Ungracious Cows

From Charles Spurgeon:

 

"I will judge between cattle and cattle." (Ezekiel 34:22) 

 

Some are fat and flourishing, and therefore they are unkind to the feeble. This is a grievous sin and causes much sorrow. Those thrustings with side and with shoulder, those pushings of the diseased with the horn, are a sad means of offense in the assemblies of professing believers. The Lord takes note of these proud and unkind deeds, and He is greatly angered by them, for He loves the weak. 

 

Is the reader one of the despised? Is he a mourner in Zion and a marked man because of his tender conscience? Do his brethren judge him harshly? Let him not resent their conduct; above all let him not push and thrust in return. Let him leave the matter in the Lord's hands. He is the Judge. Why should we wish to intrude upon His office? He will decide much more righteously than we can. His time for judgment is the best, and we need not be in a hurry to hasten it on. Let the hard-hearted oppressor tremble. Even though he may ride roughshod over others with impunity for the present, all his proud speeches are noted, and for every one of them account must be given before the bar of the great Judge. 

 

Patience, my soul! Patience! The Lord knoweth thy grief. Thy Jesus hath pity upon thee!

  

(Charles Spurgeon, Faith's Checkbook - "He of Tender Conscience")
 
Here's an audio version for your listening pleasure: 
 

Try a Blog (But Don't Try Triablogue)

NOTE: There is an important update to this post at http://theoparadox.blogspot.com/2013/05/trying-tiablogue.html

I share the following with a great deal of disappointment, both in myself and in the others involved.

For some time, I have looked up to Steve Hays at Triablogue, and I've also made no secret of my admiration for Paul Manata. Unfortunately, I must now disavow any recommendation of these men and their work.
    

Why? I wish I didn't have to say any of this. But I do.
     

For several weeks, Hays and Manata have been posting vociferously against some arguments David Ponter has presented regarding certain distinctives of Moderate Calvinism. This week I got into a related discussion with both Hays and Manata in the Triablogue comment box. The discussion went downhill and quickly turned into a mud slinging contest, with uncharitable personal attacks being launched from both sides. Hays then wrote a blog post about me, citing out-of-context phrases taken from comments I posted, interspersed with his cutting remarks. Hays harshly attacked my character, calling me a "yes-man" and a "cheerleader" for Ponter. Mind you, Hays has never met me, and has rarely interacted with me online. So I'm not sure how he justifies making those pronouncements.
    

After considering the whole situation, I concluded that one of Hays' criticisms was correct. I had engaged in ad hominem attacks, particularly with regard to certain remarks I had made about him. I also realized I had not conducted myself with appropriate respect or humility in our previous exchanges. I had become sarcastic and was starting to take things too personally. The ad hominem attacks from both sides were escalating, and we were violating clear Biblical standards. Proverbs 15:1 came to mind with great force and began to batter my conscience. Also, Colossians 4:6. What could I do? 
   

   
I decided it best to take responsibility for my actions and try to restore good relations with these Christian brothers. I wrote a detailed confession, asked their forgiveness, and requested further input from them if they felt there were other offenses that needed to be addressed. I also asked Hays to back up what he had asserted about me (my full responses are quoted at the end of this post).
 
The only response was from Hays: "Thanks, Derek."
 
No admission of wrong from his side. No affirmation of forgiveness and no request for forgiveness. No attempt at reconciliation. Worst of all, perhaps: no acknowledgement of the falsehoods that were brought to his attention.

   
The falsehoods were the reason I engaged in dialogue with Hays in the first place. He has labeled his posts about Moderate Calvinism with the misleading tag, "Anti-Calvinism." Take a moment to think about the significance of that. In Hays' estimation, moderate Calvinism equals ANTI-CALVINISM. The label is pure slander. Hays continues to do this despite the fact that he has repeatedly been shown conclusive proof that moderate Calvinism is a historically valid stream of Reformed Theology and is not in any sense "Anti-Calvinism." Norman Geisler and Randal Rauser are Anti-Calvinism. Classic/Historic/Moderate Calvinists like David Ponter are not. I find Hays' ignorance about these matters disturbing, and his stubbornness when corrected alarming. In my mind, his ongoing refusal to accept the facts and correct his own thinking disqualifies Hays from acting as a Christian apologist or a representative of mainstream Reformed thought. He has shown a persistent unwillingness to tell the truth about his opponents. He has smeared them with false charges and misrepresented their arguments. And he has not been willing to justify or recant slanderous remarks made about a brother.

