A Vintage Defense of THEOparadox

I recently re-read some comments on an old thread from another blog where my belief about Biblical paradox was directly (and somewhat harshly) challenged (and I was "named"). I had responded with a brief defense of my convictions. It's been a few years now, and re-reading my response to the criticism encouraged me. I hope it encourages you, too. Here it is:

I am a simple, Calvinistic Christian with a relentless commitment to the absolute authority, complete inerrancy and full sufficiency of the Bible. Coupled with this (and flowing from it), I affirm the total, pervasive depravity of fallen human beings – including some significant intellectual limitations. Biblically, I find no evidence to suggest that man’s mental faculties are on a par with God’s. Logically, pervasive depravity would imply that our mental faculties are seriously messed up.

That’s pretty much it. I do not love paradoxes, though I do appreciate what we can learn by studying them. And it’s not a worship of paradox that drives me. It’s a tremendous awe of the glorious wonders of the God Who saves sinners. That, to me, is a supreme paradox. I can explain it with words, but I still don’t understand it (in other words, deeply, at the heart level, I’m still saying “God, WHY? WHY would you choose me?).

I embrace paradoxes in order to solve them, if possible. When they can’t be solved without breaking Scripture, I leave them unsolved and confess the weakness of all human thought. I affirm the existence of Biblical paradoxes in a spirit of intellectual honesty – because any thinking Christian will encounter, and have to work through, apparent contradictions in the Scriptures. On philosophical matters, where there is no revelation from God, I choose to leave all arguments at the level of theory, and refuse to go beyond what is written, and I stake my soul on the Word of God alone. Wherever there are unknowns, there can be the appearance of contradiction without the reality of contradiction. That much should be logically obvious, without need of defense. So, unless we think God has exhaustively revealed Himself, apparent (not real) contradiction is a possibility that should be considered. One ought to say “I don’t know” more often than one does – especially if one maintains Scripture is the most reliable epistemic source in the universe. So I will not acceept any person’s explanation-of-Scripture as being of equal weight with Scripture. Rather, I assign varying degrees of Scriptural warrant to any explanation offered. The more Scripturally grounded an explanation is, the more likely it is true. But I will not make man’s thoughts equivalent to God’s Word. I also refuse to take anything away from the Word of God. There are plenty of ways to twist Scripture in order to create an apparent coherence that will suit man’s mind, but I reject all degradations of God’s Word. Man is deceived and stupid – and even Christians are coming out of the fog created by their sin – so it’s ludicrous to say that we can reconcile everything in our tiny, cluttered brains. Man’s mind trying to grapple with God’s thoughts is like a guy on a child’s tricycle competing at the Daytona Speedway. He’s there, and he’s participating, but he’s missing a few gears. He can take a try at the high sides, but he’s liable to tip.

So, what’s left? Only this: a tireless effort to rationally explain the coherence of Scripture, but NEVER at the expense of Scripture. I believe and trust the whole Bible, but I distrust man’s mind. I trust in Christ, not my understanding of Christ. I cling to the Word, not my theological system. I make my boast in the cross, not man’s ability to make sense of the cross. God’s Word is true, all men are liars. Period.

A Response to Scot McKnight Regarding Roger Olson's "5 Conundrums of Calvinism"

Scot McKnight, who says he abandoned Calvinism for an Anabaptist-flavored Pietism, recently posted and commented on Roger Olson's "5 Conundrums of Calvinism." McKnight makes this astounding claim:

"There are often better, non-Calvinist explanations, and the Calvinist appeal to conundrum, or antinomy, masks the illogic and fails to deal with the more adequate rational, logical answer of others. Divine determinism and meticulous providence create more problems for God’s character than they solve problems. Divine self-limitation and human free will are better, more rational explanations."

Really? Does McKnight truly think the Bible leaves those options open? I don't mean to be harsh, but one can only reach this conclusion by miniaturizing God, exalting man, and playing fast-and-loose with Scripture. It is better to have philosophical conundrums on our hands and remain uncompromising with Scripture than to construct pretend "explanations" of the Word of God using mere man-made speculation. I responded as follows:

