Is Paradoxical Theology Irrational?

A recent visitor to this blog mistook our advocacy of paradoxes for an endorsement of irrationality. He is not alone; I have found this is often the initial response to any mention of theological paradox. The commonness of this response is perhaps a reflection of the inroads made by humanistic rationalism during the 20th century, and the influence it still holds over the minds of "deep thinkers." Nowadays, the prevailing philosophy held (perhaps unconsciously) by the average person in America has swung way over toward irrationalism. Our aim is to embrace neither of these extremes, and instead to hold up the Biblical balance of rationality without rationalism, and acceptance of paradox without irrationalism. 

Logic is a reliable tool, or framework, for interpreting knowledge, yet it is not in itself a "source" of knowledge. Like all tools, it has its usefulness and limits. Where would one be if one had only logic, but no other knowledge of any kind? Think about this for a moment! To even state the laws of logic, one has to start with something a priori. Just as nothing can be properly deduced apart from logic, nothing can be known in the first place apart from presupposition.

This reminds me of the old joke about the brilliant atheist whom God challenged to create life out of nothing. The atheist said, "Sure, no problem," and then reached down to pick up a handful of dirt. A thundering voice immediately said, "Hey, no cheating! Go make your own dirt!" If you think about it, this is actually two or three jokes in one.

When we realize that logic is a tool for working with the raw materials of knowledge that God has graciously provided, we find ourselves free from the need to reconcile everything with everything before we will believe anything. We still attempt to reconcile as much as possible. We don't even consider giving up on the practice of logical thinking. But at the same time, we don't elevate our proposed solutions to an authoritative level, and we don't refuse to believe the facts of divine revelation just because we fail to reconcile them. We don't make our ability to understand a matter the measure of its truthfulness. We start with Truth and then seek understanding.

My response to the commenter was as follows:

I certainly don't want to give the impression that irrationality is entailed in the type of theological paradox I embrace. Rather, my belief in paradox is built on the solid foundation of Scripture as the Word of God, and flows logically from my presuppositions, as illustrated in the following premises and conclusions: 

P1 The Bible is the highest and surest source of knowledge: inerrant, infallible, and authoritative.
P2 The Bible clearly (that is, perspicuously) teaches certain distinct doctrines which, when compared side by side, appear to human minds to be logically incoherent.
P3 The Bible does not explain in detail how all of these doctrines interrelate.
P4 The Bible does not imply that any of these doctrines actually contradict one another (and strongly implies the opposite).
P5 The Bible teaches that man has mental limitations due to creaturehood, depravity and incomplete information.
P6 The Bible teaches that God possesses perfect and exhaustive knowledge of all things, and no possibility of self-deception.
P7 Even with perfect logic, the reliability of one's logical conclusions is proportional to the amount of correct information one possesses (i.e., partial information easily leads to false conclusions). 

C1 (Based on P1, P2, P3, P4) All doctrines taught by the Bible are entirely true, compatible and non-contradictory, without regard to any human being's ability to explain their interrelations.
C2 (Based on P5, P6, P7) The Bible reflects the perfect logical conclusions of a perfectly logical God, even if no human being can explain the logic used to reach those conclusions. 

As you might guess, I am no formal logician or philosopher. Still, I think my crude attempt holds water.

In short, I would not say my theological system is based in any sense upon irrationalism. For further discussion of this topic, I recommend James Anderson's excellent quote found in the sidebar of this blog:

"By advocating paradox I don't want to give the impression that I'm giving a carte blanche to not think philosophically, to not think deeply, about these doctrines. Quite the opposite. . . . My position is that with each of these doctrines we reflect on them as hard as we can, we penetrate them as best we can based on the Scriptural data that we do have, but we also recognize that there are going to be limits, and that those limits are actually a positive thing and not a reflection of some inherent problem in the doctrines or in the process of theological reflection. . . . I think we can make progress, we can make considerable progress, in understanding these doctrines and resolving some of the . . . initial difficulties that we have with them, but at the same time recognizing that we're always only going to get so far and when we bump up against the limits of our capacity to formulate them in certain ways or to resolve certain difficulties in them, we shouldn't be too concerned about that. We certainly shouldn't say, 'Okay, we need to admit that Christians are ultimately irrationalists.' No. We don't need to say that at all. . . . It's a Biblically constrained rationality. It's a middle way between rationalism, of which I think [Gordon H.] Clark was a representative, and irrationalism, of which, to take an example I think the Neo-Orthodox - Karl Barth - would be an example, where you're saying that there are actual contradictions in there. So I think it's navigating a Biblical middle way between these two extremes: having too high a view of the human intellect, and perhaps too low a view of the intellect, of our ability to know the things of God."