    

In contrast, Ponter's response to Hays and Manata has been copiously fair and balanced. He has addressed the arguments presented rather than the individuals who presented them. His posts have lacked the insulting tone and deceptive selectivity of Hays' posts. Whether or not you agree with Ponter, his godly conduct in this debate has been unmistakable. This is a good example for me to learn from. This is admirable.

It is notable that Hays picked a fight with James White on the same day he attacked me. White perfectly described Hays' basic M.O. when he said:

"The ability to not only disregard the obvious meaning of my words, but to stretch to this incredible length, speaks so loudly to the length to which Mr. Hays is willing to go in the prosecution of his case against those he personally dislikes that I truly need to make no further comment. I simply ask the reader to compare what I wrote to his response, see how the substance of my reply was ignored, and that what he does say in response ignores my clear intent and purpose, and make your decision on the basis of the facts."

I have seen Hays consistently use these tactics with moderate Calvinists like David Ponter and Tony Byrne, and I have seen him use them against many others. Systematically and unrepentantly. This makes for a sad parody of Reformed Apologetics that can only serve to reinforce negative stereotypes. I stand with White in his conclusion:

"I pray the Lord's blessings on Steve, and on the whole Triablogue team. I simply pray he will recover his balance and seek fairness in his future efforts."

Until that happens, I recommend trying another blog. In the past I would have suggested Paul Manata's. But Manata has disgracefully stood with Hays on these matters and is now taking shots at other moderate Calvinists as well. So, for a more objective approach to Reformed Philosophy and Apologetics, I recommend these great sites:

    

Mike A. Robinson - God Does Exist: Applied Apologetics

James N. Anderson - Analogical Thoughts

    
I don't agree with these men on every point, and I don't imagine they agree with me on every point, but I have found I can count on them to be fair and respectful to their opponents. That adorns their arguments with grace and makes me much more willing to consider the merits.

   
Dear reader, those you admire will fail. Your friends will fail. I will fail and you will fail. But Christ will never fail. Keep your trust firmly set on Him, and you will not be shaken. Keep repenting, and you will not get far in your own selfish folly when it arises. Keep walking humbly with Him, and you will find rest for your soul. These are lessons I am learning . . . sometimes the hard way.

________________________________________________________________

 
My notes to Steve Hays and Paul Manata at Triablogue:
 

Steve and Paul,

This cut-and-paste job on my comments is a stacked deck. I could do the same using comments from you, but I'm not going to bother with it. I would simply invite readers to go back to the original comment threads and read my words in context along with the rest of the conversation. No defense, just a call for objectivity.

For my part, I admit I got too deep in this and resorted to some ad homs, and definitely employed some unnecessary sarcasm. In particular, my two "conclusions" about you, Steve, were offensive and uncalled for. I can see that my sinful pride fueled some of my words as our disagreement heated up. Please forgive me.

FWIW, the logic of my "formal argument" was intentionally ridiculous in order to make the point that one need not be a professional philosopher to realize calling moderate Calvinism "anti-Calvinism" is simply incorrect. Amazingly, you (Steve) continue to use and even defend this misleading label. I never considered that you would take my "argument" as a serious attempt at formal logic. So I guess I set myself up for your comeback.

That doesn't excuse the improper labeling of moderate Calvinism. On this point I will stand firm. It's a matter of Truth, and it is to your benefit to accept what I'm saying. Obviously, the choice is yours.

Now the three of us have had our little brouhaha and I hope we can all shake hands (metaphorically speaking) and take responsibility for what went wrong with the discussion.

BTW - I have always held that you are much better philosophers than I am. You'll get no arguments from me on that point. I hope you enjoy your abilities and use them for the glory of God, and speak Truth in love.

Blessings,
Derek (a.k.a. THEOparadox)

PS - nothing written above should be taken as sarcasm. These words are sincere and serious reflections on our recent experience of significant disagreement. If I have committed offenses that need to be addressed further, please give feedback and let's be sure we are fully reconciled as Christian brothers.
 

----

One other question: Other than agreeing with Ponter, was there something I did that led you to the conclusion that I am a "yes man"? I work very hard at thinking independently and speaking honestly to everyone in every circle I travel. I have lost jobs and strained friendships over this. No doubt I fall short sometimes, too. But this question is very, very important to me, so I would deeply appreciate any further thoughts on this point especially. Thanks.

