Phil Johnson on Paradox and Logic

Recently, on the Pyromaniacs blog, Phil Johnson posted an interesting perspective on the concepts of paradox and logic. Let me start by saying Phil is way smarter and way more educated than I am. I should also say that I largely agree with what he wrote. However, I did submit a detailed comment in which I challenged him to open the door for mystery and paradox just a tad wider - without shutting the door on the laws of logic in the process. 

I believe mystery and paradox exist within the framework of and because of the laws of logic - but they DO exist. THEOparadox is not misology (hatred of reason). Quite the opposite - it is a dual acknowledgement of the Source of reason (God), and the limitation of reason (our creaturely and fallen minds). We want to avoid rationalism on one side, and irrationality on the other. In the work of inspiring the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit did a remarkably good job of balancing this. It's exactly what we would expect from the God Who IS the Truth.

I'm not sure if Phil will answer my questions, but if he does I am sure I will learn something. Here's an excerpt from the Pyromaniacs post:


"When faced with two difficult truths we find hard to reconcile, we ought to view it as an opportunity to work out the kinks in our thinking and try to gain a better understanding of truth. If two biblical truths seem to contradict, we need to take another look and be humble enough to acknowledge that perhaps we have misunderstood one or the other (or both) of the seemingly contradictory ideas. We need to understand—like those mathematicians did at the start of the 20th century—that if "truth" really contradicted itself, the very concept of truth would be moot. Christians of all people ought to stand firmly against every charge that truth is inherently self-contradictory."


Here is a link to the post:
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/11/most-ingenious-paradox.html


And here is my comment/question to Phil Johnson:


As one who finds paradoxes (i.e. apparent contradictions of greater and lesser degree) all over the place in Scripture and theology; as one who passionately believes in the fallen-ness and limited-ness of human understanding which result from total depravity; as one who deliberately embraces a very real sense of mystery in God's revelation (or, in some cases, non-revelation) of Himself; and as one who takes seriously the implications of God's incomprehensibility, I have to say . . .

AMEN!!!!

Because of the above checklist, I am sometimes confused with those Neo-Orthodox and PoMo people you are talking about. For the record: I'm not them.

Here's a really cool paradox that helps to keep me balanced and always has me hunting for possible solutions to Biblical paradoxes:

One cannot even say there is an apparent contradiction unless one has already acknowledged the fact that the law of non-contradiction is normative. IOW, if the law of non-contradiction is invalid, then there IS no such thing as an "apparent contradiction." There could only be a vague mish-mash of what might be called "ungrounded propositions" (welcome to Postmodernism). So, in my view, the Biblical way to approach paradox is to START by acknowledging the Law of Non-Contradiction.

I believe the Holy Spirit deliberately placed some APPARENT contradictions (i.e. paradoxes) in the Scriptures in order to get our attention. To Him, they are not contradictory at all, but to us they appear contradictory. Given enough time, information, and application of logic, all would be solved - but we're not fully equipped.

To go a little further, and at the risk of alienating some readers . . . don't we have to admit with Spurgeon (and contra Gordon Clark, I think) that there are some things revealed in the Bible which man's creaturely and fallen mind can't quite comprehend? That is to say, in at least some cases, the logic which reconciles two apparently contradictory truths is with God alone? Who's to say God has given us ALL of His logical tools? Maybe we've only got enough to confuse ourselves on certain issues. Hence Calvin's many warnings against "morbid speculation" and the like.

The laws of logic, like other valid laws, aren't OVER God (nothing is) - rather, they FLOW FROM His Essence and Nature. So, can't there be aspects of logic that remain incomprehensible to us?

What I'm really trying to say is that, from a practical standpoint, we shouldn't go too far with our rational DEMANDS when it comes to the things not revealed. We can get ourselves into trouble applying laws of strict logic when some of the needed propositions are unknowns. IOW, we are sometimes in danger of jumping to conclusions. The results can be errors like Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism.

Compatibilism - a Term for Biblical Balance and Paradox

It's always encouraging to find examples of thoughtful Christians humbly embracing paradox in a way that gives honor to God and holds to His Word in an uncompromising way. Recently, Barry Wallace did this on his blog, Who Am I?

Check out this post on Barry's site for a great discussion of "COMPATIBILISM" - a Biblical approach to the dilemma of human responsibility and divine sovereignty.

Compatibilism differs strongly from Neo-orthodoxy's dialectical theology and the Hegelian concept of THESIS-ANTITHESIS-SYNTHESIS. If we take the Scriptures seriously, the dialectic method of producing a "synthesis" becomes unacceptable. Dialectical theology requires us to take something away from each side in order to find a working alternative somewhere in the middle. This forces us to deny some of the things God has said in His Word. Such an approach should never be called paradox. It would be better described as reducing Biblical truth to the lowest common denominator (a.k.a. "liberalism"). Compatibilism, on the other hand, assumes that everything taught in the Word of God is completely true. It refuses to reduce any of God's revelation. It resists the temptation to rip pages from the Bible to make our own paper-mache truth. Instead, it declares the human mind incapable of reconciling all that God has said. This conclusion exalts God, and in this way theological paradox becomes the best friend of orthodoxy - not a path to liberalism.

God is TRUE, and every man IS a liar until he surrenders to the Truth of God.

Neo-Orthodoxy, Paradox, The Bible, and Bonhoeffer

Here's a little diversion from our study on Psalm 32 . . .

I just listened to Curt Daniel's lecture on Neo-Orthodoxy, found here:

Lectures on the History and Theology of Calvinism (monergism.com)

Concerning Neo-Orthodoxy, Dr. Daniel states, "It is not paradox, it is simply unbiblical contradiction. It is also theological fiction. It simply does not match the facts of Scripture." Although his criticism of supposed paradox in Neo-Orthodoxy is harsh, in other lectures I have found Dr. Daniel to be fond of theological paradox within the framework of true orthodoxy.

I once believed the Neo-Orthodox idea of paradox was quite in line with what I write here at THEOparadox. Now, I am horrified by that thought. Let me officially state for the record: THEOparadox has no relation whatsoever to Neo-Orthodoxy. If Neo-Orthodoxy is even half as bad as Dr. Daniel makes it out to be, I am forced to disavow it completely.

Many things in Scripture strike us as contradictory, or at least illogical to a certain degree. These things are not errors or mistakes, they are signs which call us to dig into the text and discover God's brilliant logic. His logic is above ours, so it sometimes leaves us in mystery and wonder. But it is NEVER NEVER NEVER in error. God's Word is THE TRUTH. The point of THEOparadox is precisely opposite to that of Neo-Orthodoxy. It is the weakness of man and man's logic that leaves us sometimes in a place of paradox. To God, everything makes perfect sense and there are no real contradictions in His self-revelation, the Bible. How could there be, if God is its source?

I'm still a big fan of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings, especially The Cost of Discipleship. In Christ the Center, I find him speaking the language of liberalism, but shredding its foundational premises at the very same time. Life Together is simply a masterpiece. Whatever Bonhoeffer may have learned from Karl Barth, I have not yet encountered Barth's more obvious errors in his writings. I now know better what to look for, however. Perhaps if Bonhoeffer had survived the concentration camp, we would know more of his thoughts. But those he left us have great value as far as I'm concerned, even if he proved himself to be comfortable with liberals and a friend of the Neo-Orthodox. In any case, he was a better disciple of Christ than I am, by at least a hundred times.

So let us find inspiration in many places, but ultimate TRUTH in God's Word alone. And let all things - including our lifestyles (especially our lifestyles) - be tested by the Word, lest we ourselves go astray.

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.