First, It is obvious that God self-limits (however, His self-limiting - or condescension, divine humility, etc. - is itself an expression of His eternal glory). For a Calvinist, there is no problem in any of that. The major problem, in fact, is not that God self-limits, but that human beings self-exalt. For example, we magnify ourselves by imagining that we can devise better "logical" explanations for the philosophical conundrums created by the Bible rather than simply accepting God's own testimony and admitting we are limited in our logic, information and understanding. We don't particularly like God's testimony because it leaves a lot of holes and seems to create logical conflicts. Our rationalistic minds demand resolution; we don't want to live in the lowliness of our own limits, or the discomfort of mysteries and paradoxes. We easily commit the error of filling in the gaps with our own thoughts. However, because the contradictions themselves are only apparent, the resolutions we create are also only apparent. They are a mirage designed to make us feel better - but in reality we have solved nothing. There was nothing to solve because God never saw any conflict between the two sides we supposedly resolved (e.g. His meticulous sovereignty and our freedom of choice). In fact, if we "solved" the apparent problem by contradicting a single Biblical proposition, we only succeeded in creating a bigger problem for ourselves! 

Second, it is true that "explanations" have been devised which fill in the logical gaps left by the Bible. However, I daresay this has only been done at the expense of the Bible. There is no way to take ALL of the Bible at full face value without accepting a great deal of mystery and some degree of paradox or antinomy. We stand in great danger of overstepping whenever we begin to demand answers to questions God Himself has left unanswered. 

In conclusion, I remain a Calvinist because it is the only system I know of that allows me to give full credit to God's revelation in the Bible without delving presumptuously into the matters He has not revealed. At the same time, the Reformed system leaves me the freedom to explore philosophical matters with the understanding that I am only thinking the lowly thoughts of a man - so I can rest in God's wisdom even when I can't get it all figured out "logically." It teaches me to take my own thoughts less seriously, and God's thoughts with absolute confidence. If my system is criticized because it doesn't answer all of the questions to the satisfaction of a fallen human being, I can live with that. 

I believe any true Pietist can and should find such an arrangement refreshingly humbling. Pietists and Calvinists ought to be the best of friends. :)

Can Biblical Paradoxes Be Reconciled?

Of course they can. By definition, a paradox is not an actual contradiction but an apparent one.

 

When we say that paradoxes are apparent contradictions, and not actual contradictions, we affirm that they can be logically reconciled. The important question is not whether they can be reconciled, but by whom. We must always affirm that any collection of true statements are logically reconciled in the mind of our wise and omniscient God.

 

But this prompts another question: can all Biblical paradoxes be logically reconciled by human beings?

 

The answer is "Yes" and "No." It is "Yes" because one remains hopeful that they can all be explained in some way by human beings. We are ingenious creatures capable of highly complex thought. Some who are intellectually gifted can come up with creative ways to explain just about anything. If there is a paradox that hasn't been theoretically "solved" by some philosopher or theologian, we can be sure it's only a matter of time before someone presents what they believe to be a logical solution.

 

This, however, brings up a third question: how much stock can we place in these solutions?

 

This is the critical point: the question of epistemological authority. In layman's terms, the question is: who or what is an authoritative source of knowledge? How can we know that a given logical explanation for a paradox is THE TRUE explanation - the one that reflects God's own knowledge of the matter?
 
We must say, "No, Biblical paradoxes cannot be reconciled by human beings," because apart from divine revelation we can't put complete faith in our explanations.

Another way of explaining this is by presenting the Christian's hierarchy of epistemological certainty. The top level represents the highest level of certainty we can possess, with our certainty decreasing as we move down.
 

___________________________________________

SPECIAL REVELATION (Scripture)

___________________________________________

GENERAL REVELATION (Creation, Conscience)

___________________________________________

EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE (Hard Science)

___________________________________________

REASON & OBSERVATIONS (Soft Science)

___________________________________________

INTUITION (Feelings & Senses)

___________________________________________

(This chart is adapted from notes taken during a lecture by Dr. Stuart Scott)
  

Attempted reconciliations of Biblical paradoxes are in the realm of metaphysics. That is, they belong to the category of soft sciences, being unsupported by direct revelation or empirical proof. We can swim around in mysteries, theorize and explore implications. But we can't KNOW anything outside of Scripture with an equal level of certainty. We lack the epistemological warrant to claim we have authoritatively reconciled any Biblical paradox. That is, unless Scripture itself provides the solution.

Thus, we are led back to the exegesis and exposition of Scripture - not mere philosophical speculation - as the best ways to grow in certainty regarding the Truth of God.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

Thus, let us hold fast to the Word and leave the rest to God. 

