PARADOX FILES, Vol. 20 - Every Theologian In History

"No one should be surprised if a theologian falls into contradiction with himself at times—especially if he (or she) writes much over a very long period of time. I’m a historical theologian and have studied the theologies of virtually every major Christian theologian from Irenaeus to Pannenberg (and beyond). In every case I find some tension, some element of conflict within the theologian’s own system."

--Roger E. Olson, source

I do not think Dr. Olson's intention in making this comment was to support the concept of theological paradox, especially since he has written disparagingly of that subject in the past. Although his statement was probably intended to say something about the natural human inconsistency which we all share, it may point to something much more significant.

Is it possible that a universal element of logical tension exists because there is an inherent limitation within "human reason" that prevents us from successfully systematizing the infinite? Is it possible that we are trying to squeeze timeless realities into temporal containers? Could we be working with eternal truths that do not arrange neatly into the categories we are working with and assuming by our human limitations?

Just a thought.

The End of a Long and Interesting Debate

For several weeks now, I have been engaged in discussion with a non-Calvinist brother named Matt. Matt has taken a position of incompatibilism, stating that God cannot both sovereignly foreordain all things and simultaneously permit evil to occur through the exercise of genuine freedom on the part of the creature. He believes Calvinism makes God the "author of evil" and leaves man without moral freedom or responsibility. As one might expect, I argue that this understanding is incorrect.

Thus far, there have been 26 separate volleys in this informal debate, which originally took place in the comments at this post: http://atheologyintension.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/2376/

Matt has also taken the time to post each comment as a separate blog post on his site.

Below is my final summary response. I would imagine Matt will reply to this, and that his response will be the end of our discussion (for now, at least). Here is my closing argument:

Matt, 

Thank you for taking time to reply and for all of the work you have undertaken in reorganizing our comments into individual posts. 

I will make a few final comments here, and then leave off. This has been a most interesting exchange, and I am grateful for the time and thoughtful attention you have given to it. 

You can imagine my disappointment in finding your last two posts fraught with the same mischaracterizations of Calvinism that prompted me to write to you in the first place. Here on posts numbers 24 and 25, you demonstrate a total misunderstanding of key Calvinist convictions, proving to me that I have utterly failed to dislodge these misapprehensions from your mind. Throughout our discussion, and especially in these latest posts, you present Calvinism in an utterly inaccurate way, and as a theological position which would actually be blasphemous, heretical, destructive, and entirely inconsistent with Scripture, if the position was actually held by anyone. I cannot think of any mainstream Calvinist who has ever held to the kind of belief you define as Calvinism. Even many hyper Calvinists would cringe at some of the propositions you tell us Calvinists must affirm. 

As such, I find your sudden shift to a demand for “argumentation,” rather than “assertion,” to be curious. Your persistently repeated misstatements about the beliefs of Calvinists have prompted me to attempt to clarify what Calvinists actually believe versus what you claim they believe. This is, of course, not a matter of mere logical proof, but of historical analysis. I chose not to inundate you with endless quotations proving that real Calvinists don’t actually believe what you say they believe. A visit to calvinandcalvinism.com will provide veritable mountains of proof. Therefore, beyond the following quotation, I will simply suggest you study the actual beliefs of dozens of historic Calvinist leaders, from the Reformation onward, which have been carefully documented at that site. Best of all, everything there is surrounded by extensive context in order to lessen the possibility of misinterpretation. 

Here is what the Westminster Confession explicitly states concerning God’s sovereign foreordination and the origin of evil: 

“The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (WCF 5.4) 

This is what Calvinists actually believe. The Calvin and Calvinism site referenced above will show you various ways Reformed thinkers have logically reasoned through the implications. You may say that this is self-contradictory and impossible. To you, perhaps it is. To them, and to me, it is not. 

Note that the WCF does not deny permission of sin, but affirms it, insisting that the permission is not without God’s bounding, ordering and governing of the sins that are permitted. You have stated that the language of permission is an Arminian approach. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don’t think the WCF is an Arminian creed. Can you now see, from the WCF, that the language of permission is actually, historically speaking, a stock Calvinist answer to the question, and that this is exactly opposite to the beliefs you presented as “Calvinism”? Frankly, if Calvinism was what you claim it is, I would join you in staunchly opposing it. I would actually go further and condemn its adherents as anti-Christian heretics. Fortunately, Calvinism takes a position exactly opposite to the one you say it affirms regarding the goodness of God and the origin of evil. 