That quote gives us essentially the same idea, but from a "real" philosopher!

Solving the Baptism Debate

Recently I've seen some heated debates over baptism. Should we sprinkle infants or immerse believers? 

Why not just immerse infants like the Eastern Orthodox Church does? 
(I'm only kidding, but they are totally serious about this solution)

Monday Morning Humor

Kevin DeYoung is in the habit of posting something funny on Mondays. So I decided to give it a try this week just for fun. But this one is a double header. 
 
First, we have an amazing song extolling the wonders of "free will" (actually, this is probably more sad than funny, but something about the song makes you want to laugh involuntarily). Please choose to watch this video.
 

 
I'm glad you chose to watch it.
 
Next, we have this great video entitled, "John Piper Preaches Against Calvinism." It really is a great video. The only thing funny about it is the title. It's funny that someone thinks this is preaching against Calvinism. I was really expecting something more or less un-Calvinistic, but instead there was just this . . .
 

 
There you have it! A clear contradiction of everything he's ever preached in the past!
 
Choose to have a great Monday, friends.

Cultish Side of Calvinism?

It looks like another book attacking that horrible, dangerous thing called "Calvinism" has just been released. I won't say anything substantial against the book until I've read it (if I read it). For now I want to consider what others are saying (others who, presumably, have read the book).

Tim LaHaye said this about "A Cultish Side of Calvinism":

“At last, someone has the courage to tie Calvinism 

into the dark side where it originated."

Okay. That was pretty ignorant. He'll have to apologize to God for saying that.  But it was a mild endorsement compared to this one:

“With great skill, submission and sincerity, Pastor Micah Coate has very faithfully brought to light a much-needed word regarding the pitfalls of a deficient and defiant craze with Calvinism. In this outstanding work, Pastor Coate weaves these victorious patterns through his discerning work to show real life in Christ alone, and through none other! When you read this captivating, clear work, it will bring certainty of conviction. This literary work will greatly mandate, motivate, and matriculate you in maturity serving the Master!!!”
-Pastor Eddie Atkinson, Calvary Baptist Church, Beverly Hills, Florida

I laugh longer and harder each time I try to make sense of this paragraph. If the book is half as clownish and senseless as the alliterated endorsement, it will make entertaining reading. But I'd say don't waste your time or money. What I mean is, don't desecrate your denominations of dollars with delusional denunciations of divine doctrine. If you do, you might major on misinformation and matriculate yourself into the margin of magisterial mumbo-jumbo. Ha, that's fun. Sort of like wearing a t-shirt with huge red letters that say, "Pay no attention to me." And then putting a line through the words "no attention to".

Who actually uses the word "matriculate"? How exactly will this book "greatly matriculate me into maturity"? Does that even mean anything?

This sort of book becomes popular simply because many Calvinists themselves - and most non-Calvinists - don't recognize the inherent balances in Biblical, Reformed soteriology.

Anyhow, I'm keeping my membership in the horrible Calvinist cult, 'cause I'm completely constrained and correctly confined and colossally correlated and comprehensively contained and cheerfully changed and concomitantly combined and constantly connected and contentedly commandeered by Scripture.

If you'd like, feel free to leave an amazing alliterated comment . . .

Kentucky Pastor Speaks Out Against Church Puppet Shows

The pastor of Nada Christian Assembly, located in Nada, Kentucky, has declared open war on puppet shows. "For years we had puppets in our children's church, and the kids really liked them," said the Right Bishop Reverend Apostle Dinty D. Side. "But one day I got to thinking about the theology behind them, and I just couldn't condone it anymore." Since then, Rev. Side has launched a nationwide campaign against what he calls "puppetism."