Calvinism, Systematic Theology and Scripture

At some level, every Calvinist who is not hyper embraces a paradox (you can call it tension, antinomy, aporia, really deep mystery, or whatever you like, but I prefer "paradox"). This is properly true of every Christian, but it is especially true of Biblical Calvinists. Our theology generates paradox, whether it's the apparent duality of divine wills, multiple senses of God's love and hatred for fallen humanity, or the compatibility of deterministic divine sovereignty and real human choice/freedom/responsibility. Calvinism without the essential balance of Biblically-derived paradox is in danger of going the way of Herman Hoeksema and the PRC. Characteristically, hyper-Calvinists eschew paradoxes in every possible way. Arminians, for their part, also seem reluctant to embrace paradoxes. Some take great delight in calling Calvinistic paradoxes "contradictions," ignoring the fact that these are unavoidable if we take divine revelation and historic/orthodox Christianity at face value.
 
THEOparadox is essentially a call for Calvinists (and others) to do two things:
 
1. Go whole hog and embrace every Biblically justified paradox, refusing to exegetically "adjust" any verse or passage of Scripture that might create a seeming contradiction in Systematic Theology.

 2. Be rigorous in trying to understand, explain and evaluate possible resolutions to these paradoxes, but accept the fact that we can ultimately have no greater certainty than the very words of Scripture afford us.
 
It seems that many Calvinists don't want to follow through with their paradoxes, perhaps afraid they will end up in the murky slough of Neo-orthodoxy, or that embracing a Biblical "both/and" scenario somehow amounts to a denial of dearly held truth.
 
Whatever it is that drives some Calvinists to twist texts to their own liking, it is not a helpful thing. This bad habit leaves the door wide open for Arminians and others to criticize our theology on Biblical grounds. On the other hand, if we are copiously Scriptural in our affirmations and they criticize our position as "contradictory," they are really accusing Scripture of contradiction and leaving our paradoxes unscathed. Non-Calvinist Christians will find no holes in the fortress of Biblical Calvinism, except where our exegesis is unsound. That can be fixed. And of course they will find a gaping hole right in the center of our fortress: the open door of invitation to join us in believing ALL the Word of God (whether we like it or not, and whether we can explain it or not).
 
Someone will respond, "But that kind of thinking will destroy Systematic Theology!" This is only true if our Systematic Theology does not include a robust theory of knowledge that carefully balances the perspicuity of Scripture, the incomprehensibility of God, and the Creator/creature distinction. 
 
Accepting Biblical paradox does not harm Systematic Theology; it enhances it. A well-developed Systematic Theology is essential and useful, but Biblical and Exegetical Theology are supreme. You can't have an accurate Systematic Theology if you don't have an in-depth knowledge of the texts themselves. To the extent that any system rejects even one tiny drop of the Bible, it reduces its own validity as a Christian system and partially cripples itself. Let's rather have a system that is hard to explain - yet Biblical to the core - than a system that explains itself by reducing the Word of God to man-made concepts.
 

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 15

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.

4) The paradox model emphasizes faithfulness in biblical study 

 The great lesson in exegesis and theological formulation is that faithfulness to the text has 

precedence over logical coherence.42

 This does not stifle debate as if anyone may shout “paradox” and dogmatically end discussion. No, debate must continue by faithful study with the caution that though we must engage with critical thinking, we must not make logical consistency the dominant principle or ultimate goal.  

 For example, if Scripture clearly teaches that the natural man has moral inability and if it clearly teaches that he has full responsibility then, however difficult this may be to harmonize logically, we must accept both and work hard to apply both in preaching, teaching, and living. Similarly, if Scripture perspicuously teaches that the natural man is morally unable to do anything good then this teaching ought to take precedence over logical inferences “from Scripture” that contradict that teaching,43 such as the duty/ability inference.  

 Of course, how we interpret the many passages on inability (blindness, deafness, deadness, etc.44) must reflect faithful exegesis.45

 Debate is also legitimate with regard to the “duty implies ability” reasoning to see if it is philosophically problematic, Kantian, and counterintuitive.46

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

42 In one sense, admitting paradox is simply another way of saying that God's thoughts are above ours as the heavens are above the earth and it should not surprise us when we face difficulty. What we must do in faithful quest of the truth is pull together biblical data and accept paradox "where it is warranted."(John Frame, Ibid, 323-24). Logic is properly used when it is governed by the recognition of our creaturehood and hence by the recognition of the limits of creaturely reasoning. We must acknowledge the distinction between Creator and creature, and thinking this way must control the use of logic because the laws of logic are founded in the character of God (He is truth and thus there can be no contradiction in His knowledge or revelation). Properly used, the laws of logic will reveal no contradiction in the biblical system of truth because as God's revelation it has no real contradiction.  