Throughout our discussion, I have argued from numerous Biblical texts that the Calvinist’s position is both reasonable and logical. You do not accept my arguments, and that is okay with me. But it would be dishonest for you to claim I haven’t presented arguments for my position. 

You have asserted that Scripture itself is not sufficient to decide the question under consideration, and have demanded logical proof and argumentation, insisting that these are sufficient to determine the question. In my view, you have elevated human reason above Scripture by discounting the possibility that direct Biblical propositions can settle the question, and implying instead that the reasonings of your own mind can settle it. My position on this is reciprocal to yours. I hold that clear Biblical propositions DO undeniably settle the matter, whether or not the reasonings of my mind (or yours) can attain to the divine logic undergirding the divinely revealed answer. In other words, my core epistemological presupposition is that Scripture itself is more reliable and trustworthy than fallible human logic. I am honestly surprised that you disagree on this point (although it is possible that I have misunderstood your position on this). 

Matt, it is unfortunate that you misrepresent my views on logic and paradox in a way strikingly similar to the way you misrepresent Calvinism. The reason may be that I have not explained well enough, or that you have honestly misunderstood, and hope it boils down to one these (or a combination of both). Here again, I can only seek to clarify my position and argue from Scripture. 

I can certainly appreciate the logic of your arguments and illustrations regarding things like “married bachelors,” etc. My answer to all of this is simple: matters of divine ordination and human freedom cannot be oversimplified in this way. Sure, there are plenty of either/or dichotomies in our world. Married or not married. Pregnant or not pregnant. Speeding or not speeding. Everyone understand this. However, the existence of either/or dichotomies does not invalidate the possibility of both/and synergies (which are sometimes presented as false dichotomies). What about this one: square or circle? In two dimensions, this really is an either/or dichotomy. But in three dimensions, we have the cylinder, a “square circle.” We also have square triangles (pyramids) and circular triangles (cones). So . . . what if we human beings could only conceive of two dimensions, and an all-knowing God who sees three dimensions told us something is both square and circle? Would we argue with Him, and say that His claim is illogical? Or would we trust that on His level of understanding it is possible for a cylinder to exist? Stated simply, I view divine ordination and human freedom not as a married vs. bachelor issue, but as a square vs. circle issue. We see squares and circles where God sees cylinders. And again I ask, what prevents God from being able to do things like this? Is He not on a higher level than we are? Is He not wiser? Smarter? More knowledgeable? More capable? 

You may think all of this is illogical. You are free to think so. However, I just laid out a sound logical reason for you to affirm and trust God’s harmonious use of both foreordination and genuine human freedom. This is not all as simple as 2+2=4. We are dealing with infinities here. In human experience, we don’t have anything exactly like eternal, divine “ordination” to compare with or argue from. To fully understand exactly how all of this works, we would have to be eternal, divine, all-wise, all-good and all-powerful. I’m just guessing that those shoes don’t fit either one of us, Matt. 

Finally, I want to thank you once again for a challenging and enjoyable conversation. I pray you will be mightily used by God in the work He has given you to do, that you will continue to grow in your love for Christ and your knowledge of Him, and that your entire life will be blessed and prospered in Him. I also hope that a large cylinder shape is ordained to be set up somewhere in the New Creation, and that we may freely decide to meet under its shadow for a continuation of this discussion, with a fresh insight and understanding that magnificently humbles us both through a recognition of how little we actually apprehended when we engaged in this discussion. And there we shall worship the Lamb together! 

Until then, many blessings, brother. 

In Christ,
Derek Ashton

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 17 - Wayne Grudem

The eminent Evangelical scholar and theologian, Wayne Grudem, is the latest recipient of our famous t-shirt. These words of wisdom from his Systematic Theology text will tell you why.

