and while holding fast to the total depravity and the spiritual inability of the natural man, we must also believe in his moral responsibility and accountability to God."

(Note: I have emboldened some text for emphasis, but the italics are all Pink's)

Source: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/dutyfth.htm

HT: Phil Johnson

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 11 - Louis Berkhof

Louis Berkhof posthumously wins one of our famous t-shirts for the THEOparadoxical thinking exhibited in his defense of the doctrine of common grace. Berkhof sees God's Being as infinite and supra-logical, and therefore capable of more deeply complex intentions than many would typically ascribe to Him.

Although some will argue that the Scriptures make no distinction between "common" and "special" grace, these designations are nothing more than a helpful way of describing God's mercy toward all mankind, in contrast with His sovereign election of some (both of which are clearly taught in the Scriptures). We can think of "common grace" as that kindness which God extends to all people everywhere - even those who never believe. All sinners who continue to live on earth receive air, water, food, sunshine and a host of other little enjoyments each day. If God's kindness and love were restricted to the elect alone, the reprobate could not be held guilty for failing to give thanks to God for His Providential bounty. But as it stands, all men are guilty of aggravated sin by exalting God's good gifts above God Himself, and loving the effects of divine love rather than the Cause Himself. Unregenerate men take these gifts as deserved quantities, while the righteous feel ever so unworthy to receive them, seeing their own natural sinfulness clearly. The saints wonder how it can be that God should so favor them as to provide even one more breath - let alone fellowship with Christ and eternal life in the joy of their Lord.

In Arminianism, common and special grace are both denied. Such distinctions are unnecessary if there is no sovereign election. Arminians posit a universal "prevenient grace," which essentially means that God gives every person an equal opportunity to make a free will choice for or against Christ. In this way, they preserve the foundation of salvation as grounded in divine grace and initiated by God, while denying that God is ultimately decisive in the matter. Prevenient grace simply makes it possible for man to choose what he wants, and it portrays God as "offering" salvation in the hope that some will respond without His special intervention. While this ascribes a certain attractive sense of humanistic "fairness" to God, it has the negative side effect of placing man's will above that of the Creator. It also gives me the right to boast against non-believers, since I wisely responded to the prevenient grace and they did not. Calvinists note that God is neither required nor obligated to save any sinner, that He would remain just if He never offered any opportunities for salvation, and therefore He has the right to sovereignly intervene where and as He chooses. Yet the Calvinist does not leave the non-elect beyond the glow of God's mercy, which is over all His works and abounds too much to be escaped entirely - even by those who are fleeing from Him.

Interestingly, the denial of common grace is a defining mark of hyper-Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinists emphasize God's hatred of the non-elect, and deny any sense of God's love or grace toward the reprobate. These matters must be sorted out with Scriptural reasoning, and with a healthy sense of paradox in view, for the same God who "hated" Esau also allowed him a place to live in safety, command over an army of 400 men, and resources he himself described as "plenty." (Gen. 33:9). Did Esau deserve these things? No? Then they were certainly given as gifts of grace - undeserved! How can these things be? Without further adieu, let's hear Mr. Berkhof's defense of the more moderate, Biblically balanced perspective which is set forth in classical Calvinism . . .

