The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 9

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) Free will doctrine misses the full depth of evil28

 Do we overstate when we say that fallen sinners do nothing good whatever? No, because though people may do some “good” outwardly, the natural man fails to meet three conditions of a good act: the right standard (according to God’s law), the right motive (arising from love for God), and the right goal (aiming at the glory of God).29

 Hence, Jeremiah argues that fallen man can do something good if the Ethiopian can change his skin or the leopard his spots, but both are impossible, so he is not able to do anything good: Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil (Jer.13:23; cf. Gen. 6.5, wickedness of… his heart was only evil continually).30

 This is paradoxical: he has full responsibility and complete moral inability.  

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes 

28 Free will doctrine yields a definition of sin by which fallen man is able to do some good but it is difficult to accept the idea that this good is acceptable in the eyes of God though it may be such in the eyes of man. Both good and evil actions of fallen man are (re)-defined in human terms before human eyes.  

29 Van Til finds the solution to the good act by asking and answering three questions: “(a) What is the motive of human action? (b) What is the standard of human action? (c) What is the end or purpose of human action? Christian Theistic Ethics (Philadelphia: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1971), 3.  

30 We might say that a serial killer “loves” his mother, but even that love does not meet the three conditions of a good act, so it is not good in the eyes of God.  


PART 10 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 8

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) Free will doctrine supports only half of its definition 

 Fallen man does not have free will because he cannot do anything good. Free will teaching (fallen man can do good or evil) has the doing evil half of its definition in place but not the doing good half.  

 Since Scripture is so clear on the natural man’s moral inability (he cannot bring forth good actions, he cannot believe,19 he cannot understand the things of the Spirit; he cannot submit to the law of God, etc.20), we wonder about the source of the idea of free will. What is the biblical basis for tweaking the impact of the large number of clear inability texts in the interest of affirming belief in free will? As far as I can tell there is one line of support: the notion that “ought to” implies “able to”; as Geisler claims: the command to believe indicates the ability (freedom and free will) to believe.21 This belief is a starting point in Kant’s philosophy of religion and in the typical defenses of free will.22

 It is allegedly self-evident and intuitive. Hence, it easily takes on presuppositional status. However, there is the serious problem that this principle opens a flood gate for evil without responsibility because “if I am morally responsible then I am morally able” logically, by contraposition, implies “If I am not morally able, then I am not morally responsible.”23

 This logical entailment is highly suspect. The following examples show that the “ought/able” 

inference fails.   

 a) Sub prime slime example: If I am morally responsible to pay my mortgage (it is more than money; it is a moral obligation) then I must be morally able to pay it (I must be honest and work hard) and if not morally able to pay it then I am not morally responsible to pay it. This means that the person who lacks integrity (who cannot find it in himself to be honest, work hard, and sacrifice to meet his financial/moral obligations) is not accountable (to men or to God).24

 b) Hitler example: if Hitler was not able to love the Jews then he was not responsible to love them. He was so saturated with compounding sins that bound him in lust for power, hatred, and murder that he was therefore not responsible for what He did. Clearly, responsibility does not imply ability.  

 c) Worst are least example: if responsibility implies ability, then as a criminal becomes more hardened, he becomes less responsible.   

 d) Commandments example: is the non-Christian responsible to keep the Ten Commandments? Surely, we will say, “yes!” Is he able to comply with them25 in their true spirit and intent? Surely, we will say “he is not able.”26

 Therefore, responsibility does not imply ability and the philosophical basis for free will does not overturn the clear biblical teaching on fallen man’s moral inability.27

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

19 John 6.44 (“no one can come to me”: no one is able to believe); Romans 8.7 (he cannot submit [in faith] to God).

20 Cunningham, Historical Theology, II, 586-88. 

21 Geisler, Chosen but Free, 30. 

22 In Kant’s reading of Scripture, it is of the essence of man that the antecedent to every act is an expression of freedom; otherwise, “the use or abuse of man’s power of choice in respect of the moral law could not be imputed to him nor could the good or bad in him be called moral,” Immanual Kant, Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alone, trans. Theodore M. Greene and Hoyt Hudson (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1960). 16. Thus, the tablet of stone for much of modern philosophy and theology has these Kantian inscriptions: “If I am responsible, then I must be able” and “duty demands nothing of us that we can not do” (Religion 43). Interestingly, Kant’s argument for free will is the reductio: without it there is no such thing as morality. 

23 Another example of contraposition (that applies to sufficient conditional statements) pertains to faith and  salvation: “If you have faith then you have salvation” logically contraposes to “If you do not have salvation then you do not have faith.”  