We find in the New Testament that Jesus and the New Testament authors will often quote a verse of Scripture and then draw logical conclusions from it. They reason from Scripture. It is therefore not wrong to use human understanding, human logic, and human reason to draw conclusions from the  statements of  Scripture. Nevertheless, when we  reason  and draw what we  think  to be correct logical deductions from Scripture, we sometimes make mistakes. The deductions we draw from the statements of Scripture are not equal to the statements of Scripture themselves in certainty or authority, for our ability to reason and draw conclusions is not the ultimate standard of truth — only Scripture is. 

What then are the limits on our use of our reasoning abilities to draw deductions from the statements of Scripture? The fact that reasoning to conclusions that go beyond the mere statements of Scripture is appropriate and even necessary for studying Scripture, and the fact that Scripture itself is the ultimate standard of truth, combine to indicate to us that we are free to use our reasoning abilities to draw deductions from any passage of Scripture so long as these deductions do not contradict the clear teaching of some other passage of Scripture.7 

This principle puts a safeguard on our use of what we think to be logical deductions from Scripture. Our supposedly logical deductions may be erroneous, but Scripture itself cannot be erroneous. Thus, for example, we may read Scripture and find that God the Father is called God (1 Cor. 1:3), that God the Son is called God (John 20:28; Titus 2:13), and that God the Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3 – 4). We might deduce from this that there are three Gods. But then we find the Bible explicitly teaching us that God is one (Deut. 6:4; James 2:19). Thus we conclude that what we thought to be a valid logical deduction about three Gods as wrong and that Scripture teaches both (a) that there are three separate persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), each of whom is fully God, and (b) that there is one God. We cannot understand exactly how these two statements can both be true, so together they constitute a paradox (“a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true”).8 We can tolerate a paradox (such as “God is three persons and one God”) because we have confidence that ultimately God knows fully the truth about himself and about the nature of reality, and that in his understanding the different elements of a paradox are fully reconciled, even though at this point God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isa. 55:8 – 9). But a true contradiction (such as, “God is three persons and God is not three persons”) would imply ultimate contradiction in God’s own understanding of himself or of reality, and this cannot be. 

When the psalmist says, “The sum of your word is truth; and every one of your righteous ordinances endures for ever” (Ps. 119:160), he implies that God’s words are not only true individually but also viewed  together  as a whole. Viewed  collectively,  their “sum” is also “truth.” Ultimately, there is no internal contradiction either in Scripture or in God’s own thoughts.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 34. Italics original. bold added for emphasis.

This is a good basic overview of the THEOparadox thesis. All of the salient points are there. Dr. Grudem deserves not only the t-shirt, but the THEOparadox hat, shoes, tie, bumper sticker, coffee mug, keychain, belt buckle and wall poster as well.

___________________________________________________________________

Dr. Grudem's Footnotes:

7 This guideline is also adopted from Professor John Frame at Westminster Seminary.

8 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, ed. William Morris (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1980), p. 950 (first definition). Essentially the same meaning is adopted by the Oxford English Dictionary (1913 ed., 7:450), the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1981 ed., p. 742), the Random House College Dictionary (1979 ed., p. 964), and the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (p. 780), though all note that paradox can also mean “contradiction” (though less commonly);  compare the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Macmillan and The Free Press, 1967), 5:45, and the entire article “Logical Paradoxes” by John  van Heijenoort on pp. 45 – 51 of the same volume, which proposes solutions to many of the classical paradoxes in the history of philosophy. (If paradox meant “contradiction,” such solutions would be impossible.) 

When I use the word paradox in the primary sense defined by these dictionaries today I realize that I am differing somewhat with the article “Paradox” by K. S. Kantzer in the EDT, ed. Walter Elwell, pp. 826 – 27 (which takes paradox to mean essentially “contradiction”). However, I am using paradox in an ordinary English sense and one also familiar in philosophy. There seems to me to be available no better word than paradox to refer to an apparent but not real contradiction.

There  is,  however,  some  lack  of  uniformity in the use of the term paradox and a related term, antinomy, in  contemporary evangelical discussion. The word antinomy has sometimes been used to apply to what I here call paradox, that is, “seemingly contradictory statements that may nonetheless both be true” (see, for example, John Jefferson Davis, Theology Primer [Grand  Rapids :  Ba ker,  1981],  p.  18).  Such a sense for antinomy gained support in a widely read book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, by J.I. Packer (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961). On pp. 18 – 22 Packer defines antinomy as “an appearance of contradiction” (but  admits on p. 18 that his definition differs with the Shorter Oxford Dictionary). My problem with using antinomy in this sense is that the word is so unfamiliar in ordinary English that it just increases the stock of technical terms Christians have to learn in order to understand theologians, and moreover such a sense is unsupported by any of the dictionaries cited above, all of which define antinomy to mean “contradiction” (e.g., Oxford English Dictionary, 1:371). The problem is not serious, but it would help communication if evangelicals could agree on uniform senses for these terms.