43In this light, the inference that people (believers and non-believers alike) draw from duty to ability wrongly sets aside the biblical teaching about moral inability. The command to keep the whole law of God in its spirit and intent is a duty; from that we must not set aside the doctrine that an evil tree cannot bear good fruit. In turn, the fact that lost sinners have the command to repent and believe does not allow us to infer to their ability to believe and repent such that we set aside all the clear texts on moral inability with respect to faith.   

44 Cf. Cunningham, Historical Theology, II, 586-588 and The Canons of Dort, “Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine: The Corruption of man, His Conversion to God, and the Manner Thereof.” 

45 Our interpretations must be subject to examination by the church at large. Nonetheless, it should be easy for us to see (by the aid of the paradoxicality model) that there are scores of inability texts and “cannot” texts. It is reasonable to affirm that we must keep them front and center in our discussions with acute awareness of the philosophically problematic nature of the “duty implies ability” challenge to the “clear” message of the “cannot” texts.  

46 It is perhaps the result of the failure to preserve the distinctiveness of the “duty implies ability” principle to 

Christians who have the indwelling Spirit and can discern spiritual things. It is the natural man that can do nothing good whatever.

PART 16 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 14

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.

3) The model promotes humility in biblical study 

 It is a reasonable attempt to do justice to the connection between the secret things [that] belong to the LORD and the things that are revealed [that] belong to us and to our children (Deut. 29.29). For example, that Jesus is both fully God and fully man while remaining one person is clearly revealed. How these facts fit together is in many ways beyond our grasp as secret things. Likewise, the moral inability and full responsibility of fallen man are clearly revealed facts and the inference from responsibility to the denial of inability is a stab in the darkness of divine secrecy.  

In the words of Calvin, we do “not investigate what the Lord had left hidden in secret” and “we should not neglect what he has brought into the open, so that we may not be convicted of excessive curiosity on the one hand, or of excessive ingratitude on the other.”39  Therefore, 

within a Christian philosophy regarding critical thinking,40 we may appropriately refer to 

accepting theological paradox as the most humble use of logic.41

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

39 Institutes 3.21.4. 

40 By a “philosophy of logic,” we are referring to the wise principles necessary in the use of logic. Thus, to say Christians need a philosophy of logic is to say that even the pursuit of wisdom must have a godly foundation. We need wisdom to strive for wisdom. Bottom line: a philosophy of logic means that true knowledge begins with the fear of God and knowledge of His will. Five components show how the fear of God and knowledge of His will give us the foundation for wisdom in a philosophy of logic: logical skill, contextual sensitivity, open-minded humility, presuppositional awareness, and the acceptance of paradox (picture a pie with five slices that represent the basic elements in a Christian philosophy of logic). If any of these components are lacking in our reasoning then to that degree we are unwise, which means we are to that degree ungodly. To be a critical thinker is a matter of godliness. For explanation of these components and for a fuller picture of how paradox fits into a philosophy of logic see “A Christian Philosophy of Logic,” by R. Ostella, JBA, Spring 2008.  

41 Noting the fact of biblical paradox aids presuppositional awareness that is essential in humble self-criticism by which we look at and evaluate the theological bifocals by which we see. Like bifocals presuppositional glasses determine how we see things, but we can tilt our heads and at times see that with which we see. Awareness of our presuppositions is a way for us to bow our heads and, though difficult to do, go through the door to self-critical thinking. Of course, it is important that we engage biblical context with this awareness in order to do our best to examine our beliefs by Scripture knowing that some of our beliefs color how we read every text. Furthermore, self-criticism is something that we must undertake by prayer and meditation because we tend to wear masks when we look into the mirror of Scripture. As Augustine put it, we tend to put ourselves behind our backs; in our context, this means that we tend to put our cherished, even if false, presuppositions behind our backs so we cannot see them for what they are in the light of Scripture. False presuppositions are like demons: they only come out by prayer and fasting! Switching analogies, we can say that we must be concerned with every relevant thread that intersects the piece of fabric at any given time; otherwise, our work of interpretation will come apart at the seams. Paradoxical truths are threads of truth that are clearly and tightly woven together in the fabric of Scripture even though how they can co-exist in the same fabric may be difficult or even impossible to grasp. 


PART 15 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 13

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.

