First of all, I want to define
terms. Paradox is something very specific in philosophy. “The word ‘paradox’
derives from the Greek (para and doxa), which may be translated as ‘contrary
to belief’ or ‘beyond belief.’ [The Philosophers Toolkit] There is more than
one type of paradox. When we reason from apparently true premises, a conclusion
is generated that contradicts or flies in the face of what other common
reasoning or experience tells us, we call this a paradox. To borrow the example
from Zeno of Elea, Achilles races a tortoise but gives the tortoise a head
start. By the time Achilles gets to A, the place where the tortoise originally
began, the tortoise will be at point B. And the by the time Achilles gets to
point B, the tortoise will have moved to another point, call it C and so on. It
seems that Achilles would never overtake the tortoise. The reasoning is solid,
or so it seems. But there seems to be something wrong with the conclusion that
Achilles will not overtake the tortoise. We call this a paradox.
Another kind of paradox appears
when reason itself leads to a contradiction. Take the claim, ‘This statement is
false.’ Is the statement true or false? If it is true, then it is false. And if
it is false, then it is true. Or take that famous Liar’s Paradox: ‘everything I
say is a lie.’ Given that a sentence cannot be both true and false, we find
ourselves faced with a paradox. A paradox then is only an apparent
contradiction. It is not an actual contradiction. [The Philosopher’s Toolkit] As
James Anderson points out, “A ‘paradox’ thus amounts to a set of claims which
taken in conjunction appear to be logically inconsistent.” [Paradox in Christian
Theology]
This raises the question, what is
it about Christian belief that leads to paradox? Can one hold to the
truthfulness of Christian belief consistently without also hold to paradox as
part of that belief? In other words, what is it about Christian belief that
leads us to conclude that such belief involves paradox? Christians have wanted
to affirm two things about God in terms of knowing God. First, God is
apprehensible and second, that God is incomprehensible. On the one hand we can
know some things about God in part. On the other hand, we cannot know God comprehensively.
It is the doctrine of the incomprehensibility of God that ultimately leads to
the view that paradox in Christian belief is inevitable. “It is therefore
likely that at certain points in our reasoning about God the concepts we
employ, though precise enough when applied in our logical analysis of created
things, will be insufficiently refined to support those distinctions require to
render our theological theorizing free from all appearance of logical conflict.”
[Paradox in Christian Theology]
As an example of paradox in
Scripture, I point you to Romans 9:14-20. Paul is defending God’s fidelity by
providing a more accurate exegesis of the covenant promises to Israel. In so
doing, he emphasizes God’s sovereign election of Jacob over Esau. This election
took place prior to the twins’ birth and was based on God’s purpose alone, not
anything that either man had done, or any quality either one of these men possessed. The
natural reaction to this, from a logical standpoint, would be: how is this
fair? How can God hate someone apart from any actions on that person’s part?
Wouldn’t this make God unjust? And that is the question in v. 14 that Paul
imagines any questioner might raise. Paul answers by asserting God’s sovereign
right to have mercy on whom He pleases and to harden whom He pleases. Well,
that isn’t quite solving the problem. If God is going to reject someone, and do
so justly, should He not base His action on that person’s behavior since that
person is going to suffer divine judgment? Instead, Paul answers that God’s election
is not based on the actions or volition of men, but rather on God alone. Once
again, Paul has simply affirmed God’s right to do as He pleases and he shows no
interest in a logical solution to the obvious tension. How can God bring someone into
the world, elect them to damnation before they do anything wicked, and still be
just? You see, we are not dealing with just the sovereignty of God here. We are
also dealing with God’s righteousness. Of course God can be sovereign and do
these things. The question is, can He be just and do these things? If you miss
that, then you are missing the argument. If you think this is purely about
sovereignty, you are missing the immediate problem. V. 19 bring us to the
immediate problem: how can God find fault with Pharaoh if He sovereignly
brought Pharaoh into this world for the ultimate purpose of hardening him and
not have mercy on him? Could Pharaoh have done other than what God had
predetermined he would do? No, he could not. Then how can God find fault with
someone who could do nothing other than what God had decreed he would do and
still be just in doing it? To say just because, which is essentially what the
Clarkian seems to say, is not an answer. That does not resolve the problem. It
begs the question. The question is how can God be just and punish Pharaoh both
at the same time. To say that whatever God does is just just because God does
it is not an answer. One has to say how can God do what would be unjust for
anyone else to do and not be unjust like the rest that do it. This is like
saying, it is a sin for me to lie, but God can lie without it being a sin
simply because it is God doing it. That is not an answer. Jesus was tempted to
sin. We say he could not sin because He was God. But to say that sin was
impossible for Him because every act He could ever do, even if he had sex with
Mary Magdalene would not be a sin because God acting is ipso facto not a sin.