A paradox is certainly acceptable in systematic theology, and paradoxes are in fact inevitable  so long as we have finite understanding of any theological topic. However, it is important to recognize that Christian theology should never affirm a contradiction (a set of two statements, one of which denies the other). A contradiction would be, “God is three persons and God is not three persons” (where the term persons has the same sense in both halves of the sentence).

Reflections on "The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model"

Pastor Richard Ostella of Westminster Reformed Church in Plymouth, Michigan graciously granted permission to re-publish his March 2009 ETS paper on theological paradox here at THEOparadox. The entire series can be viewed as separate "bite sized" posts here or you may wish to read it in long form here. Following are my reflections on the material.

Reading through Dr. Ostella's paper on theological paradox was highly beneficial for me. I appreciate the fact that he begins with a careful definition of theological paradox. Helpfully, he mentions this about identifying paradoxes: 

Paradoxicality is not difficulty in arriving at comparable truths, but difficulty in harmonizing truths that are clear.

Thus, it is not a question of perspicuity (the clarity of Scripture), but of logically reconciling that which is perspicuous. Dr. Ostella shows that his embrace of theological paradox is not in any way a rejection of the use of logic, but exactly the opposite: a full acceptance of it.

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 . . . 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. 

Also:

The coherence of God and His revelation calls us to avoid contradictory thoughts and practices. . . . 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.  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 them. 

At the same time,

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.

Ostella does not merely affirm the validity of logic; he makes proficient use of it. His identification of the Kantian formula, "Duty implies ability," as unbiblical and illogical is particularly helpful. His exegetical analysis of numerous Biblical texts in refutation of this commonly held assumption is also excellent. I found the following line of reasoning deeply insightful:

For Christians who can live righteously but who may also sin, is their ability to sin central to their new found freedom in Christ? No, it shows that they have freedom now partially and not yet fully. Their ability to sin is not evidence that they are free. Instead, it is evidence that their freedom is incomplete. What demonstrates their freedom? What shows that they are free persons is their ability to do good from the heart, even though it has to grow.

Along the way, Ostella effectively uses various illustrations to demonstrate his points. Alongside of these are extensive quotations from other scholars, including some wonderful excerpts from John Calvin.


Finally, Dr. Ostella's systematic and ferocious (yet irenic) dismantling of "free will" doctrine - from the "duty implies ability" fallacy to the Arminian notion of "prevenient grace" - is simply incredible!


I am deeply grateful to Dr. Ostella for allowing me to share his superb article with readers of THEOparadox. As a result of studying this material, I have gained a better understanding of leading Reformed thinkers like John Calvin, Cornelius Van Til, John Frame and Scott Oliphint, as well as some of their detractors. Most importantly, I have gained useful insight into the Bible itself.

Questions for reflection

1. How might someone attempt to overthrow the arguments presented in the paper? Are there any obvious openings?
2. Which part of Dr. Ostella's article was most edifying or beneficial to you?

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 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.

Rationalism VS. Revelation

This is the latest installment in an ongoing conversation I'm having with a friend who turned from Christian faith to agnosticism. Rationalism seems to be a common factor in many "de-conversion" accounts, and it has become a dominant topic in our exchanges. My friend has embraced science and rationality as primary epistemic sources, excluding the possibility of divine revelation. A previous letter discussed the use and limits of science. Here I am addressing the use and limits of rationality - and our desperate need for divine revelation.

I think we agree on the empirical nature of the natural world, the real-ness and objectivity of "things." The question is, are there realities beyond this? Can we know them? How?

As a Christian theist, I say . . .

"Yes, there are realities beyond the empirical, even beyond the empirical things we don't know yet but can discover. There is a spiritual dimension that we all live in but rarely consider or define, which we cannot discover independent of divine revelation."