PS - again I want to assure you there is no sarcasm here, and I am grateful for your willingness to bring to my attention the areas in which I have fallen short during our conversation.

There are always exceptions . . .

I've boldly criticized the Clarkian viewpoint (in the post preceding this one, for example). But in the interest of fairness, I should note that I've just recently finished a pleasant conversation with Hugh McCann, who seems to have Clarkian leanings. It ended with this very irenic exchange:

My final response:

Hugh,

I think there are at least two things happening here:

1. We’re going around in circles over the same ground. I’ve given numerous explanations and illustrations of the way I personally interpret the categorical distinction (in a way that seems to be more or less similar to RSC and the classic Reformed tradition – perhaps leaning toward the Van Tillian side) and why I think it’s worth affirming. You have given your reasons for rejecting some of the language. I could give more illustrations, and you could give more reasons, but the basic ideas will likely be the same and we’ll only be repeating ourselves. I repeat, we’ll only be repeating ourselves. :)

2. More importantly – you and I are going to disagree, plain and simple, on what is an acceptable way to describe man’s knowledge of God through His self-revelation.

You quoted RSC as follows:

“Our intellects do not intersect with God’s.”[b]
“God can know what I know without my knowing what he knows.”[c]
“By definition, an analogy is not an intersection. An intersection, at the intersecting point, is identity. That is not analogy.”

You said these statements are problematic, but I think they’re accurate. In heaven we may find out who is more correct, but by then I’d think we won’t even care.

At this juncture, perhaps the best way to avoid a repeated and fruitless disagreement over the same friction points is to unhesitatingly apply the oil of acceptance and the grease of gratefulness. I accept that you see this differently. I am grateful to God for showing you His Truth and and granting you strong convictions about the comprehensibility of that Truth (in all likelihood, this conviction furthers your sanctification). I am grateful for His grace in giving me strong convictions about His incomprehensibility (this definitely furthers my sanctification). And I accept that we haven’t achieved a consensus on the exact way these concepts should be harmonized. If GHC and CVT could see us now, they’d probably be laughing.

I have enjoyed and profited from the discussion, and wish you all the fullness of blessing in Christ.

Grace & peace,
Derek

• Hugh's Final Response:

  
  

  Derek,

  Ditto on the profitability. I enjoy and appreciate your analogies!

  I believe we agree that God
  (1) knows all we know,
  (2) knows more than we know,
  (3) knows in a manner differently than we, and thus,
  (4) we know some of the things he knows.

  Surely we agree that we think some of God’s thoughts after him.

  We have the mind of Christ in us, the hope of glory, indeed.

  Blessings,
  Hugh

That's "agree to disagree" as it ought to be.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Debating Rules for Clarkians

As a proponent of Reformed theological paradox, I've found my most vocal critics and philosophical opponents (aside from atheists, agnostics and Pelagians) are Clarkians. One of their popular bloggers has kindly referred to me as "the poor soul who runs THEOparadox." He has also recommended people Google "THEOparadox" to find an example of horribly bad theology. Yep, you got it. Look no further than Bible-believing, orthodox, Gospel-centered, conservative, essentially Reformed THEOparadox for some horribly bad theology. Has anybody seen my pitchfork?

Ironically, I've learned a few genuinely helpful things from Clarkians. I'm not going to discuss those things in this post. Instead, I'm publishing my tongue-in-cheek observations about their debating techniques. Don't get bent out of shape, this is just for laughs. By God's grace, I can honestly say I love these guys more than I disagree with them (and we disagree rather thoroughly on some topics). In those disagreements, I've observed that these are the rules by which they play the game . . .

Debating Rules For Clarkians

1. If you insult the other guy, you've won.

We are of peace. Always.

2. If you quote Gordon Clark, you've won.

Surely he's the smartest guy who ever lived. Never made a mistake, either. Like Superman without the cape.

3. If you link the other guy's position to something in Roman Catholicism, no matter how contrived or unrelated, you've won.

Those Catholic heretics think the Trinity is a paradox, too. So it can't be true.