"The problem," he said, "is that puppets are completely under the control of their masters. We need to think about the message we are sending to our kids. As far as I'm concerned, it's just plain immoral for any creature - including God - to have absolute sovereignty over any other creature, even if one of them is only a dressed up sock. Kids don't know the difference, and they might get led astray by this display of sovereign power."

Two weeks prior to banning the puppets, Rev. Side had become concerned about the fact that none of the puppets in his church had been baptized. "The Bible says baptism takes away sins," he said. "We can't have unregenerated puppet sinners teaching our children." After meeting with church leaders to discuss the problem, Rev. Side decided to lead each puppet in a sinners' prayer and hold a baptism service for them. "It was during the puppet altar call that I  began to recognize the bigger problem," said Childrens' Pastor Sherry T. Ching. "We were forcing these puppets to be saved against their will, like Calvinists. I immediately went to the Right Bishop Reverend Apostle and told him we were unwittingly endorsing heresy." Rev. Side agreed. Just to prove he wasn't a Calvinist, he had two of the puppets apostatize the following week.

Pastor Ching noted other puppet problems, as well. "I was very troubled by the forced baptisms," she said. "I mean, eyes were coming off and floating around in the water, noses were sinking to the bottom of the tank . . . it was disgusting! Here we were trying to save the puppets, and instead they were getting ruined. Several of the children are in counseling over this." Similar issues came up when communion was administered.

"That was when we decided to forgo the puppet thing altogether." noted Rev. Side.

He believes the ban is right for his church, despite any unintended side effects. "Sure, we lost about half of our congregation. I said, 'if you two want to go somewhere else that's fine. I'm all about people making their own free choices.' And that's why I'm calling on all pastors everywhere to freely choose not to allow puppet shows in their churches. We have approached every major Protestant denomination, as well as Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic leaders, with an ecumenical proposal that would ban puppets from all of Christendom. It's a scourge that needs to be totally wiped out. Puppets are responsible for a lot of the problems in our churches, and probably in the world at large. I'm hoping our Catholic friends will start up an inquisition against them."

Rev. Side noted that no Presbyterians or Reformed Baptists had responded to his proposal. "It's not surprising, since those people think they are puppets." he said.

To assist like-minded churches in making the transition to non-puppetism, Rev. Side has created the National Organization for Programs Undermining Puppets (NOPUP) and its sister organization, Human Agency for Negating Divine Sovereignty (HANDS). The organizations recently introduced a puppet exchange program. "Any pastor who wants to enforce a decree against puppetism can simply gather up the offending characters and send them to us. We will dispose of them properly. We also accept Calvinist literature because their large volumes burn well." For more information on the program, write to revdecide@nadachristianassembly.com

Note: This story is satirical fiction. Any resemblance to persons real or fictitious is probably intended.

New "Arminocalvinist" Music Group Features Roger Olson and John Piper

At the risk of losing any credibility this blog might have gained in the last two and a half years, we now submit what some will certainly consider to be a profane and horrifying display of disrespect and worldliness. To such I would simply urge a loosening of the phylacteries.


Seeing as the rest of you have a sense of humor, you will probably enjoy this video featuring the irenic Arminian, Roger Olson, rocking out with some of our Calvinist friends at a local seeker church. This group calls itself "45:12", which apparently means "four 5-pointers and one 2-pointer." But some have hinted that the name might be a cryptic reference to Isaiah 45:12, sneaked in by Piper in an attempt to subliminally influence Olson toward meticulous sovereignty. Olson mentioned to me in a private conversation that he was aware of this plot, and was planning to write 3 books, published by 5 different publishers, in response. Piper will not be named explicitly in any of the books, but will rather be referred to as "a leading Baptist proponent of the Young, Restless, Reformed movement who has authored many books and pastors a big church in Minneapolis, whose name you would recognize . . ."