"Yes, we can know it, but not by scientific discovery or rationalistic pursuit. On the other hand, the realities of this spiritual dimension will not ultimately contradict scientific fact or rational logic. Indeed, the spiritual dimension undergirds them, determines them, defines them, and upholds them."

"We can (only!) know these realities through divine revelation."

Further, there was a time when our whole race knew these realities, but we have fallen into a state in which we can perceive only what is merely scientific and what is merely rational (and I would add that we can perceive spiritual realities of an evil or false nature, but not of the Truth).

The process you describe, that of courageously embracing reality and humbling oneself to accept what is revealed by rationality and the senses, is magnified when one walks in the light of divine revelation. Here realities are revealed which are a hundred times more humbling and a thousand times more challenging to one's native presuppositions.

In fact, the entire construct I have described is designed to humble us. But it goes beyond that. It is also designed to raise us to heights we could never reach by any other means. And it takes a special kind of courage called "faith" to receive these things.

This divine revelation comes through multiple streams:

GENERAL REVELATION

Scientifically: the created universe, even in its fallen state, shows a beauty, order and magnificence that points to God's power and grace.

SPECIAL REVELATION (Objective)

Historically: the unique Person of Jesus Christ revealed God's will in His words and works, and especially by His death and resurrection. (Christ's historic work can be classified as both general and special revelation, a bridge of sorts)

Textually: the amazing Bible with divine "fingerprints" all over it.

SPECIAL REVELATION (Subjective)

Dreams, visions, angelic visitations, etc. that have been given to some.

All of this is interpreted rationally by the mind of man.

It is interesting to see how these streams are woven together, the Bible itself containing visions and dreams and angelic visitations, and Christ experiencing angelic visits during His life. Genuine subjective revelations will point us back to Christ and the Bible. But Christ Himself and the Bible itself are the clearest and most objective revelatory sources.

Those who live and walk in these truths, and love them, won't trade them for anything. They are precious beyond every earthly treasure and they bring a joy that is beyond comprehension.

Such faith is not given to every person, and on the whole it is rejected by a self-reliant humanity. To those who possess it, it is incomprehensibly wonderful. It calls for the abandonment of rationalism, but not of rationality. For the Christian, seeing the rationalist's refusal to abandon his self-reliance gives evidence to the presupposition of Scripture, that man is in rebellion against his Creator. Seeing the rational framework of the rejection of God confirms the presupposition that man is created in God's image and retains the mark of it. But the "gift" of rationality is now turned against the One who gave it!

Apart from divine revelation, fallen man can never reason his way to the conclusion that

he is in rebellion against his Creator. Why? Because he is too fallen to be able to reason to this conclusion. He can't see what he is. So, according to divine revelation we are in quite a conundrum apart from divine revelation. Based on their respective presuppositions, Christians and rationalists cannot arrive at the same conclusions. It is impossible.

Can you feel the gigantic divide in our epistemic sources? We are each in a philosophically frustrating position. You believe there is no divine revelation because your rational faculties don't (won't/can't) ever lead you to it. You would like me to see what you see. I believe there is divine revelation because I have experienced it. But I cannot prove it to you in a rational way, I can only pray that you also may experience it and know as I know.

One final note: overall, I'd say the ball has moved forward. You are being honest and we are no longer playing games. You do not pretend to have experienced divine revelation, which leaves the possibility that you may yet experience it. If and when you do, your rationalistic presuppositions will be shed like a caterpillar's cocoon, and you will fly on the wings of a new and unshakable certainty. You will not (indeed, cannot) lose or deny your scientific and rational facts, only the presuppositions that lead you to interpret them in a rationalistic way. And you won't miss them.

I continue to pray for you, my friend.

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 12 - A.W. Pink

A.W. Pink (1886-1952) gets one of our famous t-shirts. Although Pink is regarded as the consummate "ultra-high" Calvinist, and although he is considered by some to have been an actual hyper-Calvinist during at least a period of his life, it is clear from the excerpt below that Pink became a firm believer in theological balance and paradox. He is well known for denying that God has any love for the non-elect. On that matter, he was certainly expressing a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, and was at odds with Calvin and every other mainstream Reformed theologian in history. If Pink had applied some paradoxical thinking to the topic, he would have moved into a more balanced position. But we all have our blind spots.

