Contradiction VS Paradox

[Von]

We believe that the Bible contains no contradictions. Subsequently any (seeming) contradiction is usually deemed a "paradox" (ie both truths being equally true, even though they seem to be contradicting each other). But we consider the (seeming contradictory) truths in dispute to be of a truthful nature due to faith. Faith in the truthfulness of God and His Word is then the basis of our definition of the paradoxes in the Bible. Unbelievers will subsequently never see the paradoxes, but only contradictions. To say, then, to an unbeliever that one of the things that prove that the Bible is Divinely inspired, is the fact that it does not contradict itself, is futile, since the proof of this fact is nestled in faith itself.
Am I correct in my reasoning?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

There is a kind of futility in discussion with some unbelievers of the Bible's coherence and reliability, but the issue is not one that is purely of "faith." For one, there are modern and postmodern assumptions which may be challenged. For another, there is the question of definitions, for instance: what constitutes a "contradiction" or "paradox" in literature generally, or the Bible particularly? (Are the challenger and the defender even talking about the same thing?) In addition, I am personally unaware that I as a Christian hold any doctrinal or biblical views--predicated upon the whole Bible's witness, not bracketing some part--that are "paradoxical," let alone contradictory. I want to know HOW the supposed contradiction or paradox is generated. Careless treatment of the text is no reason for me to respect someone's dissent.

The denial of contradiction in Scripture is not merely one of our "religious acts of faith." My reason for stating that in the first place responds to your opening sentences that, on first reading, sounds a lot like the unbeliever's characterization of what Christians generally believe. And often, this is the case.

I don't accuse you of such a thing; however, the tenor of the rest of your paragraph sounds like an answer for the unbeliever that never challenges the unbeliever's basic assumption, one that honestly many Christians accept. They assume the validity of modernist skepticism, while trying to maintain their faith.

We don't accept that the Bible contains genuine contradictions (though it may have paradoxes, rightly conceived) as a consequence of the doctrine of God and of his revelation the Bible contains. In other words, if Scripture truly taught that contradictions (and paradoxes galore) were natural and ordinary to itself, and that God was knowable via contradiction and error; or that he was unknowable in fact due to the regularly shifting nature of man's descriptions--then historic Christian doctrine would reflect that view (it does not).

The latter view has become a typical, modernist (liberal) religious perspective. Those Christians share the basic premises of the unbelievers around them. They read the Bible through the common philosophical lenses of their culture, and they divide their commitments between truths in the Bible they deem "universal," and a multiplicity of incompatible voices (cacophony) all talking over one another in its pages. Thus, such interpreters see contradiction abounding.

But, this approach requires that the Bible be not-read on its own terms. Because, its own terms often dictate different doctrines from those finding ready acceptance in a particular time or place. And sometimes, biblical doctrine simply offends the natural man so much that he cannot receive it; and so he either denies it outright, or else he embraces cognitive dissonance, and even praises it as faith's highest expression.

Can one find a consistent, coherent doctrine of God in the Bible? How would one go about discovering it? This is a good question to pose to the unbeliever, perhaps one who has heard (or made) the claim that the Bible is a mess of contradiction (or paradox). Is it actually true, and how does he know this? I don't think a strange kaleidoscope picture of God emerges from reading and studying the text of Scripture at all. It may be that the God revealed by such an investigation does not appeal to the investigator, but that hardly stands as evidence of a contradiction within the picture provided by the Bible.

When one studies the matter of Who God Is as the Bible presents him, and the nature of his self-disclosure, one finds constantly that God is truthful, he is Truth itself. He is set over against man's natural deceitfulness, e.g. Num.23:19; 1Sam.15:29. The modernist Christian and many an unbeliever both regard the books of Moses a priori as a pastiche of competing stories, filled in with later rewrites and edits (changes to fit the times). They do not care if 1Sam.15:29 was written first, or Num.23:19, or if there is real or imagined connection between the texts. None of it is "true" to them in any foundational sense.

However, for those who actually search for God on his own terms revealed in the Bible, God teaches them that he makes promises (and threats) and his word can be relied upon. Men can read what he said long before, hundreds of years, or even thousands, and they can count on him. They can trust that He who made them men, also made them with the ability to receive his intelligible communication. They can act as responsible creatures, because God has decided to regard them as responsible and reliably communicated his will to them.