2) The model elevates divine authority in biblical study 

 It helpfully accents the place of reason in relation to revelation. The model stresses the  ministerial versus the magisterial use of reason in which the reasoning self consciously submits to the authority of God’s word37 acknowledging that what God has said is true precisely at those places where he cannot discern how revealed threads of truth cohere.38

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

37 Reason functions in a ministerial place as the handmaiden of theology. We must use good reasoning skills in learning Scripture. But reason does not rule over Scripture. This is consciously set forth in the quest of truth from the start. The title of Oliphint’s book speaks volumes in this connection: Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology (P&R Publishing, 2006). 

38 This is the failure of Craig/Mooreland in their attempt to find a more logically coherent relation between the deity and humanity of Christ (Philosophical Foundations For a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 606-613. They press unity of the divine person against Christ’s true humanity. One divine person with two distinct natures for them yields a revived Appolinarianism in which they lose the full humanity of Christ. They distort church doctrine on the true humanity of Christ by logical inferences from His unipersonality. Granted, they affirm both the humanity and deity of Christ, but the formulation fails to do justice to these paradoxical threads of truth because it draws logical entailments from one thread that deny/distort the other. Accordingly, they adopt a version of Appolinarianism in which the Logos (the eternal person, God the Son) did not have a fully human nature except by the union of His person with the animal nature of a human body. Jesus did not have two wills or a dual consciousness. That they feel leads logically to two persons. Their solution is a subliminal and a waking consciousness in the person of Christ. Thus the divine nature becomes subliminal (a variation on, but not an improvement on, kenotic theories that lose sight of His divine immutability). Moreover, the human nature that He took to Himself in the incarnation is incomplete being completed by the Logos. Thus, while affirming the orthodox view of two complete natures and one person they lose both the immutability of the divine nature and the completeness of the human nature. Why? It is because of what they see as contradiction in the historic view of a single person who is both fully God and fully man. In reply, if we stick with Scripture and affirm that Jesus is a single person and that He is fully God unchanging and fully human, then though some may claim contradiction in one way or another (cf. the battles underlying the historic creeds), the orthodox and reformed reply is that since Scripture teaches each of these truths clearly (without forcing contexts) and that God has no contradiction in His thoughts or revelation, then the idea of contradiction is only a matter of appearance and not actuality. God knows how these things fit together in truth and with no inconsistency. Layman and scholar can both discern the failure by this distortion and can reasonably conclude that something is seriously wrong with the formulation even if they lack philosophical finesse.  

PART 14 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 12

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.

3A. Implications

 Working from the nature of the paradoxicality model, we can draw some implications for biblical study by scholars, pastors, and church members alike.35

 1) The paradox model advances clarity in biblical study 

 Acquaintance with paradoxicality, teaching it, and grasping the model is helpful in handling difficult teachings. It is an organizing principle by which to identify threads of truth for clarity in the midst of complexity.36

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

35 There is much that is practical here for the church. Consider the illustration of a rope over a pulley hanging in front of someone stuck half way down a deep well. The person sees two ropes and cannot see that they connect or how they connect to form a single rope. To use the “ropes” to save his life, he must grab both at the same time. If he grabs one to the exclusion of the other, he will plummet to the bottom of the well. To receive the bread of life from Scriptural paradoxes for our benefit, we must believe and live by both threads/ropes of truth, even if our logic tells us that using one to the exclusion of the other is easier.  

36 As theologians, pastors, and church members encounter threads of truth that seem to exist in intractable tension (such as: the full humanity and full deity of Christ, Scripture is the word of man and the word of God, and so forth) having a handle for these theological boiling pots on the stove gives perspective and keeps us from getting burned by confusion. Serving clarity, the paradox model goes hand in hand with the perspicuity of Scripture. Thus, even the most profound teachings of Scripture are bread of life for the church. Both theological formulation and pastoral proclamation can make profitable use of this model.  

PART 13 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 4

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.

This use of theological paradox for intellectual tensions, and as a response to thinkers who attribute actual contradiction, grounds a reply to Ciocchi’s opposition to paradox; for him it is not a helpful model. He has two main objections: it incorrectly implies types of contradiction and it wrongly claims impossibility of understanding. 

 a) His claim that the notion of paradox fails “because it implies a distinction between types of contradiction,”8 is not necessary since the use of the word is simply deflective: opponents make the charge of actual contradiction and they eliminate one belief or the other by logical analysis. Defenders take both beliefs as clearly biblical and claim appearance not actuality because God gives us both threads, so both must be true and coherent, however difficult it may be for us to reconcile them in the fabric of truth.  

 b) Ciocchi also claims that paradox as a theological model probably fails because of “its reliance on the dogmatic claim that a logical reconciliation…is known to be impossible.”9

Briefly, in reply, paradox refers to intellectual tensions, to what Ciocchi acknowledges: intractable tensions,10 due understandably to God’s incomprehensibility. 

