I broke this off of the Van Til and Paradox thread to keep the discussion threads "clean":
Clarkians criticize Van Tillians for accepting paradoxes or apparent contradictions if you will. It is lazy, some say, because we should not accept two conclusions that apparently contradict as it leads to irrationalism.
Here is my question:
1. Assume Biblical premises and the right use of reason lead you to conclude that the nature of man's responsibility and freedom are of a certain type.
2. Assume Biblical premises and the right use of reason lead you to conclude that God's sovereignty is of a certain type.
3. Assume the two conclusions (both derived by valid Scriptural premises and reason) appear to contradict.
What do you do?
The reason I ask is because this charge by a few Clarkians appears very flippant to me. It's as if they assume every Christian that came before Clark didn't reason from the Scriptures at all but merely jumped to their concusions, admitted the paradox, and then went to sleep theologically. This is a slanderous charge in my estimation.
Historically, Christian thinkers have encountered puzzles like the above and came to some cognitive rest and said: "You know what, I don't understand it. It appears to contradict but I can't seem to resolve it. God knows what we're all missing but I can't figure it out."
Now I will grant that Clark might have figured out how to harmonize the two without any paradox left. Maybe he really did fix some Biblical premises or some inferences along the way that led to two conclusions that no longer were in tension.
But maybe he didn't...
Why didn't he attack the problem from the other direction and fix the Biblical premises or repair some inferences to weaken God's sovereignty as others have done (open theism)? The ultimate goal of real theology is achieved by moving the conclusions together to resolve the paradox in either case. Paradox, remember, must be resolved at all costs or we're lazy, I keep being told.
Why must he assume that the premises or inferences used by historic Reformed orthodoxy that held them in paradox were faulty at all? The only reason I can discern is that, a priori, they must be faulty if they only leave a paradox.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Clarkians accuse Van Tillians of "arrogance" in ascribing that there are apparent contradictions that cannot be resolved. There may be more merit to that issue that I need to consider and I am willing to do so. Nevertheless, there is a serious danger that Clarkians, in their unwillingness to accept any apparent contradictions, will keep tweaking premises or inferences until they achieve their goal. Change the premises or inferences of human responsiblity or Divine Sovereignty and you get to the same place. In resolving the paradox, however, you may well have departed from Scripture in your method.
The rule seems to be "resolve paradox at all cost". Some criticize Van Til for accepting paradox and asking "Where does the Scripture say we have to accept paradox?" I would like those same people to answer the question: "Where does the Scripture ever promise that there won't ever be some paradox (confusion perhaps) that our created minds can't resolve even using logic?" When God claims that His ways are higher than our ways, this seems to indicate we ought not be surprised that will occur.
What is unacceptable to some Clarkians, it seems, is cognitive rest that God might be witholding the premises they need to achieve their pre-commited goal. If Van Tillians are "lazy" then perhaps Clarkians are dangerously busy unravelling secrets that God has purposefully not left for us to unravel.
With respect to arrogance, is it not equally arrogant to assume that all Reformed theology prior to the 1940's could neither get their premises correct nor reason properly from them to come to Clark's conclusions? Until the Reformed Camp at large accepts his conclusions, I would be careful about who is calling whom arrogant.
Finally, with respect to paradox and one of many biblical bases for it: in Romans 9, Paul acknowledges a point at which men are going to logically deduce something from what he's saying. His answer is basically "How dare you infer such a thing about your Creator." What he doesn't do is spell out how the two resolve. If ever there was a case to demonstrate the "Paradox is evil" rule of thumb it is in this passage. Paul doesn't seem too bothered to not satisfy that urge.
[Edited on 5-23-2006 by SemperFideles]
Clarkians criticize Van Tillians for accepting paradoxes or apparent contradictions if you will. It is lazy, some say, because we should not accept two conclusions that apparently contradict as it leads to irrationalism.
Here is my question:
1. Assume Biblical premises and the right use of reason lead you to conclude that the nature of man's responsibility and freedom are of a certain type.
2. Assume Biblical premises and the right use of reason lead you to conclude that God's sovereignty is of a certain type.
3. Assume the two conclusions (both derived by valid Scriptural premises and reason) appear to contradict.
What do you do?
The reason I ask is because this charge by a few Clarkians appears very flippant to me. It's as if they assume every Christian that came before Clark didn't reason from the Scriptures at all but merely jumped to their concusions, admitted the paradox, and then went to sleep theologically. This is a slanderous charge in my estimation.
Historically, Christian thinkers have encountered puzzles like the above and came to some cognitive rest and said: "You know what, I don't understand it. It appears to contradict but I can't seem to resolve it. God knows what we're all missing but I can't figure it out."
Now I will grant that Clark might have figured out how to harmonize the two without any paradox left. Maybe he really did fix some Biblical premises or some inferences along the way that led to two conclusions that no longer were in tension.
But maybe he didn't...
Why didn't he attack the problem from the other direction and fix the Biblical premises or repair some inferences to weaken God's sovereignty as others have done (open theism)? The ultimate goal of real theology is achieved by moving the conclusions together to resolve the paradox in either case. Paradox, remember, must be resolved at all costs or we're lazy, I keep being told.
Why must he assume that the premises or inferences used by historic Reformed orthodoxy that held them in paradox were faulty at all? The only reason I can discern is that, a priori, they must be faulty if they only leave a paradox.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Clarkians accuse Van Tillians of "arrogance" in ascribing that there are apparent contradictions that cannot be resolved. There may be more merit to that issue that I need to consider and I am willing to do so. Nevertheless, there is a serious danger that Clarkians, in their unwillingness to accept any apparent contradictions, will keep tweaking premises or inferences until they achieve their goal. Change the premises or inferences of human responsiblity or Divine Sovereignty and you get to the same place. In resolving the paradox, however, you may well have departed from Scripture in your method.
The rule seems to be "resolve paradox at all cost". Some criticize Van Til for accepting paradox and asking "Where does the Scripture say we have to accept paradox?" I would like those same people to answer the question: "Where does the Scripture ever promise that there won't ever be some paradox (confusion perhaps) that our created minds can't resolve even using logic?" When God claims that His ways are higher than our ways, this seems to indicate we ought not be surprised that will occur.
What is unacceptable to some Clarkians, it seems, is cognitive rest that God might be witholding the premises they need to achieve their pre-commited goal. If Van Tillians are "lazy" then perhaps Clarkians are dangerously busy unravelling secrets that God has purposefully not left for us to unravel.
With respect to arrogance, is it not equally arrogant to assume that all Reformed theology prior to the 1940's could neither get their premises correct nor reason properly from them to come to Clark's conclusions? Until the Reformed Camp at large accepts his conclusions, I would be careful about who is calling whom arrogant.
Finally, with respect to paradox and one of many biblical bases for it: in Romans 9, Paul acknowledges a point at which men are going to logically deduce something from what he's saying. His answer is basically "How dare you infer such a thing about your Creator." What he doesn't do is spell out how the two resolve. If ever there was a case to demonstrate the "Paradox is evil" rule of thumb it is in this passage. Paul doesn't seem too bothered to not satisfy that urge.
[Edited on 5-23-2006 by SemperFideles]