The excerpt below is from an article written by Pink in 1936, in which he tenaciously argues against the hyper-Calvinist's denial of "duty faith" (duty faith refers to the fact that God commands every person to repent and believe the Gospel, and therefore it is everyone's "duty" to do so). It is important to note that Pink is not denying the validity and usefulness of reason or logic, as such. Rather, he is showing how "human" reasoning stands opposed to divine, inerrant Truth. Human logic is good as far as it goes, but in dealing with divine matters there is a need for revelation, which exceeds the capacities and categories of mere human logic. In other words, God's ways cannot be mapped out mathematically by the human brain.

Pink also wrote a book about the attributes of God, in which he made some very strong statements in favor of the doctrine of incomprehensibility. Perhaps he will win another t-shirt for that. But for now, enjoy A.W. Pink's bold attack on theological imbalance - complete with a strong appeal to the concept of paradox.

"Now if we resort to human reasoning it will logically follow that it is quite useless to exhort the unregenerate to turn unto God or come unto Christ; yea, to exhort those who are utterly incompetent to respond, will appear to be most inconsistent and the height of absurdity. But, my reader, the things of God cannot be encompassed by human reason, and the moment we attempt to measure them by the line of our "logic," we open the door for Satan to deceive by his subtleties. He will tell us that if the Lord our God be one Lord then He cannot be a plurality of Persons, and that if we hold to three Divine Persons we are most "inconsistent" in affirming the unity of God. Satan will tell us that if God be Love then He will never banish any of His creatures to everlasting woe, and that if we hold to eternal punishment of the wicked we are altogether "inconsistent" in believing in the Divine benevolence.

What, then are we to do? This: repudiate all reasoning upon spiritual things as utterly worthless, and believe with the simplicity of a child whatever God's Word teaches. The Apostles held firmly the revealed truth of a glorious and victorious Messiah, and they could not "harmonize" with that fact a humiliated Messiah that would be crucified: the two things appeared to be altogether "inconsistent" and contradictory. But to them Christ said, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25).That, my reader, should be a lasting warning to us of the utter inadequacy of human logic and philosophizing upon Divine things! We must turn from the vain reasonings of the Unitarian, and while holding fast to the Unity of the Divine nature, we must also believe there are three co-equal Persons in the Godhead. We must turn from the vain reasonings of the Universalist, and while holding fast to the love of God, we must also believe in the eternal punishment of His enemies. And why? Because Holy Scripture teaches both!

In like manner, we must turn from the vain reasonings . . . of the hyper-Calvinist, and while holding fast to the total depravity and the spiritual inability of the natural man, we must also believe in his moral responsibility and accountability to God."

(Note: I have emboldened some text for emphasis, but the italics are all Pink's)

Source: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/dutyfth.htm

HT: Phil Johnson

Fences and Contradictions - An Illustration and a Parable

Some who oppose the idea of paradox in the Bible do so for very good reasons. Many want to affirm that Scripture is free from contradiction. Some want to maintain philosophical foundations that uphold the validity of logic. Others want to emphasize the sufficiency of Scripture. Some simply desire to avoid any appearance of irrationality or confusion.

Ironically, THEOparadox shares each of these viewpoints and holds them as essential.

1. Scripture is free from actual contradiction. 

2. Logic is valid. 

3. The Bible is entirely sufficient. 

4. Irrationality and confusion are not desirable.

However, there is a vast difference between actual contradiction and apparent contradiction. The validity of logic does not rule out supra-logic. The sufficiency of Scripture does not turn it into a propositional Rubik's Cube. And a rational view of reality does not mean we can understand everything.

THEOparadox does not affirm that there are explicit contradictions in the Scriptures and in orthodox Christian theology. Rather, based on a firm commitment to inerrancy and Biblical balance, it affirms that there are implied contradictions. A paradox is formed whenever two or more true statements appear, through implication, to contradict one another. This situation can arise whenever some information is not available. The following example serves to illustrate this point.