24 On this principle, the inability to be honest and have a hearty work ethic that leads to mortgage default demands a moral social order in which foreclosures are unethical and bail outs are proper. On a larger scale, this opens a wide door to moral hazard: I can “irresponsibly” take bad risks because I will not be held accountable.  

25 Because of debate about the Law, we should note that this argument has the same weight if we substitute the commandments of Jesus for the Ten Commandments. Or, we might simply ask, “Are we responsible to be holy as God is holy?” Surely, we are responsible even though we are unable.  

26 If he worships false gods, lies, steals, and commits murder, he is accountable, even though he is not able to obey God’s precepts. Moreover, if he disobeys the gospel command to repent and believe, he is accountable, even though he is not able to repent and believe. In a word, fallen man does not have free will because he is evil; his nature is evil; his heart is evil. Because he is evil, we reasonably conclude, do we not, that he is all the more responsible? He is fully responsible; he has full responsibility and no “free will.” 

27 Cf. the substantive treatment of the three blocks of biblical material that support the bondage of the will in Historical Theology, by Cunningham, II, 586-88. By contrast, Wesley affirms and supports a full fledged doctrine of fallen man’s moral inability at the beginning of his Sermon on Free Grace by noting that free grace does “not depend on any power…in man; no, not in any degree…Whatsoever good is in man, or is done by man, God is the author and doer of it. Thus is his grace free in all; that is, no way depending on any power or merit in man, but on God alone” (par. 3.2, 8-9), even though he ends the sermon by stating that “all who suffer Christ to make them alive” (par. 29.4) “shall live” (29.3).


PART 9 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 7

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) Free will doctrine misrepresents human nature 

 Fallen man does not have free will because he cannot decide, choose, or act outside of his evil nature. Like a diseased tree, he cannot bear good fruit16 (Mat. 7.18) and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil (Mat. 12.35). Free will doctrine teaches that the evil person out of his evil heart brings forth some good (at least when he chooses to submit to God in faith), but this idea misrepresents the teaching of Jesus that character determines conduct. To make the point by inversion, consider that fact that a loving mother cannot intentionally harm her child; she cannot act outside of her character as a loving mother. Nor can unloving evil people bear good fruit.17 Also, note both strands of this paradox: 

a) moral inability is here: the evil heart cannot bear good fruit (Mat. 7.18) and the evil person (Mat. 12.34, you are evil) cannot speak good things (12.34, You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil?). 

b) Full responsibility is here: on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak (Mat. 12.36).18

 Therefore, free will teaching misrepresents human nature by affirming that fallen man can act contrary to his evil nature. 

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes 

16 The Christian is a good tree and his inability to bring forth bad fruit is eschatological. For the non-Christian, the inability to do anything good is part and parcel of the present evil age.  

17 However, if character determines conduct, what then do we say about character determining choices such as the choice to study the Scriptures regularly to be shaped by them in submission to Christ for the glory of God? That character determining choice arises from Christian character already, from the renewal of the heart by the Holy Spirit that gives “newness of life” (Rom. 6.4). Otherwise, the natural man cannot submit to the law of God (Rom. 8.7). He must be set free from his slavery in order to be free for righteousness (Rom. 6.18).  

18 Jesus teaches that there is moral inability (because you are evil, you cannot speak good words) and the fact of full responsibility (you will give account for every careless word, which is a fortiori for absolutely every word). Before the Genesis flood, every inclination of man’s heart was only evil continually, Gen. 6.5. Being so gripped by their rebellion and sinfulness, they could not do anything good, but they were fully accountable as the judgment of the flood showed. That judgment is an anticipation of the final judgment. As an accountable and inexcusable lawbreaker (Rom. 1-3), the natural man cannot submit to God or His law (Rom. 8.7, For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot). Noting that submission to God is a quality of faith’s submissive obedience, it is clear that the natural man cannot come to Christ in faith and coming to Christ is surely something good.  


PART 8 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 6

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.

Six inter-related reasons support this claim.14 These things may come to us as personal assault.15 We want the mirror on the wall to speak, but not to tell the truth of our natural ugliness. Thus, we need to approach the following reasons cautiously knowing that it is difficult to be true to thine own self. There is some overlap.

