“Not to set the goal “Not to set the goal of quarrying from Scripture a harmonious theology devoid of paradoxes
is to sound the death knell not only to systematic
theology but also to all theology
that would commend itself to men as the truth of the one living and rational
God.”[1]
Clearly, the belief that Christian theism contains paradox in any shape or form
is not without some controversy. Nevertheless, we must be willing to grapple
with the root cause of that controversy if we are to move beyond the issue to
understand the place of paradox in Christian theology in general, and in
Christian apologetics in particular if such a place actually exists. If we were
to put our finger on the substance of this question, it would concern the type of logic employed to govern the
conversation on the one hand as well as the ultimate authority by which all
truth is judged, on the other.
The accusation lurking in the
background is that we are setting divine revelation over against human reason
as if the two are ipso facto antithetical.
On the other hand, we must avoid the conclusion that human reason can stand in
judgment of the truthfulness and content of divine revelation. The purpose of
this section is to survey a sampling of the basic texts of Christian Scripture
in the hope of understanding the biblical acceptance or rejection of the idea
of paradox as a legitimate concept in Christian doctrine. Only then is one in a
position to understand how theological paradox impacts apologetic methodology.
In the beginning, God created the
heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). The very first sentence in Christian
Scripture provides us with the sort of fodder we need in order to understand
whether or not Scripture presents the human mind with a paradoxical situation.
Clearly the paradox of time and eternity immediately presents itself. In
addition, the view that God created something when He had no matter to begin
with out of which to create anything, presents us with a second paradoxical
scenario. Additionally, the question of God’s existence prior to and operating
within the sphere of time presents us with yet another paradoxical puzzle. What
is the Christian to do with these paradoxes? Do we seek to solve them? If so,
can we solve them using fallen, finite, human logic or can we appeal to another
kind of logic by which these paradoxes may be understood even if they might
remain unresolved?
B.A. Bosserman writes, “If
Christians contend that creation is indeed materially distinct from the
Creator, then that which exists must have somehow sprung “from” its very
opposite, namely non-existence.”[2]
One calls to mind the ancient saying, “out of nothing, nothing comes.” The
nature of the statement that something came from nothing clearly presents us
with an apparent contradiction as far as human reason is concerned. And it is
with humans that we must reason both theologically and apologetically. Genesis
offers no attempt to resolve what God must have known from eternity past, would
turn out to be a challenge for human predication. Scripture offers little
comfort in terms of resolving the difficulty, at least not at first glance.
The truth of the matter is that
Christian theology finds itself involved in numerous paradoxes and many of them
strike at the very heartbeat of the Christian system. In fact, if paradox ipso facto compromises the integrity of
any claim whatsoever, Christianity is indeed in serious trouble. Not only must
we deal with those paradoxes introduced in just one verse in Genesis, the very
first verse in Scripture mind you, we also have some very fundamental claims
with which to deal. For example, we must acknowledge the difficulty of
assertions like that of the incarnation, divine condescension, divine
sovereignty and human responsibility, and most basic of all, the self-contained
ontological Trinity. This list is by no means comprehensive, but it does
represent Christian teachings that, if proven false, would serve to falsify the
system as a whole. The question for the Christian and especially for the
apologist is what to do with this phenomenon of paradox that seems so obviously
pervasive in the most basic teachings of Christian theism. One could bury their
head in the sand and pretend these difficulties do not exist at all. Another
reaction may be to hold human logic up as the standard and reword each teaching
in a way so that it can accord with the power of human reason. Still, one could
work tirelessly trying to resolve each and every paradox so that critics are
eventually satisfied with the respective conclusions. Finally, one could
recognize that if Christian theism is actually true and, it is what Scripture
affirms it to be, it seems to follow quite logically that paradox in such a
system is really unavoidable. Moreover this is especially the case if the state
of affairs is what God, speaking in Scripture, has said that it is.
The apostle Paul provides an
excellent example of the Christian response to paradox when it is discovered in
divine revelation. In writing to the Roman Christians Paul puts up a defense of
the covenant promises of God beginning in Romans 9. His argument is that the
word of God has not failed which means then that the Roman Christians had
perhaps misunderstood the true nature of the covenant or the promise to begin
with. As Paul launches the argument, he calls on God’s sovereign election of
individuals to illustrate what the promise actually meant and, precisely why he
believed it had not failed. In so doing, he recalls the story of Pharaoh, the
Egyptian leader that refused to cooperate with Moses, and ultimately with the
commandment to release the children of Israel from slavery. Paul points out
that it was God’s purpose, in hardening Pharaoh’s heart, to display His
glorious power. The point is that God sovereignly hardened Pharaoh’s heart so
that he would not grant the Israelites their freedom, but then God punished
Pharaoh for doing what God had ordained Pharaoh to do in the first place. Paul
anticipates that the objector will retort, how is it fair for God to harden
Pharaoh to do His bidding, and then turn around and punish Him for doing
precisely what God had intended he do from the start? The reason for this
objection is felt quite plainly. This feels contradictory to human logic. How
is the Christian to take this text? Are we simply to confess that the Christian
Scripture contains contradictions and we must simply accept them in faith and
so honor God in a state of irrational humility? I think there is a better
solution.
Paul’s argument points out that
paradox is a fact in Christian theology, like it or not. But it also helps us
by providing some guidelines for truly rational thinking. Moreover, Paul’s
argument provides excellent fodder for how Christians should respond to these
issues when we discover them. God is not an irrational being. But God is also
not a man. God does not use nor is He bound by the limitations of created
logic. By created logic, I mean the sort of logic that man, created in God’s
image, uses in order to reason about the world in which he finds himself.
[1] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology
of the Christian Faith (Nashville: T. Nelson, ©1998), 110.
[2] B.A.
Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox:an
Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van
Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 15.
No comments:
Post a Comment