"Another objection to the doctrine of common grace is that it presupposes a certain favorable disposition in God even to reprobate sinners, while we have no right to assume such a disposition in God. This stricture takes its starting point in the eternal counsel of God, in His election and reprobation. Along the line of His election God reveals His love, grace, mercy, and long-suffering, leading to salvation; and in the historical realization of his reprobation He gives expression only to His aversion, disfavor, hatred, and wrath, leading to destruction. But this looks like a rationalistic over-simplification of the inner life of God, which does not take sufficient account of His self-revelation. In speaking on this subject we ought to be very careful and allow ourselves to be guided by the explicit statements of Scripture rather than by our bold inferences from the secret counsel of God. There is far more in God than we can reduce to our logical categories. Are the elect in this life the objects of God’s’ love only, and never in any sense the objects of His wrath? Is Moses thinking of the reprobate when he says: “For we are consumed in thine anger, and in thy wrath are we troubled”? Ps. 90:7. Does not the statement of Jesus that the wrath of God abides on them that obey not the Son imply that it is removed from the others when, and not until, they submit to the beneficent rule of Christ? John 3:36. And does not Paul say to the Ephesians that they “were by nature children of wrath even as the rest”? Eph. 2:3 . Evidently the elect can not be regarded as always and exclusively the objects of God’s love. And if they who are the objects of God’s redeeming love can also in some sense of the word be regarded as the objects of His wrath, why should it be impossible that they who are the objects of His wrath should also in some sense share His divine favor? A father who is also a judge may loathe the son that is brought before him as a criminal, and feel constrained to visit his judicial wrath upon him, but may yet pity him and show him acts of kindness while he is under condemnation. Why should this be impossible in God? General Washington hated the traitor that was brought before him and condemned him to death, but at the same time showed him compassion by serving him with the dainties from his own table. Cannot God have compassion even on the condemned sinner, and bestow favors upon him? The answer need not be uncertain, since the Bible clearly teaches that He showers untold blessings upon all men and also clearly indicates that these are the expression of a favorable disposition in God, which falls short, however, of the positive volition to pardon their sin, to lift their sentence, and to grant them salvation. The following passages clearly point to such a favorable disposition: Prov. 1:24; Isa. 1:18; Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11 ; Matt. 5:43-45; 23:37; Mark 10:21 ; Luke 6:35: Rom. 2:4; I Tim. 2:4. If such passages do not testify to a favorable disposition in God, it would seem that language has lost its meaning, and that God’s’ revelation is not dependable on this subject."

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1960), 445-446.

HT: CalvinAndCalvinism.com

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 10 - Chris DeVidal

Editor's Note: this a partial reprint of an excellent article by Chris DeVidal, the entirety of which can be found here. I'm reprinting it because this article perfectly exemplifies the type of thinking that underlies this blog. Chris presents the balance of command and promise from God's Word, as filtered through the lens of historic Calvinism. No t-shirts were in stock, so this time I'm awarding an official THEOparadox necktie and a nifty wall graphic. Some folks who have previously received the t-shirts will be jealous of the arms, but the arms don't count because they're not his.


Behold the beautiful balance of doctrine that John Calvin handed down to us!

You must persevere in faith until the end to be saved.
You will persevere in faith until the end and thus be saved.

You must choose Christ of your own free will.
You will choose Christ because your will has been freed.

You must bear fruit when converted.
You will bear fruit when converted.

Christ died to make forgiveness possible for anyone who would believe. His blood is sufficient for all.
Christ died to forgive those who would believe. His blood, sufficient for all, was applied directly to us.

God loves everybody!
God loves everybody but also, in ways unfathomable to us, hates the sinner in addition to loving him.

God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked!
God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and yet, in ways unfathomable to us, takes pleasure in all that He does!

God wants no one to perish!
God wants no one to perish, and yet people perish. He must have a higher desire than His desire that no one perish.

Mankind is fully responsible!
God is fully sovereign!

I think that classic Calvinistic doctrines are the most wholly Biblical. Hyper-calvinistic doctrines slant too far in one direction and Arminian doctrines too far in the other. Classic Calvinistic doctrines that Calvin and Spurgeon and St. Augustine and Edwards and Piper and MacArthur and Sproul and Mohler and Dever and Mahaney et. al. teach are based on the entire Bible, not just selected proof texts. I love what Calvin found!!

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 9 - Paul Washer

"The Mystery of the Trinity is not a ground for its denial. Some may say that they cannot believe what they cannot understand, or that if something cannot be explained, it cannot be true. If we were to apply this same logic to the entire Bible, or even to our own existence, then there would be very little left for us to believe. Even the simplest truths of Scripture and of human reality go beyond our understanding. We do not believe because we understand, but we believe because it is true--the testimony of the Holy Scriptures."

Paul Washer, The One True God, page 16, copyright 2004, 3rd Edition, Granted Ministries Press

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 8 - David Harrell

This Paradox File features Dr. David Harrell of Calvary Bible Church in Joelton, Tennessee. Dr. Harrell has been a committed Biblical (nouthetic) counselor for over 20 years, and has taught Biblical Counseling courses at the Master's College. Here, he encourages us to hold fast to the time-tested paradoxes of Christ's teaching as an antidote to the Purpose Driven Life fad of recent years. He manages to deliver a rather provoking expository sermon while simultaneously critiquing the seeker sensitive fads and affirming the THEOparadox concept. It's just beautiful!

