James Anderson on Reformed Forum Radio

There is an excellent and informative interview with James Anderson at the Reformed Forum. Dr. Anderson discusses his book, Paradox in Christian Theology, and fields questions about the Clark/Van Til controversy, Alvin Plantinga's thought, presuppositional apologetics, and other topics.

Click here to listen

For the first few minutes, the hosts chatter about some uninteresting things (uninteresting in my opinion, anyway). If you want to go straight to the relevant portion, start around the 5:00 mark on the audio.

Here's a very insightful excerpt:

"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."

~Dr. James Anderson

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

Meet Dr. James Anderson - Author, Professor, Philosopher, and Proponent of Paradox

Here's a video about Dr. James Anderson, author of Paradox in Christian Theology: An Analysis of its Presence, Character, and Epistemic Status. So far, I've reviewed the first two chapters of the book, and I'll be adding more soon.

Anderson has accomplished a great feat in setting forth a philosophically grounded case for theological paradox. Prior to this, theological paradox was widely acknowledged - and even assumed in many circles - but no one had built a logical case for it from a philosophical standpoint. As such, Anderson has made a monumental contribution to theology, hermeneutics, and apologetics. Most importantly, he has helped us define the boundaries between apparent contradiction and actual falsehood, logical paradox and irrationality, genuine mystery and baseless mysticism. Even as Anderson was penning his book, God was opening my heart to the possibilities of Biblical paradox. Reading the book, I find the Lord is expanding my mind to a greater appreciation of the nature of His Truth.

The video is partly a bio of Anderson, and partly a promo for Reformed Theological Seminary, where Anderson teaches. Enjoy!

Paradox in Christian Theology, Part 2

This is a continuation of my review of James Anderson's book, "Paradox in Christian Theology: An Analysis of Its Presence, Character, and Epistemic Status."

Note: The "parts" of my book review correspond to the "chapters" in the book. Part 1 covered the Introduction, which is chapter 1 of the book. Since the book contains 8 chapters, I expect to post 8 parts.

Chapter 2: The Paradox of the Trinity

Anderson plays the dual role of historian and philosopher as he summarizes the events and issues involved in the early development of the doctrine of the Trinity. He takes special note of the way the Nicene and Post-Nicene theologians articulated their trinitarian arguments, demonstrating that key figures such as Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, and Basil the Great), and Augustine of Hippo viewed the Trinity as a paradox.

Following the historical survey is a critique of several non-paradoxical views as represented by certain modern theologians. Specifically, Anderson takes aim at the errors of modalism, social trinitarian interpretaions, and relative identity interpretations. He shows that these approaches inevitably cross Biblical boundaries and depart from earlier orthodox conceptions in their attempts to rule out paradox. There is also a brief overview of several modern theologians who continue to present a paradoxical doctrine of the Trinity.

While reading through this fascinating material, I was impressed with how much I don't know about the Trinity. I found it helpful to keep my Theological Dictionary open as I read. And I learned a new word. Disambiguate. I hope to use it in my next game of Scrabble.

Anderson concludes that we are faced with this choice regarding the doctrine of the Trinity: to be orthodox and paradoxical, or to find ourselves moving beyond the bounds of orthodoxy. The chapter concludes with these words:

"As the debate stands today, no writer from the first century to the twenty-first century has offered an explication of the doctrine of the Trinity that is both clearly orthodox and free from apparent contradiction. It sems that the careful theologian inevitably faces a dilemma: that of embracing either paradox or heterodoxy." (page 59)

Well said.

Paradox in Christian Theology, Part 1

I've been working on the next post in the "That's Impossible!" series, currently exploring the Sermon on the Mount. I'm also in the middle of buying a house, which is eating up a lot of time and messing up my blogging schedule. In the meantime, I ordered a copy of a book I've been looking forward to reading for quite some time. It arrived in the mail today.

The book is Paradox in Christian Theology: An Analysis of Its Presence, Character, and Epistemic Status, by James Anderson.

Anderson holds two PhD's from the University of Edinburgh, one in Computer Simulation and the other in Philosophical Theology. His book is an in-depth, scholarly defense of the paradox concept in Christianity. Anderson believes that philosophical paradox is not only present in Christian theology, but also to be expected - and nothing to be embarrassed about.

More information about James Anderson can be found here (Proginosko.com)

Over the next weeks or months (depending on how fast I can read and digest the material), I'll be reviewing and quoting from the book. Paul Manata has already written a thorough discussion of the book here (Triablogue).

Manata's review is about 1/10 the length of the 320-page book! Mine will be decidedly shorter, and divided into several parts.

Anderson opens the introduction with this quote from Soren Kierkegaard:

"One should not think slightingly of the paradoxical; for the paradox is the source of the thinker's passion, and the thinker without a paradox is like a lover without feeling: a paltry mediocrity."

Anderson quickly acknowledges the fact that many within and outside of the faith find the very idea of logical paradox to be totally unacceptable. He also notes that many others find it acceptable and even essential. He offers this definition of paradox:

"As I will be using the term, it is synonymous with apparent contradiction. A 'paradox' thus amounts to a set of claims which taken in conjunction appear to be logically inconsistent. Note that according to this definition, paradoxicality does not entail logical inconsistency per se, but merely the appearance of logical inconsistency. (pp. 5-6)

This is a great definition. I would only add that the appearance of logical inconsistency is owing to our creaturehood, our fallen nature, and the fact that God's self-revelation is not exhaustive. Therefore, some of the paradoxes will never be solved in the present age. We embrace them because we believe the Bible is the Word of God.

I'm looking forward to Anderson's defense of paradox in Christian theology from an apologetical and philosophical standpoint. I'll keep you posted as I read.