This would make a mockery of the temptations of Christ. Logically speaking, God
can sin. The only reason God cannot sin is because of His righteous nature, not because of the laws of logic. Sin
is contrary to God’s nature. Because God is perfectly holy, He cannot sin. But
sin as a category remains something that exists even for God. What I am getting at here is that the temptations of Christ were real and that had Christ theoretically worshipped Satan, such worship would have been sin. To say that it would not have been sin because it was God committing the act is to deny that Christ was tempted in all points like as we are. Therefore, to deny that God could have sin in the person of Christ is to not take Scripture seriously when it talks about the temptations of Christ. Of course, one could argue that Christ was two persons instead of one and create a whole new Christology that departs from the historical position.
So, the issue remains, how can God
be just and punish Pharaoh for doing what God had decreed He would do before he
was even born? In order for God to be perfectly just, Pharaoh had to be
responsible for his actions. And in order for God to be perfectly sovereign,
God’s plan had to be carried out to the smallest detail. Logically speaking we
have a real problem on our hands and Paul is in the middle of addressing it in
our text. Let’s take a look at the two arguments:
If A, then B
A
Therefore, B
If God is just, then Pharaoh is responsible.
God is just. Therefore, Pharaoh is responsible. Second argument, following the same Modus Ponens rule is as follows: If God is in
control, then Pharaoh is not responsible. God is in Control. Therefore, Pharaoh
is not responsible. God’s sovereignty and God’s justice are juxtaposed with one
another and seem to conflict in this case. Someone may argue that Pharaoh is
still responsible even if God is in full control. From a purely logical
standpoint, that is patently false. To be responsible for something, where
human reason is concerned, you have to have some control in the matter. And
that is exactly what Paul is dealing with. If the Roman audience thought that
Pharaoh could be responsible even though he had no control, then this entire
section is completely unintelligible. The only way Romans 9:14-29 makes sense
is if there is an argument such as I have outlined taking place either
literally or hypothetically. There is nothing that is controversial in my claim that
Paul dealing with the presence of paradox in this pericope. Specifically, Paul is
dealing with the paradox between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
Rather than call on human logic to try and solve this paradox, Paul seems
perfectly content to let it stand. This is an act of complete submission and
amazing humility on Paul’s part. If Paul was content to let it stand, perhaps
we should be content to do the same thing. If it was good enough for Paul, it
should be more than good enough for us since Paul was writing for the Holy
Spirit.
There are those who reject paradox
in Christian belief. As I mentioned above, certain disciples of Gordon Clark
reject it outright. I am not sure if this is a pervasive view among Clarkians.
One reason that some reject paradox in Christian belief can be traced to an
over-emphasis on human reason. If one is a rationalist, then paradox in their
belief system can be fatal. Whether that is the case for the typical Clarkian
is something I cannot answer. However, the only answer I received from the
Clarkians that I engaged seem to point in the direction that if Christian
belief violated human reason, or the laws of logic, then the implication was
that it collapses. And this is a highly problematic position for any Christian
to hold. The reason it is so problematic is that it places human reason in the position
of being the final authority for what is true and should be embraced and what
is not. Such thinking is bound to have an impact of what we believe about God,
Christ, Sin, and a plethora of other doctrines.
It seems to me that the rejection
of paradox in Christian theology opens the door to apologetic method that is
not entirely consistent with biblical teaching. It allows the apologist to displace
Scripture with human reason as his epistemic authority. The other issue is that
if it is human reason that serves as the primary principle for interpreting
Christian doctrine, then when one doctrine seemingly conflicts with another
doctrine, the desire for clear logical consistency can lead to the mishandling
of one doctrine in order to harmonize it with another doctrine. For example, in
an attempt to harmonize divine sovereignty with human responsibility, we may
move toward a hyper-Calvinism on the one hand or a skewed view of libertarian
freedom on the other hand. Or, we may contort the Trinity in an attempt to solve the paradoxical
nature of that doctrine. And as some have point out, Clark argued that Jesus
was not one person, but rather two persons. There are an endless number of
possible doctrine error that can result of an unhealthy reliance on human
reason or the laws of logic when interpreting Scripture.
In summary, here are just a handful
of Christian beliefs that are an indication that paradox is unavoidable. God is
three persons in one being is a paradox. Jesus being both God and man is a
paradox. Divine sovereignty and human responsibility is a paradox. The existence
of evil is a paradox. Christian humility and complete submission mandates that
the prudent path where paradox is concerned is that we respond: “your ways are
higher than my ways and your thoughts are higher than my thoughts.
Rejection of paradox as a
legitimate tool in hermeneutics creates serious issues for Christianity:
- Can lead to a far too rational approach to Christian apologetics
- Can produce serious doctrinal error in Christian theology
- Has a tendency to replace Scripture with human reason as our epistemic authority
- Is far too confident in the ability of human reason to resolve the irresolvable
- If taken to its logical end, results in the outright rejection of Christianity as a tenable worldview
No comments:
Post a Comment