 1) Free will doctrine fragments the person 

Fallen man does not have free will because Scripture does not speak of having a “free will” but of being a free person. But fallen man is not a free person; He is enslaved to sin and free from righteousness: When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness (Rom. 6.20). He, the person, not his will, must be set free for righteousness (Rom. 6.18). Thus, in Scripture, there is no such “thing” as a free will; there is only a free person who chooses and decides accordingly in contrast to an enslaved person who chooses and decides accordingly. 

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

14 For clarity I state them in a blunt way; the intent is not dogmatism but efficiency. My goal is irenic.  

15 We deceive ourselves with illusions and when the conscience is disquieted by God’s law, “it begins to fear that it might be living in illusion and untruth, that its values and calculations are unfounded, that it is moving in the wrong direction…this law [is] the great disrupting of the presupposed illusion of the “You ought and therefore you can”…a self-entrenching against God…In this illusion man himself is the subject who commands; he is autonomous …refusing to acknowledge God…God makes contact with man at the point where man digs in against him, at the nerve of man’s curving in upon himself. The contact is thus a new creation and a new birth…miracle (Helmut Thielicke, The Evangelical Faith: Prolegomena, the Relation of Theology to Modern Thought Forms [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974] 144-146.


PART 7 - Click Here

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 5

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.

2A. Case in point 

  The focus here is not on the paradox of sovereignty and responsibility;11 it is on this assertion: “Fallen man does not have free will in his moral actions, but he does have full moral responsibility.” Here, free will means that fallen man has the ability to do good or evil.12  

Our case in point has two threads. They are in tension since it is difficult to grasp their inter-connection. It is easy to use one to deny the truth of the other. One could argue that if man is morally unable in his actions then he cannot be accountable for them. Moreover, it is easy to reason that if man is accountable (in light of Judgment Day), then he must have moral ability, i.e.  free will.13 Questioning belief in responsibility is hardly controversial, so our present task is to 

establish the claim that fallen man does not have free will.

______________________________________________________________________

Pastor Ostella's Footnotes

11 See John Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism (P & R Publishing: Phillipsburg, NJ, 2001), pp. 119-141 for a discussion of free will in relation to foreordination.  

12 “God has give us genuine freedom to accept or reject the grace offered to all,” Bruce R. Reichenbach, “Freedom, Justice, and Moral Responsibility,” in The Grace of God and the Will of Man, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1999), 299 and “the power of moral choice entails the ability either to choose the good God designed for us or to reject it…the good thing called free will” is something man has in the fall, Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishes, 1999), 22-23, 29. David Basinger emphasizes the philosophical definition that free will is the ability to what you want without being forced in doing it: “God…must allow choice to be voluntary in the sense that it is free from coercive divine manipulation,” The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment (Downers Grove, Ill: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996), 36. Notably, Calvin states that those who are not graciously illumined by the Spirit are people who “voluntarily disbelieve,” Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, trans. J. K. S. Reid (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 58. 

13 In his infamous book on the philosophy of religion (“Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone”), Immanual Kant gave philosophy and theology a definition of free will that has the status of a commandment indelibly codified for all time on tablets of stone. His definition is intuitively simple and profoundly toxic. On one hand, if I am responsible for my actions, then I must be able to choose to do what is right or to do what is wrong. On the other hand, for Kant (and in many subtle ways for his disciples), belief in autonomous free will is an ultimate controlling belief (a presupposition) in his interpretation of Scripture and Christianity. For example, according to Kant’s reading of Scripture, it is of the essence of man that the antecedent to every act is an expression of freedom; otherwise, “the use or abuse of man’s power of choice in respect of the moral law could not be imputed to him nor could the good or bad in him be called moral” (p. 16). Thus, the tablet of stone for much of modern philosophy and theology has these inscriptions: “If I am responsible, then I must be able” and “duty demands nothing of us that we can not do” (p. 43). His ultimate controlling belief leads Kant to some extraordinarily toxic views: restoration from the fall by selfconversion, the Son of God as a personification of the perfect humanity located in each person and justification by faith in the good that one finds within and freely chooses to incorporate as a maxim or rule of life (pp. 40-48). A contemporary example of this same toxicity is the open-theist use of free will as the controlling belief that leads ultimately to a redefinition of the biblical teaching about God (as Frame shows in No Other God, pp. 119-122).


PART 6 - 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 Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model - Part 1

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. It is the best concise treatment of the subject I have found. As an example, Pastor Ostella examines the paradox of human responsibility paired with mankind's moral inability. Prepare to be blessed by this excellent study, which will be presented in a series of short segments. New posts in the series will appear at one or two day intervals over the next two to three weeks. Below are the title and introduction.