4. If you endlessly repeat the same argument he's already answered 20 times, you've won.

Pretend he didn't just wipe out your argument, and say it again as if it's the first time. If that doesn't work, try playing dumb. And repeating yourself. Repeating yourself is a good strategy. Repeating yourself is a good strategy. Repeating yourself is a good strategy (I must be winning!)

5. If you say he's irrational or illogical, you've won.

There are, after all, only two kinds of arguments. Perfectly sound Clarkian arguments and total irrationality. Only read Clarkian books and blogs. You can read other stuff if you're looking for something to attack, but not to learn anything.

6. If you quote John Robbins, you've won.

He's smaller than Guru Clark, but still a guaranteed winner. He works especially well with the Pope Card.

7. If the other guy responds to your argument, you've won. Same as if he doesn't respond.

Cover your ears whenever the heretic speaks!

8. If you declare him to be a Van Tillian, you've won.

Sure, Van Til was a genius who was firmly committed to Reformed orthodoxy. But why should that garner any respect? Never say his name without showing your utter disdain.

9. If you cite lopsided articles from the Trinity Review, you've won.

It's everything you'd want in a tabloid, minus the doctored up pictures of the people being tattled on.

10. If you can't derive everything you claim to know directly from Scripture, you've lost.

So if you don't happen to have a Biblical name, we don't know what to call you. In fact, you may not even exist.

Based on #10, they lose every time. But watching #1-9 keeps it entertaining.

Paradox Wars - Anderson Vs. Crampton

Three years ago, Dr. James Anderson published an excellent book, Paradox in Christian Theology, which makes the following claims:
  
"First, that the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation are paradoxical (in the sense that they appear to be logically inconsistent); and secondly, that it can be rational for a Christian to believe those doctrines, their paradoxicality notwithstanding."

This gets the THEOparadox stamp of approval. In fact, this was THEOparadox before there was a THEOparadox. Just as I began to write this blog, I was thrilled (and, initially, a little disappointed) to discover that someone very scholarly had "beaten me to the punch." [See illustration below . . . had some fun with PhotoShop]

Dr. Gary Crampton has recently responded to the book with a review/refutation here. This review amalgamates the very best anti-paradox arguments of the amazingly anti-paradox followers of Gordon H. Clark. They basically feel that there is no such thing as theological paradox, and it's something along the lines of heresy to say there is.

Sean Gerety overstated the significance of the Crampton review here. Over 100 comments on this post!

Dr. Anderson has now replied to Crampton's criticisms with a short blog post here and a detailed, 16-page counter-refutation here. Included in both places is a very helpful evaluation of Gordon H. Clark's supposedly "orthodox yet non-paradoxical" approach to the Incarnation - revealing, ironically, that Clark's version is both illogical and incoherent.

SCOREBOARD

RATIONALITY, LOGIC & REASON
Crampton     Anderson
5       10


HISTORICAL ACCURACY
Crampton     Anderson
3       10


BIBLICAL FIDELITY & HERMENEUTICS
Crampton     Anderson
2       10


CIVILITY & FAIRNESS

Crampton     Anderson
6       10

Discussion of Moderate Calvinism and Paradoxes

I've been enjoying a conversation with Tony Byrne in the comments on a recent post, Moderate Calvinism Explained. Tony is the author of the Theological Meditations blog, which focuses on historical Reformed theology. The main topic of our discussion has been Tony's outstanding 2005 article on Paradox and Mystery. Readers interested in issues related to the philosophy of paradox and moderate Calvinism will find the article and our conversation very useful. Some of my favorite "virtual" blogging friends have also joined in a parallel discussion about the extent and intent of the atonement . . . 

David - Calvin and Calvinism 
Jeff - Scripture Zealot 
Barry - Who Am I
Reformed Rebel

It's been exciting to see Calvinists of diverse views "agree to disagree" on some of the finer points as we have discussed controversial matters with grace and humility. Only God can produce such things in our hearts.

To read the post and intriguing follow up discussion, click here.

Dog Fight or Sheep Fight?

Several months ago, C. Michael Patton posted an article encouraging militant Calvinists to tone down their rhetoric and stop being so antagonistic toward folks who disagree with them. It was a good and needed corrective for some of us who claim to be in the "Reformed" camp.

Predictably, a stream of militant-sounding rhetoric followed in the comments. But there were some balanced and thoughtful responses, also. Among them, I found a compelling and God-honoring appeal from someone calling himself "Tim James." Part of Tim's comment is re-posted below because it is worth reading, it's well said and it has a THEOparadox way of thinking underlying it. In fact, Tim's words THEOparadox-ed some needed humility back into me.