The message is entitled,
"The Power of a Paradox Driven Life."
Click here for the message on Sermon Audio

Here are some notes and quotes from the message . . .

Introduction

"Certianly it's true that the character and the purposes of God are incomprehensible, and, frankly, only through the eyes of faith can we even get a glimpse of who He is . . . Indeed, there is an infinite chasm between man's minute understanding and God's omniscience . . . we quickly discover that His plan for glorifying Himself through salvation of sinful men is filled with paradoxes. His ways seem illogical to our way of thinking."

There is a very good overview of some key Scriptures and concepts that address Biblical paradox in this introductory section (especially the first 7 minutes of the message). He does a great job of showing just how paradoxical the Gospel message is. This is why he gets the shirt.

"These paradoxes of the Christian life stand in stark contrast to the superficial, watered down gospel that is popular today."

1. A cross comes before a crown

"We prefer happiness over holiness. We prefer recreation over re-creation, right? We don't want to be regenerated and born again, [and] become new creatures. We want to be happy and enjoy everything in the world, that's the idea. We want health and wealth, not forgiveness. We want purpose, not redemption. Well, Jesus said 'Get behind me, Satan, you are a stumbling block to me.'"

"Jesus is saying, again, 'My ways are not your ways. Your ways are selfish, mine are selfless. Your ways are short-sighted, mine are eternal.'"

2. We win by losing

"This is the opposite of the self-centered gospel of Neo-Evangelicalism that paints God with a smiley face running around trying to make us all happy. We must understand that Christ suffered the agony of the cross for our spiritual (not our physical) needs . . . When we come to faith in Christ, we are to come ... poor in spirit, utterly bankrupt, we have nothing to offer, we're crying out for this undeserved mercy and grace from the Lord. We come to Christ renouncing our old self." Whew!

"Beloved, we want to preach the Gospel clearly enough for unbelievers to reject it." AMEN!

"I stand before you this morning calling us back to the great paradoxes of the Christian faith. These are the divine principles that should drive our lives." Double AMEN!

In this section, Dr. Harrell explains the meaning of one of my favorite Greek words: agonizomai. That's also the name of my favorite blog, which is perfectly fitting.

3. Lasting joy comes through suffering.

"Each one of us, the Bible says, will stand before God and give an account. And make no mistake about it, the penetrating eyes of our holy and omniscient God will not be deceived. There'll be no place to hide, and your fate will not be determined by a jury of your peers, but by a holy and omniscient God, the Judge of the universe. And so I leave you with this question: will He see a life driven by selfish ambition and phony religion that loves cotton candy Christianity, or one driven by the glorious paradoxes of the Gospel of Christ?"

Dr. Harrell powerfully refutes the errors of the Purpose Driven Life and leads us right back to the Gospel according to Jesus Christ. I thank God for men like him.

DISCLAIMER: Although the topic is not mentioned in this sermon, Dr. Harrell is clearly pre-millennial/Pre-tribulational and strongly dispensational in his eschatology. I appreciate some aspects of dispensational theology, but reject it in general. However, I do not believe eschatology alone should divide Bible believing Christians. The Together for the Gospel conferences (t4g.org) are an example of eschatologically diverse Reformed believers joining hands over the ESSENTIALS of Biblical teaching. In this spirit, I commend Dr. Harrell without reservation, but I don't necessarily endorse his eschatology. I also forgive him for having more hair than me.

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 7 - John Calvin

In this passage, John Calvin points out a few interesting THEOparadoxes:

"Grace has always the appearance of contradiction. The foundation is faith. For faith is the pillar and possession upon which we are able to plant our feet. But what, in fact, do we possess? Not things that are present, but what is set far distant under our feet – nay more, what is beyond the comprehension of our spirit. Faith is therefore named the evidence of things not seen. But evidence means that things emerge into appearance, and is applicable only to what concerns our senses. In the realm of faith the two apparent opposites – evidence and things not seen – struggle with one another and are united. It is precisely the hidden things, inaccessible to sensible perception, that are displayed by the Spirit of God. He promises eternal life – to those who are dead. He speaks of the blessedness of resurrection – to those who are compassed about with corruption. He pronounces those in whom sin dwells – to be righteous. He calls those oppressed with ceaseless tribulation – blessed. He promises abundance of riches – to those abounding only in hunger and thirst. God cries out to us that He is coming quickly to our aid – and yet He seems deaf to every human cry for help. What, then, would be our fate, were we not powerful in hope, were we not hurrying through the darkness of the world along the road which is enlightened by the Spirit and by the Word of God?"