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

8 David M. Ciocchi, “Reconciling Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom,” JETS 37/3 (September 1994): 398. 

9 Ciocchi, Reconciling 396. 

10 However, his formulation of an intractable tension between paradox and reason is simply another paradox. Even worse, his paradox/reason tension actually boils down to the difference between a ministerial and a magisterial use of reason. For Ciocchi, tensions such as the paradox/reason tension and the sovereignty/responsibility tension are so difficult that they lead him to agnosticism about resolution and to suspension of debate regarding them. He expresses his agnosticism in the “Reconciling” article (JETS 1994) and the call for suspension is the point of “Suspending debate about sovereignty and freedom” (JETS 1998). For short, his paradox/reason tension is for all intents and purposes another theological paradox and is most likely misstated because his paradox/reason tension boils down to the tension between a ministerial and a magisterial use of reason. Thus, and contrary to Ciocchi, when we face tensions such as the deity and humanity of Christ that the records of church history and historical theology show to be “intractable tensions,” it is reasonable to conclude that these thoughts transcend our thoughts like the heavens transcend the earth. We should be excused for thinking that it is impossible for us to fully comprehend these thoughts revealed to us by the incomprehensible God! For Turretin, reason serves theology as its handmaiden and must function “in subjection to Scripture” and not preside over Scripture; “reason…neither can nor ought to be constituted the rule of belief,” Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992-97), 1:24-28. Ciocchi’s tension thus becomes:  paradox (reason in its ministerial role) vs. reason (reason in its magisterial role). On context, we must saturate 

ourselves with a passage by prayerful meditation and reflection in order to absorb the pattern of thought. We must work hard at grasping the writer's purpose in a verse within a paragraph, within a book in the New Testament, within the Bible, within the history of redemption, remembering that the ultimate author is the Holy Spirit. This is easier to say than to do: we need to practice the art of careful contextual thinking. We need to expend much effort to absorb the patterns present in the word of God (cf. the outline of sound words, 2 Tim 1.13). Failure in the handling of paradoxes shows up in the twisting of words and the forcing of passages beyond clear contextual warrant. Granted, sometimes we will have to debate about what is contextually clear. Thinking there may be contradiction leads us to closer reading of the text; that is a benefit, especially when we engage with open-minded humility.


PART 5 - Click Here


Editor's Note: David M. Ciocchi's lengthy ETS article, "Reconciling Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom", is available HERE.

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 3

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

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 2

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 by reading part 1.

1A. Theological Paradox  


For Van Til, a paradox is an apparent contradiction or any intellectual tension.1 It relates to the philosophical notion of contradiction.2 The coherence of God and His revelation calls us to avoid contradictory thoughts and practices. Simply put: being God’s image bearers, we are to be like Him. God is logical because He is truth. If there were contradictions in God's knowledge, then some of His knowledge would be false, He would not be the truth, and He would not be God. Accordingly, there is no contradiction in God’s revelation; therefore, man, His image bearer, to be like Him, must avoid contradiction.3

  

Nonetheless, we must come to terms with apparent contradictions, beliefs that seem inconsistent. Importantly, we know that there is no inconsistency between them because God has revealed hem. Paradoxicality should be no surprise. After all, we are creatures and He is the Creator. We have limited knowledge; we cannot penetrate all the interconnections that exist within the truth that God knows. Pointedly, paradox is the “result of our ignorance about interconnections.”4

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

1 Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace (Philadelphia: P&RP, 1954) 9-10. In Defense of the Faith (P&R Publishing: Phillipsburg, 2008, 4th edition, edited by Scott Oliphint), 67-68 he says: “Our knowledge is analogical and therefore must be paradoxical.” Oliphint on Van Til notes that what seems to be contradiction is not ultimately one because “God is exhaustively coherent” (fn38). Oliphant also explains the Van Til uses paradox to refer to “any intellectual point of tension” (fn38).  

2 The idea of contradiction has almost universal recognition.  Outside the history of Western philosophy, some 

people try to make sense of statements like "you are to meditate on one hand clapping." However, this example shows that one of the reasons that contradiction is wrong is that it is meaningless and blocks communication. You cannot make sense of "one hand clapping." Try to clap with only one hand; it becomes "one hand waving." It is ambiguous (you can "clap" one hand against something) but what is meant is "clap your hands together but only use one hand" (trying it I cannot even keep one hand still!). That is contradiction. It breaks down communication; very often, it breaks down honest communication. 