Tim James says . . .  

". . . The right approach to scripture and making our emotions and self bow to the authority of scripture is a difficult life long process. The thing is that we all know very little as of “now” in comparison to what we will know “then” when we are in the presence of God. The important thing is the Way, the Truth and the Life. I often sin by not giving all the glory to God and I am convicted of such sin which leads to repentance. I am constantly reminded of how feeble my mind is and how weak I am. Does my lack of knowledge or weakness put my salvation in jeopardy?

Even with the Holy Spirit working on me, I do what I ought not and don’t do what I should. It is this reality of my own state that leads me to understand that I would deny Christ tomorrow if it wasn’t for Him and the grace afforded to me. I also know that I was born evil and would never have chosen Christ were it not for the fact that He called me with an irresistible call exactly as God had desired before I was even born. Sometimes our feeble four dimensional earth bound minds cannot fully comprehend the ways of God. The way to salvation has been revealed but the exact mechanics of this re-birth and indwelling of God is still a complete mystery. It blows my mind every time I consider how awesome God is and what He’s done with salvation.

. . . Should we fight with those who in our eyes are less enlightened than ourselves, or patiently preach truth in love? There’s a lot I don’t know and a lot I’ve probably misinterpreted, but this will not undo God’s purpose and will not destroy my salvation but in fact, when revealed to me, will only draw me closer to God in complete wonder about His mercy and grace as He deals patiently with this pile of dust. This humility and the desire to love others as we love ourselves should temper our attitudes and approach no matter how right we are. What is sometimes depicted does not look like brotherly love at all. I’m not suggesting that we should abandon truth nor the seeking of it, only that the presentation is a little more humble and graceful.

Crossed Sabres!

I was minding my own business and trying to avoid controversy for awhile, but another paradox duel has broken out ... so let's talk about it. Here we will learn some important things about paradox and the law of non-contradiction.

This time it's James Anderson vs. Turretin Fan (links to their posts are at the bottom). Since the two of them crossed swords a few weeks ago, TF has been mulling over the subject of theological paradox and trying put together an argument. He follows a very typical pattern that I have seen over and over from those who refuse to accept the idea of Biblical paradoxes. Essentially, he reduces the paradox concept to this obviously false proposition: "A can be both A and non-A, at the same time and in the same sense."

No, No, No! Belief in paradox is not a rejection of the law of non-contradiction (at least not for me, and certainly not for James Anderson). In the Neo-Orthodox concept of paradox, the laws of logic may be suspended or denied, but paradoxes in Reformed theology don't work that way. The reference to the law of non-contradiction is nothing more than a straw man.

Despite his aversion to paradox, I appreciate Turretin Fan for the way he upholds the core truths of Reformation theology and defends the faith against heresy. But I don't appreciate the way he moderates comments on his site. In the past he has been unwilling to publish comments from me, no matter how constructively or graciously they are presented. Below are the comments I sent to Turretin Fan in response to his argument against paradox. I'll take his refusal to publish this as an admission of defeat. (UPDATE: TF has published my comment, and responded here as well. I think the discussion has taken a step in the right direction. FURTHER UPDATE: TF has even invited me to comment on a particular post on his site. I guess it just took some time for him to warm up to me.)

TF, I think the point is being missed here.

Let's take the classic example of divine sovereignty and human responsibility (indeed, this is Packer's famous "antinomy"). It's clearly not a case of "A is both A and non-A." It's more like this: A implies non-B, and B implies non-A. Yet both A and B are Biblical propositions (and therefore true).

A. God is completely sovereign. (this IMPLIES that created beings are not responsible)
B. Man is fully responsible for his choices. (this IMPLIES that God is not completely sovereign)

The two propositions do not directly contradict one another. They only appear to contradict on the basis of what they imply. Yet the implications are natural and reasonable (some might even say they're necessary, but I wouldn't).

Since Scripture does not give us the resolution for this, we have just grounds to affirm that there is an area of mystery between these two Biblically TRUE propositions. The paradox arises when human beings try to understand HOW the two propositions relate to one another, and as our minds interpret their implications. There is no ACTUAL CONTRADICTION, but in our minds there appears to be one (apparent contradiction = paradox).

