Dedicated to the devotional, exegetical and philosophical study of theological paradox in Conservative, Thoroughly Biblical, Historically Orthodox, Essentially Reformed theology . . . to the glory of God alone!
Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan has graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. To understand these thoughts in context, please begin with part 1.
Moreover, we know that a set of beliefs is a paradox by the following ingredients.
1) There are (at least) two claims or beliefs.
2) Both are in Scripture; they are clear threads of biblical teaching, clear threads of truth.
3) They seem to contradict each other. This means we have difficulty seeing how they fit together in the fabric of Scripture. It means that human reason has trouble accepting one teaching because of the other.5 Intellectual tension exists in a tenacious and profound way.6
4) Danger: we have the tendency to damage one teaching or the other by our reasoning. Thus, we take a biblical truth and use it to deny another biblical truth! This is a red flag. On the word contradiction, it is a response to those who claim the presence of actual contradiction. Van Til states that when “contradiction” is wrongly attributed to two truths, one is “thrown overboard” to solve the problem logically.7
______________________________________________________________________
Pastor Ostella's Footnotes
5 There may be other factors that make acceptance of x difficult, but the juxtaposition to the corresponding thread is central as a cloud that hinders seeing x clearly and accepting it wholeheartedly.
6 Not every difficult set of teachings constitutes a paradox. Difficulties such as Jephthah’s vow in relation to Jesus teaching on vows are not paradoxical because they do not push against each other. Church history and the history of theology reveal a limited number of paradoxes easy to identify. Paradoxicality is not difficulty in arriving at comparable truths, but difficulty in harmonizing truths that are clear (by themselves Christ’s deity and His humanity are quite clear, but reflection on their interconnection takes theologians all over the map). Some example paradoxes are the trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, the Bible is the word of God and the word of men, sovereignty and responsibility, God’s decree and His desire, and moral inability along side of full responsibility.
7 Defense 69. This is not merely a debate between reformed and non-reformed thinkers because, for one example, Van Til wrestled on the basis of paradox in opposition to some reformed thinkers in his book, Common Grace (Philadelphia: P&RP, 1954). In more ways that one, J. I. Packer compliments and gives detail to Van Til’s approach to common grace and the free offer of the gospel in Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961). Packer’s definition of antinomy (appearance of contradiction, apparent incompatibility) equals Van Til’s use of paradox, though Packer restricts paradox to a figure of speech, 18-19. Van Til uses antinomy and paradox interchangeably, Defense, 67, fn36.
PART 4 - Click Here
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
Just to be sure no one misunderstands my intention, I want to make it clear that I'm not proposing EVERYTHING is paradoxical. There are many areas of clear truth in Scripture where paradox is not an option. For example, the Bible clearly teaches that faith in Christ is the only way for a person to be saved from sin. The Bible says God created the world. The Bible says Jesus rose from the dead. There is no "other side" to these truths. They are simple and clear facts from the Bible. Nothing in Scripture calls us to balance them or hold them with any degree of uncertainty. Quite the opposite - we are commanded to believe them with absolute confidence. There are 2 sides to every coin, but not all truth is coin-shaped.
Some truth is one-sided and deserves to be treated that way. However, when some of the most important truths taught in the Bible are placed side by side, they can only be perceived by the human mind as
paradoxical. THEOparadox is nothing more than a call to treat as paradox those things which cannot be adequately explained within the limits of human logic.