The Legitimacy of Paradox as a Theological Model: 

Case in Point, Fallen Man does not have Free Will but He has Full Responsibility 

ETS, Midwest, Ashland, Ohio, March 20, 2009 

Richard A. Ostella

Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind
(1 Pet. 3.8)

Introduction

This theme is difficult because it has an unmasking quality. The rub: it is personally crushing to face the facts about ourselves as fallen sinners. Recounting his conversion, Augustine says:

Thou, O Lord…didst turn me round towards myself, taking me from behind my back where I had placed me, unwilling to observe myself; and setting me before my face, that I might see how foul I was, how crooked and defiled, bespotted and ulcerous (Conf. Bk. VIII, par.16). 

Just to question “free will” challenges our self-understanding and raises an instinctive resistance. 

Therefore, to properly engage a study like this of the self, of my self, we need open-minded 

humility. Here, Peter’s call to a humble mind (1 Pet. 3.8) applies to the three things we are about to cover: theological paradox, a case in point, and implications.


PART 2 - Click Here

Herman Bavinck on Common Grace in Humanity

But of even greater significance is it that with Calvin reprobation does not mean the withholding of all grace. Although man through sin has been rendered blind to all the spiritual realities of the kingdom of God, so that a special revelation of God's fatherly love in Christ and a specialis illuminato (special illumination) by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the sinners become necessary, nevertheless there exists alongside of these a generalis gratia (general grace) which dispenses to all men various gifts. If God had not spared man, his fall would have involved the whole of nature in ruin. As it was, God immediately after the Fall interposed, in order by His common grace to curb sin and to uphold in being the universitas rerum (the universality of things). For after all sin is rather an adventitia qualitas (foreign quality) than a substanialis proprietas (substantial property), and for this reason God is operis sui corruptioni magis infensus quam operi suo (greatly offended by the corruption of His work?). Although for man's sake the whole of nature is subject to vanity, nevertheless nature is upheld by the hope which God implanted in its heart. There is no part of the world in which some spark of the divine glory does not glimmer. Though it be a metaphorical mode of expression, since God should not be confounded with nature, it may be affirmed in a truly religious sense that nature is God. Heaven and earth with their innumerable wonders are a magnificent display of the divine wisdom.

Especially the human race is still a clear mirror of the operation of God, an exhibition of His manifold gifts. In every man there is still a seed of religion, a consciousness of God, wholly ineradicable, convincing all of the heavenly grace on which their life depends, and leading even the heathen to name God the Father of  mankind. The supernatural gifts have been lost, and the natural gifts have become corrupted, so that man by nature no longer knows who and what God seeks to be to him. Still these latter gifts have not been withdrawn entirely from man. Reason and judgment and will, however corrupt, yet, in so far as they belong to man's nature, have not been wholly lost. The fact that men are found either wholly or in part deprived of reason proves that the title to these gifts is not self-evident and that they are not distributed to men on the basis of merit. None the less, the grace of God imparts them to us.

... It is true the Holy Spirit as a spirit of sanctification dwells in believers only, but as a spirit of life, of wisdom and of power He works also in those who do not believe.

Excerpted from Herman Bavinck's article, "Calvin and Common Grace"

Source: The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1909), pp. 453-455, the parenthetical translations of Latin terms and bold emphasis are mine.

___________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: I make no claim to a great understanding of Latin. If a reader can confirm or improve my translation of the phrase, operis sui corruptioni magis infensus quam operi suo, please feel free to share your insights.

The Terror of Sin, The Power of Grace, The Tragedy of Distraction

God created Adam with freedom to choose sin or blessing, obedience or disobedience, life or death. Adam freely chose sin. Sin killed Adam's soul, corrupted his mind and enslaved his will.


Imagine how terrible sin is: that every child of Adam is likewise killed, corrupted, and enslaved by it. All of the pains, sorrows and injustices in this world - and all of the torments experienced in hell - can be traced back to the basic reality of sin. How awful sin must be! It is a destroyer.


Now, consider the immense and almighty power of grace: that God revives, restores and reclaims sinners by it! By grace He liberates the sin-slave, eliminates the condemnation, and delivers the captive! By grace He restores rebels, turns hearts from destruction, justifies the ungodly and establishes holiness where there was only toxic filth.


Adore the greatness of the mercy that delays judgment and provides a remedy for the helpless!
Stand in awe of the sacrifice that redeems and raises dead souls, heals corrupted minds, and renews a willing spirit in us! 


Bless the God who makes all things new!