- John Calvin, as quoted in Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 19-20

HT: Arnold at Balance & Paradox

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 6 - C.J. Mahaney

This time it's C.J. Mahaney of Sovereign Grace Ministries who wins the T-shirt (actually, I gave him an "iron on" version). What follows is an excerpt from his extremely helpful little booklet entitled, Sovereign Grace and the Glorious Mystery of Election (Click here for a free PDF download of the book).

Like many others, C.J. offers a perfect example of the THEOparadox concept: God is great, we're not, God knows the secret things, we don't, so trust Him.

C.J. has had a major impact on me - not just theologically, but practically. He emphasizes a Gospel-centered life, serving others, receiving observations and criticisms from those around us, persistently fighting against indwelling sin, and exalting Christ above all. These happen to be the areas where I have needed the most help (based on the observations of those around me), so C.J.'s ministry was literally a God-send.

Here's the excerpt:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out of Our Depth
Election, of course, is a doctrine issuing from the deep end of the theological pool. As soon as we encounter it, we must all acknowledge that we are in way over our heads. This is a place of mystery, a place that spawns a hundred questions, all of them variations on a single question: “How do I reconcile divine sovereignty with human responsibility?” On the topic of theological mystery, I find this quote from J. Rodman Williams most helpful:

“Because all Christian doctrines relate to God who is ultimately beyond our comprehension, there will inevitably be some element of mystery, or transcendence, that cannot be reduced to human understanding. Nonetheless, within these limits the theological effort must be carried on.”

Indeed, God has announced the following non-negotiable arrangement: “The secret things belong to the Lord and the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deut 29:29). As one who loves secrets, my pride does not respond well to such a declaration. So, partly as an aid to my humility, God has allowed me to live near Washington, DC. Here, among the members of the church I am privileged to serve, are a number of people who must be rather secretive about the details of their government-related jobs. Sometimes, when talking with one or another of them, my pride and self-importance rises up, and I begin to crave a little insider access. Why don’t they share some cool stuff with me? Can’t they trust me? Can’t they make an exception for their pastor? To their credit, they never satisfy my prideful craving. Usually they don’t even admit they know any secrets. I can behave the same way with God. I implore him to explain some theological mystery, arrogantly assuming that my brain would not be microwaved by exposure to such divine illumination. But in his goodness, wisdom, and mercy, he doesn’t tell me any secrets, either.
How comfortable are you with the secret things of God?…with the difficult to understand?…the paradox?…the apparent contradiction? Are you at peace in the deep end of the pool?

In Scripture, God has asserted both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, without seeking to harmonize them completely. But they are certainly harmonized in his infinite wisdom, and that should be enough for us. John Calvin offers wise counsel on this matter:

The subject of predestination, which in itself is attended by considerable difficulty, is rendered very perplexed, and hence perilous, by human curiosity, which cannot be restrained from wandering into forbidden paths…Those secrets of his will which he has seen fit to manifest, are revealed in his Word—revealed in so far as he knew to be conducive to our interest and welfare.…Let it, therefore, be our first principle that to desire any other knowledge of predestination than that which is expounded by the Word of God, is no less infatuated than to walk where there is no path, or to seek light in darkness.…The best rule of sobriety is, not only in learning to follow wherever God leads, but also when he makes an end of teaching to cease wishing to be wise.

I believe that Christian maturity includes an increasing comfort with divine mystery and a growing trust in God, so that we can say with David, “O Lord, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great or too marvelous for me” (Ps 131:1). As one grows in Christ, there won’t be less mystery. But there ought to be more humility, that we may be more at rest in the presence of divine mystery. May it be great enough and marvelous enough for us to know that the doctrine of election is sound and reliable, representing the clear teaching of Scripture.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------