THE ILLUSTRATION

APPARENT CONTRADICTION #1 

P1 The fence was built to keep things out 

P2 The fence was built to keep things in 

Two stubborn, logically consistent people could argue about these apparently contradictory propositions for a long time before realizing that both are true. The purpose of a fence is to keep some things out and to keep other things in. At this point one would be wise to affirm both propositions, for they do not actually contradict one another. Perhaps one could quibble over which is the more prominent purpose, but there's no contradiction here. There is only an apparent contradiction because "out" seems to be opposed to "in."

APPARENT CONTRADICTION #2 

P1 The fence was built to keep animals in 

P2 The fence was built to keep animals out 

On the surface, this is self-contradictory. But the types of animals haven't yet been articulated. The fence was actually built to keep certain types of animals in (e.g., sheep), and certain types of animals out (e.g., goats).

That's simple and logical enough, but this may blow your mind . . .

APPARENT CONTRADICTION #3 

P1 The fence was built to keep sheep in the pen 

P2 The fence was built to keep the same sheep out of the same pen 

APPARENT CONTRADICTION #4 

P1 The fence was built to keep sheep in the pen 

P2 The fence was built to keep goats in the same pen 

P3 Goats and sheep are always separated by the fence 

All of the statements are entirely true. What hasn't been discussed up to this point is the chronology involved. Each morning the sheep are led out to pasture through the south gate, while the goats are led into the pen by the north gate. Each afternoon, the animals go back to their original places again. Although these paradoxes always apply to the sheep and the goats, they do not apply to other animals, such as lions. The fence is only meant to keep lions out. Thus, we have worked through four apparent contradictions in a perfectly logical, coherent fashion, and have demonstrated conclusively that there is no actual contradiction in this scenario. But, without the help of some necessary details, there is apparent contradiction that cannot be avoided. In every case, the issue was not actual contradiction but missing information.

THE PARABLE 

Imagine, if you will, that the farm on which our fence was built is private. It is located on a secluded island and carefully kept from public view. It is the only farm of its kind in the entire world. It was built from unique materials that have never been used anywhere else, and it utilizes farming techniques that are generally unknown to the world of agriculture. The farm is operated by a brilliant farmer with an IQ of 400. He writes a book to explain some things about his farm to the rest of the world. In the book, he mentions several times that the fence was built to keep animals in. However, in other parts of the book he says that the fence was built to keep animals out. The farmer never discusses the daily pasturing of the sheep and the goats. He never mentions the north and south gates. He never details the inner workings of his farm because that is not His purpose. 

As a result, some skeptics point to the farmer's book and say "this is contradictory! Surely the farm doesn't exist. He says his fence is built to keep animals in, then he says his fence is built to keep animals out. It's obviously just a fairy tale." Meanwhile, the skeptics munch on some carrots that were grown in the farmer's garden. 

Some agricultural students study the farmer's book very carefully. They diagram all of the sentences in the book, carefully noting the parts about keeping animals in. They build a fence around themselves and develop an elaborate theory to prove that the word "out" really means "in" when used in the farmer's context. Some of them throw rocks at people on the other side of the fence who say "out" and "in" are two opposite things that seem contradictory to rational people. They call these people irrational heretics and misologists.

A group of gardening enthusiasts who have met the farmer declare that he is brilliant. They use the farmer's book to develop vibrant gardens full of vegetable and livestock. They build fences carefully, leaving room for dual purposes. They defy the skeptics who claim the farmer's book is contradictory, and the agricultural experts who explain away the paradoxical aspects. These disciples readily acknowledge that the farmer's intelligence exceeds their own, noting that some of his ways are too hidden to examine, and they strive to follow his instructions even when the unrevealed information leaves them perplexed. 

Can you see how paradoxes arise from mysteries? Unless one posits that human beings have access to all of the information, paradoxes cannot be ruled out. Even if all of the information was available to us, would we find the logic and rationality required to systematize and categorize it accurately? Only the omniscient God has enough knowledge and wisdom to put all of the pieces together, but the things He has revealed to us in His Word are fully sufficient for our needs, absolutely reliable, totally trustworthy and perfectly tailored to our greatest benefit and blessing. His words are not illogical or irrational, but they are sometimes supra-logical and beyond the rational limits of our human minds. He is good in what He graciously reveals to us, and He is good in what He withholds. He is always and only good, and He builds His fences in all the right places.


Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.

Soli Deo Gloria.