II Corinthians 5:16-21 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

The trouble is, too many of us have forgotten, neglected, trivialized or discounted the very simple and awe-inspiring facts of the Gospel. Thus it is no wonder we need more and more light shows, dancers, multimedia presentations, huge crowds, superstar worship leaders, and Hollywood sermons filled with provocative, morally questionable content. We have lost the ability to worship God in the simple yet infinitely mystifying reality of WHO He is and WHAT He has done. Yet the mighty cherubim adore Him eternally and without distraction, never having been redeemed, reconciled, restored or liberated  from misery. They only have God, as Creator and King, and they worship unceasingly on that basis alone. He is their light show. He is their star. He is their hero. He is their drama. He is their crowd. He is their display of greatness. He is all the pageantry and excitement they need. They are fully satisfied in Him, and He is glorified in them.

Today's worship services might just be too distracting. All the trappings of our "worship" are useful only as they lead us to a fresh appreciation of the simple Truth of the Gospel.

The General and Particular Aspects of the Atonement - Curt Daniel

Following are some quotes from Dr. Daniel's September 2010 sermon on Limited Atonement.

CURT DANIEL - LIMITED ATONEMENT (CLICK TO LISTEN)

"There is a general aspect of the atonement of Christ for all. Now, even the best Calvinist theologians will admit, yes, there is a general aspect to the atonement before we look at the particular aspect. For example, because of Christ's work on the cross there is a delay of judgment for sinners. Think about that. We deserve to be punished, we deserve to be hauled in before God's bar of judgment long ago. The fact that we are still alive here on earth is due to the work of Christ on the cross. In the same way, the fact that we are not in hell right now. There has been a stay of execution - not a pardon - but a stay of execution because of Christ's work that has delayed judgment and hell for people now. Even for those that will end up in hell, the delay right now whereby God is pleading with them is due to the work of Christ. It's a temporary reprieve."

"... there is common grace. There is a general love of God. Jesus talked about the bounties of health, family, friends, happiness. Rain falling on the just and on the unjust, common grace, the bounties and beauties of creation - all flow to us through the cross. And Christ has purchased those for everybody, elect and non-elect, sinners and saints, and for everybody."

"... there is a free offer of the Gospel that can go out to all . . . the atonement of Christ has provided more than enough for everybody, and He sends Christians out with the free offer: 'Come, for all things are now ready.'"

"Now some scholars will say that this universal aspect of the atonement can be seen in verses such as John 3:16, 'the world,' I John 2:2, 'the whole world,' II Cor. 5:14, 'all,' and other ones, and I see that there is some truth in what they are saying."

"Because Jesus Christ is God and not simply man, what He did on the cross has infinite value and universal sufficiency. Now, the theologians have come up with a formula for this. Now I want to say it and then repeat it, because you might miss it, but it's very important. All that Jesus did on the cross would have been necessary for the salvation of only one person. One person committing only one sin would still require an infinite payment to the Father. However, Jesus would not have had to suffer more even if there had been a million times as many human beings to be saved, because Jesus made an infinite satisfaction to the Father. And that would have been required if there had been only one person or if there had been ten million times as many people as there have been in human history. So however many there are to be saved, Christ paid a sufficient amount for everybody because His atonement had infinite value. It's not that if one more person had to be saved Christ would have had to suffer more or die a second time. It's finished. He paid an infinite price, and in that sense you can say it has general implications for everybody."

"Jesus Christ died in a special way only for those that God had elected to salvation. This does not deny the general aspect . . . some have put it like this: in the general aspect Christ did some things for everybody, but in this aspect He did everything for some people - those that He had chosen."

"... human beings are unable to save themselves, but God has chosen some people to be saved, and because they have been chosen Christ did something especially for them. Now, this does not deny a general aspect of the atonement. It's concentrating on a special aspect that guarantees their salvation. That's why it's sometimes called particular redemption, for the elect in particular. It's limited in scope, not in value. It has a specific purpose for them. There is a general purpose, but there is a specific purpose."

"... although it's provided for all in one general sense, it's guaranteed for the elect in a special way. Now, as I said before, the special aspect or intent of the atonement is sometimes misunderstood. And so the theologians will compare Scripture and Scripture, and the formula that has generally emerged is something like this: Christ's death is sufficient for all, but it is efficient only for those that have been chosen, and those are the two aspects . . . By the way, you can see that 'for all, but especially for some' even in Scripture. I Timothy 4:10 says that Jesus is, quote, the Savior of all mankind, especially of those that believe."