Piper says he knows that the group is controversial, but he is committed to reaching out to seekers. "I know some will say this is compromise, but I say, uh, 45:12 is all about sharing great contemporary music with the whole world - even seeker sensitive, um, for lack of a better word - false shepherds - who masquerade as Gospel preaching Evangelicals. But, as Roger would say, we have to keep the doors of the [finger quotes] big tent wide open for whatever heresy wants to call itself Evangelical."


Disclaimer #1: This is only a joke. None of this actually happened.
Disclaimer #2: Don't get too excited, Spurgeon has not been resurrected (yet).
Disclaimer #3: No, John MacArthur has not become charismatic (yet).
Disclaimer #4: No theologians were harmed in the making of this motion picture.

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!

Other Disclaimers

This is not an endorsement of rock music, "Christian" rock music, Roger Olson's theology, the "arminocalvinist" spectrum, infant baptism, men wearing wigs, contextualized Christianity, secular Christmas music, men's jewelry, bandanas, mega churches, or smoke machines. I do, however, endorse disco balls and sequin covered guitars.

Also, just to reassure his critics, Piper's antics in this video are not taken from actual footage.

In the Mail

Mostly bills and assorted junk mail. But since so many bloggers are in the habit of posting useless lists of books they have on order, I thought I would join the bandwagon with my own "In the Mail" post. I already have about 16 Bibles and more devotionals, commentaries, textbooks, theological treatises, and other assorted works than I will ever read in a lifetime. This doesn't stop me from looking for more of these treasures, mostly at garage sales and used book venues, and occasionally at the discount Christian bookstore (where I have to sift through stacks of "pop" Christianity books to find anything of substance). So the only things I have "in the mail" these days are not worth talking about. You needn't worry that this kind of thing will become a habit around here. This will be my first and last "In the Mail" post. Because nobody cares what anybody else has in the mail.

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.

The Ultimate Proof that the Bible Isn't True

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

The THEOparadox Team Has its First Fight

A snowball fight . . . JibJab style!

Gotcha!

Those "Holidays" are called CHRIST-MAS and New Year's, by the way.

I'm Not a Research Scientist Looking for Extra-Terrestrial Life (But I Play One On TV)

This is topically unrelated to anything else on this blog . . . but let's call it a humor break.

I recently had the privilege of appearing in a commercial that was submitted for the Dorito's "Crash the Super Bowl" Contest. My pastor and his family were the driving force behind this production, I just showed up and did whatever they asked me to do.

http://www.crashthesuperbowl.com/#/video/3820

NOTE: After clicking this link, you will be greeted by loud, blaring, 80's style electric guitar music (provided by Dorito's). Just click "SKIP INTRO" in the lower right hand corner of the screen, and our video will appear immediately afterwards.

Take Time to Laugh (at yourself)

There was a reason I decided to post this video, but I can't remember what it was. Enjoy!

The Wittenburg Church Door

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is only a tongue-in-cheek bit of fun, based on my experiences and observations of theological trends. If you're offended by this, please try to lighten up. If you've abandoned sound doctrine in favor of modern trends and worldly fads, repent.

The year is 1517. In a historic act of Biblical courage, Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg Church Door . . .

Terrified peasants rejoice at the good news and run into the safety of the cathedral.
An angry Roman Catholic theologian rips down the 95 Theses and uses them to make a paper hat. He puts the hat on his head and stands outside the cathedral windows looking in. Later, Luther's friends put the 95 Theses back on the door.
A Calvinist goes through the door and tells everyone inside, "God sovereignly planned long ago for you to be here. You are here by His pleasure and will."
An Amyrauldian Calvinist stands up and says God made it possible for everyone outside to come in also.
A Hyper Calvinist opens the door and walks through it. He leaves the door open, waiting for God to close it for him. He turns around and tells the crowd outside they are probably not invited to come in.
A second Hyper Calvinist who is standing outside slams the door shut and boards up the church entrance.
An early Arminian takes the boards off the door and then cuts the door in half, beckoning everyone to enter. He takes the other half of the door to the local morgue and encourages the dead people to get into the church at any cost.
Later, a militant Arminian breaks the door down and stands on it, declaring that he is free to enter or leave the cathedral at will and no one can stop him. He then clarifies his meaning by saying this happens "by grace alone." He goes to the morgue to see if some of the dead people are just sleeping.