If it was simply a matter of "A cannot be both A and non-A," the whole matter would be simple. But it's more complicated than that.

If Scripture sets forth two propositions with apparently contradictory implications, but it remains silent on how the implications can be reconciled, then we are left with unresolved paradoxes. Our various attempts to explain them are mere man-made theories which may or may not be true.

In the end, don't we have to say Scripture is more weighty than human reason? Only by elevating human reason to the level of Scripture can one affirm categorically that all Biblical paradoxes are resolvable.

Stated formally, my argument looks like this:

P1) A and B are Biblically warranted propositions
P2) A implies that B cannot be true
P3) B implies that A cannot be true
Conclusion 1 (based on P1 alone) Both A and B are true
Conclusion 2 (based on P2 & P3) The relationship between A and B is an unrevealed mystery, and the implications of A and B form an unresolved paradox.

As long as the information which is needed to resolve the paradox is unrevealed (or if, as some would argue, we are incapable of receiving it), the mysterious relationship and the paradoxical implications remain.

This has nothing at all to do with "A cannot be both A and non-A." For me, belief in that rule is what leads to an affirmation the existence of humanly unresolvable paradoxes. I wonder if the real reason so many people chafe at this is that our proud hearts simply can't tolerate not knowing - and not being able to know - the divine secrets. Wasn't that part of the motivation that led to the fall of our race?

Grace & peace,
Derek Ashton

___________________________________________________
Links:

Turretin Fan against Paradox: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/07/problems-with-paradoxes.html
James Anderson for Paradox: http://proginosko.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/turretinfan-strikes-back/

TF has added this: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/07/response-from-james-anderson.html

Paradox Under Fire ... and Impressively Defended

Paradox is under fire here:
http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/showing-van-til-the-door/

And it's impressively defended here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/04/showing-gerety-door.html

You'll find the same video of Mark Kielar making his case against theological paradox in both places. Many are lining up behind Kielar's illogic and affirming their disgust with divine mystery, even calling Van Til a heretic. Readers of this blog will instantly recognize the problems with the video. In the Triablogue post, you'll find Paul Manata capably dismantling the video's arguments and offering helpful correction.

Despite what some are implying, the debate over paradox is not equal to the Van Til vs. Clark controversy. Van Til vs. Clark was a Reformed Civil War, and in some ways it continues today. The real debate is between those who believe the human mind is capable of reconciling all that is presented in the Bible, and those who believe God has left some information unrevealed in order to humble our proud minds, test our faith and delight our hearts in accordance with His eternal purposes. Very few things are as engaging to the human mind as a difficult paradox. Van Til and Clark argued this in their own unique way, but theirs is not the definitive case. One may reject or greatly modify Van Til's thought and still embrace Biblical paradoxes. And one may strenuously oppose Clarkianism without becoming "irrational."



Ultimately, paradox is not to be our focus. Paradox is a means to an end. It serves as a tool to deepen our understanding of the Gospel. It is a philosophical instrument with practical uses: to make us more dependent on God, to make us less confident in ourselves, to make us more like Christ, to form His character in us, to aid us in explaining God's greatness to those who may wish to understand. It is strange that some who oppose our view rush quickly into accusations of irrationality, while ignoring the fact that we are only proposing a logical limitation of human understanding and a fitting exaltation of the sovereign transcendence of the Holy One. We are not in any way denying the rules of logic or the inherent rationality of God's mind as the origination of ALL TRUTH.

I left comments on both posts. Here is what I said on "God's Hammer" . . .

Sean,

Sadly, the alternative to embracing Biblical paradox is the proud exaltation of human reason above God’s infinite wisdom. All of us are better served by humbly bowing our hearts and logical explanations before the Almighty Father. If any person grasps the minutest grain of truth, it is of His pure mercy.

I do not know if Van Til was right or wrong, or to what extent. But I am certain that God’s ways transcend the finite logic of the best human minds.

Despite all the cheering going on here, Kielar’s video is fraught with problems. I commend James Anderson’s book, Paradox in Christian Theology, as an antidote. Also, you will find a wealth of quotations from men like Charles Spurgeon who loved the way God outwitted them and worshipped Him more as a result. They saw Him high and lifted up, and themselves mere worms.

When we come face to face with God, every one of us will realize that we have been outmaneuvered by a wisdom unlike anything we’ve imagined. Better to acknowledge it now and prepare for that day with a corresponding humility.