3 Therefore, to fulfill our role on earth receiving God's communication to us in nature and in Christ, we ought to be logical, consistent, and non-contradictory in our thinking. Cf. Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (P&R, 1972): “The rules of logic must be followed in all our attempts at systematic exposition of God’s revelation, whether general or special,” 9. Using logic is an “ought to”; it is an ethical ought. Being logical is being godly. It is God-like. It is good and proper. It is required of us not only academically or intellectually but also morally and spiritually. How else are we going to obey the Lord when He says, "Come now let us reason together"? To place a healthy emphasis on logical and critical thinking is a hurdle all its own. However, once we jump this obstacle, we face other ones such as the problem that human reason may take on a magisterial role rather than a ministerial role. When that happens, the reasoning self forgets (avoids, denies) the reality that he is duty bound under the authority of God’s revelation and he will have difficulty accepting “mysteries that are beyond reason’s ability completely to comprehend” (Scott Oliphint, Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology, [P&R Publishing, 2006; cf. the insightful citation from Owen, 255, fn39] 88-89). In the end, this is a failure to practice the most humble use of logic. 
4 John Frame, “The Problem of Theological Paradox” in Foundations of Christian scholarship: essays in the Van Til Perspective, ed. Gary North (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1979), 321. Frame goes on to explain that “we do not know precisely how they ‘dovetail,’ how they take account of one another. We know that they do dovetail, for we know that God’s plan is wise and exhaustive, and usually we know how they fit together to some degree, but the gaps in our knowledge often demand that we rest content with a paradoxical formulation” (underlining mine). 


PART 3 - Click Here

The Square Circle of Compatibilism

In the previous post, I proposed that "square circles" actually exist in the form of the classic 3-dimensional cylinder. Building on this illustration, I'd like to examine some further implications of compatibilism.

Compatibilism affirms God's deterministic sovereignty and human freedom/responsibility. It says the two are not incompatible, but entirely reconcilable - though perhaps in ways not yet revealed.

One could argue that a cylinder of equal height and width is not a square at all, but a "stack" of circles that appears square under certain conditions. In other words, the squareness of the cylinder is a byproduct of the arrangement of the circles. Yet at certain angles, this inherently circular object gives the distinct appearance of being a square. Though it is made up of circles, it is not a "circular circle," for that would be a sphere. A cylinder is a uniquely "square" circle.

Compatibilism likewise argues that real human freedom and real divine deterministic sovereignty relate to one another in a specific way. Just as the square aspect of a cylinder depends on the circularity, so human freedom depends on divine sovereignty. Just as a cylindrical arrangement of circles creates a genuine square, God's total sovereignty creates genuine human freedom. The two are inseparable, but one is nonetheless dependent on the other.

Here are a few "object" lessons to augment this discussion . . .

(Remember: circles represent God's sovereignty and squares represent man's freedom)

Pelagianism - A perfect cube with no curvature of any kind. Effectively, no sovereignty of God, and all is dependent upon man's freedom. I add open theism to this category because it makes God subject to time. As I see it, a God who is not sovereign over time or human will can't be called "sovereign" in any true sense. Open theists will vehemently deny that they deny any essential, orthodox doctrine, but so far their writings convince me otherwise.

Arminian Free Will Theology - An element of circularity (divine sovereignty) is introduced only as squareness (human freedom) is removed. Arminians see exhaustive, meticulous sovereignty as excluding human freedom. This view is neither truly square (libertarian freedom) nor truly round (exhaustive sovereignty). It tries to be a bit of both, with a clear emphasis on squareness.

Compatibilism - As noted above, a cylinder's squareness is built from a particular arrangement of consistently diametrical circularity. Both aspects are truly present, but the squareness is totally dependent on the size and "height" of the circles. The greatest difficulty with this view is that no one can explain the details of how it works. It is formed by affirming a paradox, or (at the very least) a great deal of mystery. But what's wrong with that, if we are faithful to Scripture? As I see it, this is the most Biblical of all the possibilities represented. Put all your cards here, my friends.

Moderate Determinism - A certain amount of squareness (human freedom) is allowed, but only at the expense of circularity (divine sovereignty). The object is neither truly circular nor truly square from any angle. This view is the exact opposite the Arminian approach, and counters the Arminian denial of exhaustive sovereignty by proposing a greater limitation of human freedom. Some historical Calvinists - and probably Calvin himself - are represented here. Their views were closer to comatibilism than the Arminian view is, because they recognized human freedom as entirely subject to divine sovereignty. But a little grain of rationalism hurts this position.