An Open Theist says God did not know about the cathedral or the door until they happened, but now He is glad they are there. He builds a robot and programs it to respond to every person's movements. He calls the robot "G.O.D."
A Universalist stands outside and tells bystanders that the Wittenburg Church door is no different from any other door in the world, but the important thing is to choose a door and go through it. He also assures those who want no door at all that this is a perfectly good option.
A "Free Grace" Antinomian stands on the church steps and tells everyone that they need only believe they are inside the cathedral, and they are. Anyone who says they have to actually enter the cathedral is a deceiving, graceless legalist.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer hits the "Free Grace" Antinomian over the head with a hardcover copy of his book, "The Cost of Discipleship." After that, Bonhoeffer disappears and everyone wonders where he went.
A Calvinistic Antinomian decides to go up the cathedral steps with a fire hose. He tells everyone inside to pretend they're in an amusement park. He then turns on the water and blasts every sacred thing in sight until it is completely waterlogged. He believes his insurance company will pay for the damages.
A Charismatic reads the first thesis and gets so excited he bursts through the door and dances around the cathedral shouting at the top of his lungs. He knocks over several candlesticks in the process. When someone tries to draw his attention to the other 94 theses, he declares they are unimportant and starts dancing again with his eyes closed.
A Reformed Charismatic walks to the microphone with the 95 Theses in hand. He shares a dream he had about the third thesis, and all of his friends start hopping and singing for sheer joy (with their eyes wide open).
A Pentecostal jumps over three pews and starts swinging from a gold chandelier. He appears to be completely unharmed when the chandelier falls to the ground and crushes him.
A Oneness Pentecostal notes that there are not three doors, but one. He ignores the three windows above the door.
An Independent Fundamentalist preacher stands up and delivers a fiery sermon about the fact that the door is wooden and rigid. Two of the three points in his sermon are about the splinters one might expect to get from handling such a door. In conclusion, he burns some "false doors" on the church steps.
A KJV-only preacher stands at the door demanding that everyone who tries to enter must use a secret password. The password is "Thou."
A Fundamental Baptist preacher tells everyone they must take a bath and wear nice clothes if they want to come inside the cathedral. He also convinces several bystanders to place one foot inside the door and assures them that they are now "eternally secure" inside the cathedral no matter what they do.
A Neo-orthodox theologian stands in the doorway with one foot on each side of the threshold. He declares that he is both "within" and "without" the cathedral at the same time.
Two Southern Baptists get into a shoving match with the Neo-orthodox theologian. One is trying to push him out of the cathedral, while the other is trying to push him in.
A Liberal Theologian sits on the church steps and writes a long article about the many possible interpretations of the word "door" as it is used in Scripture and church history. None of these interpretations has any resemblance to the actual Wittenburg church door, but they do sound quite scholarly and lead many intelligent people away from the door.
A Neo-evangelical pastor passes a survey around to everyone standing outside the church. He then places silver wallpaper over the door, sets a welcome mat in front of it and launches a full scale remodeling project using the survey as a blueprint. The sign over the church door now reads "Wittenburg Creek Community Church - home of the High-Bells."

A Postmodernist rips the door off its hinges and burns it in the town square. Later, the pastor of a prominent Emergent Church scoops up the ashes and forms them into a statue resembling Gumby. Several thousand seekers come to his "campus" each weekend to enjoy the image he has made. The pastor calls this "reinventing" the Wittenburg door and insists that this is what God had in mind all along. He goes to Starbucks and starts a long, confusing conversation with his friends in which they "imagine" a Wittenburg Church door that is covered with pink velvet and has a "doggy door." Afterward, they visit their favorite tattoo parlor to get the word "relevant" inked permanently onto their foreheads.

Meanwhile, a few bedraggled peasants, bearing old rugged crosses on a narrow road, flee into the church to find refuge in the living and true, eternal, gracious, sovereign God.