Grace & peace,
Derek Ashton

Is There Logical Paradox In the Bible?

I occasionally visit other blogs and comment on posts that are of interest. Sometimes these comments are met with comments from others who disagree. What follows is a response I wrote after some point/counterpoint that occurred in one of these situations . The discussion was about whether or not the Bible contains logical paradoxes. This was written to an earnest brother who used Scripture and some weighty theological sources to argue forcefully against my viewpoint. The full context is at this link.

Thanks for this well-reasoned response. I really enjoy this type of discussion and spend a lot of time meditating on these topics.

It is obvious that you are well read and of a scholarly disposition, probably much more so than I am. I rejoice that God's grace and truth are dear to you.

Before I disagree with anything you've said, I want to affirm that it is great to have you on the same team as a fellow Reformed thinker and engaged student of theology. I believe that we're discussing a disagreement that takes place within orthodox, historic Calvinism. So, I'm glad we can discuss this issue "brother to brother" in Christ. I appreciate the gracious spirit that is evident in your response to my comment.

I actually don't know too much about Van Til, and did not mean to imply that I agree with everything he said. I'm pretty sure I don't. My point in bringing up Van Til vs. [Gordon] Clark was simply to show that there are two different streams of thought. You and I probably won't come to agreement on this (just as they didn't), and I think that's okay. You're a good representative of the Clarkian position, and I hope I am a faithful representative of those who embrace Biblical paradox.

I don't see any difference between saying, "we can understand everything God says (to us)," and saying, "we can understand logically everything God reveals to us." Either way, my point is the same. If we agree that there are some things God has kept hidden, it follows that there may be some things God has only partially revealed to us - and as a result our logic falls short of grasping them. I believe Clark and some others have created a false dichotomy of "completely hidden" truth and "completely revealed" truth. Why can't there be anything in between, truth that is only partly revealed? Why insist that everything revealed can be understood logically? Even if we were to concede that all the things revealed are fully revealed, don't we still need to acknowledge that man's fallen mind - even after salvation - is lacking some of what it needs to fully understand the ways of the omniscient and exalted God? Again, this is not the same as saying God is illogical, or even that Biblical revelation is in any sense irrational - only that some things revealed in the Bible are not revealed enough for us to make perfect logical sense of them. Sure, we can develop a logical argument and make a good case, but don't we run the risk of doing violence to the text?

What I'm saying is that we simply don't have enough light or the right kind of eyes to make strict, logical sense out of certain matters that are implicit in Scripture (e.g. divine sovereignty and human responsibility). Because of this, some things do SEEM contradictory to us - not because they are inherently illogical but because our logic is inherently insufficient. I'll have to respectfully disagree with Gary Crampton on this point. I have read Crampton's article before, and I concluded that he is overreacting to Neo-orthodoxy's mish-mash of bad theology paraded under the false banner of "paradox." Admittedly, I'd rather have his view than theirs.

As to I Cor. 14:33, you probably know I'm going to say it doesn't technically apply to this discussion. It refers to church services that are out of order, where various people are trying to give prophetic messages at the same time. It's disorder, not mystery (or even logical paradox), that is decried by the Apostle Paul. There are many other places where mystery is directly applied to our knowledge of God (Romans 11:33, for example).

If you're interested, there's a great article about paradox and mystery at Tony Byrne's blog:

http://theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com/2005/06/paradox-and-mystery.html

I think Byrne strikes a great balance on this.

Finally, I agree most heartily with the following quotes from C.H. Spurgeon:

"That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring." (New Park Street Pulpit, 4:337)

"Men who are morbidly anxious to possess a self-consistent creed, a creed which will put together and form a square like a Chinese puzzle, are very apt to narrow their souls. Those who will only believe what they can reconcile will necessarily disbelieve much of divine revelation. Those who receive by faith anything which they find in the Bible will receive two things, twenty things, ay, or twenty thousand things, though they cannot construct a theory which harmonizes them all." ("Faith," Sword and Trowel, 1872)

. . . thanks again for the iron sharpening discussion. I probably can't say much more than I already have, so I'll leave it here. Feel free to put in the last word, and I'll read it with interest. I know we will both agree unreservedly that this is our earnest prayer: may the knowledge of God increase, and may He be glorified greatly in the hearts and minds of those who read our words. Amen.