Hard Determinism - A perfect circle from every perspective. Divine sovereignty is emphasized to the complete exclusion of human freedom. It's very attractive, but if any person held this position consistently, he would do absolutely nothing and then die under the delusion of fatalistic stoicism.

And the winner is . . . Calvinistic Compatibilism. In my opinion, it's the only one that fires on all cylinders.

Soli Deo Gloria.

You Already Believe in Square Circles

Inevitably, the classic geometrical argument against Biblical and theological paradox comes up in conversation.

The incredulous questioner scrunches up his face and says, "Are you trying to get me to believe in square circles?"

Sometimes the tone of the question imparts a sense of rationalistic condescension. I've even seen the "square circle" invoked as the penultimate refutation of any and all paradoxical thinking. It's a philosophical, "So there!"

In spite of its perceived force and intended effect, the argument is completely bogus. We will see why in a moment. In the process, we shall demonstrate that it serves as an effective illustration of the very concept it tries to destroy. In other words, the "square circle" completely backfires as an attempt to dismantle the arguments validating theological paradox. A simple lesson in geometry turns it on its head. I answer it this way:

"Why yes, I am saying there are square circles. You already believe in them, and Geometry proves they exist." (So there!)

Squares and circles are, by definition, 2-dimensional objects. As such, they cannot exist in 1 dimension, but can exist in 2 and 3 dimensions. It is true that within a two dimensional field a shape cannot possibly be both square and circle at the same time, because squares and circles are (by any logic) mutually exclusive. However, on a three dimensional field things change radically. We can have square triangles (pyramids), circular triangles (cones), and - YES - square circles (cylinders)! View any of these objects from certain angles, and some of their shape characteristics disappear. From some angles, a cylinder with equal height and width looks just like a square. From other angles, the same cylinder appears to be a perfect circle. This doesn't make the cylinder self-contradictory - though it may appear that way when viewed two-dimensionally.

When we translate dual-shaped 3-dimensional objects onto two dimensional fields, we are forced to eliminate some of the dimensionality and thereby reduce the object to one of three possible shape types. Let's illustrate using the cylinder:

1. We can eliminate the axis that reveals circularity, and reduce it to a mere square.

2. We can eliminate the axis that reveals squareness, and reduce it to a mere circle.

3. We can retain aspects of all three axes, and reduce it to a shape which is properly neither a square nor a circle, but contains aspects of both.

Let's say divine sovereignty and human responsibility are circle and square, respectively. Some portions of Scripture only reveal God's sovereignty (perfect circles). Other portions of Scripture only reveal human responsibility (perfect squares). And some portions of Scripture mention both divine sovereignty and human responsibility in varying degrees (odd shapes made of squared angles and curves). Because we cannot see all three dimensions at once, God shows us the same issue from various angles. In our minds, they sometimes appear to contradict, but this is only a result of our limited vantage point.

The "square circle" argument against theological paradox overlooks the fact that one additional dimension makes the seemingly impossible possible. That extra dimension makes the apparently contradictory totally tenable. We must come to grips with the fact that God's logic - God's Truth, God's thinking, God's knowledge - exists on a higher plane than ours. He has infinite dimensions. So it is really amazing that we do not find more paradoxes in the eternal realities He has revealed. He has finely tuned His Word to be rationally intelligible to our wee little human brains - yet its revelations point to realities that are beyond our grasp and super-rationally True.

Compatibilism proposes that God plainly declares His absolute sovereignty because He wants us to hold it firmly, and He sometimes reveals human freedom without qualification because He wants us to hold it firmly. He reveals both together because He wants us to recognize that they interact in ways not fully discernible from our human point of view. Compatibilism says when we see squares and circles in the same place we can rationally believe there is a cylinder there (a 3D square circle).

In the Bible, God is not describing 2-dimensional concepts to 3-dimensional creatures. He is describing multi-dimensional concepts to comparatively 2-dimensional creatures living in a comparatively 2-dimensional world, with nothing but 2-dimensional logic to work with - and broken brains to boot. Our attempts to grasp His self-revelation ought to melt us down to the most humble confession: "I am insignificant! God is GREAT! I am a blockhead! God is WISE! I am limited! God is INFINITE! I am of the dust! God is ETERNAL!"

So, the next time someone asks you about square circles, just hand him the nearest cylindrical object and walk away without saying a word.