Finally, at this point and with these conclusions, one may reasonably take up the questions of "paradox." After a great accumulation of data on the nature of God and the nature of his self-expression--mainly in expressive words and sentences--it would be unusual if there were not a few expressions that (on the surface, at least) seemed at odds. Communication is an effort, and requires some effort to engage in it productively. The first issue for the interpreter is whether or not he is willing to grant goodwill to God revealed in the text; secondly, whether or not he is inclined to respect the human writer (and the scribes) who have transmitted God's revelation to him.

Does he think God is pleased to portray himself in a timeless and immutable way in the Bible? Though the book of Genesis was not written TO him (living so long after it was written down), was it yet written FOR him? Or does he think that the God of Genesis presented himself acceptable to the (good) men in Genesis, and therefore he was accepted? And that today, God must be different to be accepted?

And does the interpreter think that the men who recorded their encounters with God are sufficiently like himself--of the same nature and essential disposition--that they could write and communicate plainly enough to be understood by the next generation, and after ten generations, and after a hundred; and in translation, and in another culture, and in another age? The tragedy of postmodern hermeneutics is that the project has made a virtue of the fallacy of anachronism, of the false-humility of pseudo-respect for a writer's time-and-place that actually denies him the right to assert a permanent meaning for his own composition.

Receiving God's Word as it is--and as authoritative and reliable and coherent (non-contradictory)--must be a product of faith in order to be of any value beyond intellectual. An unbeliever may at last consent to the self-contained consistency of the Bible. He may even be persuaded of its "divine inspiration." He may accept the Bible on its own terms. What he lacks at that point is saving faith in the message of the Bible, in the Object of faith which is Christ, upon whom he rests for settling his right-relationship with God.

 

[Taylor]

Calvin said it best:

"Scripture will ultimately suffice for a saving knowledge of God only when its certainty is founded upon the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, these human testimonies which exist to confirm it will not be vain if, as secondary aids to our feebleness, they follow that chief and highest testimony. But those who wish to prove to unbelievers that Scripture is the Word of God are acting foolishly, for only by faith can this be known."

—John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1960), I.viii.13.​

 

[Von]

Rev Buchanan,
This is a lot to digest, but I would like to completely understand your answer. So I'll take this one or two premises/quotations at a time. Please bear with me:

I am personally unaware that I as a Christian hold any doctrinal or biblical views--predicated upon the whole Bible's witness, not bracketing some part--that are "paradoxical," let alone contradictory.

Do I understand you correctly that you do NOT hold to any Paradoxes in scripture?

sounds a lot like the unbeliever's characterization of what Christians generally believe.

I don't think this is a characterization from unbelievers. Many believers will say this to unbelievers.

They assume the validity of modernist skepticism, while trying to maintain their faith.

Is the understanding of where someone is coming from, the same as saying his argument is valid? If I listen to a modernist skeptic talking about Scripture, I don't have to agree with him to understand his viewpoint, do I? (Not a rhetorical question).

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Do I understand you correctly that you do NOT hold to any Paradoxes in scripture?

Here's a place where definitions of terms should be introduced, and actual possible cases of paradox proposed. No one should agree, in principle, that they consent to either contradiction in fact or in appearance, until something is put on the table. Hypothetically speaking, if every proposed case of apparent contradiction was resolved in a legitimate manner, the situation would end with zero paradox or contradiction. Alternatively, a proposed paradox might be resolved as far as my own satisfaction, while I might agree that someone else faced a paradoxical (to him) situation. So, in that sense the Bible would contain a paradox.

I do not consent to the opening stipulation as common-ground for discussion that Scripture undoubtedly contains paradoxes of all description; but some paradox of some description could be identified there.

I don't think this is a characterization from unbelievers. Many believers will say this to unbelievers.

I think I clearly indicated in my original reply that many Christians DO regard Scripture-content in a manner common with unbelievers. That is, to say, they begin by agreeing that the Bible IS contradictory (apparently), or at least CONTAINS significant paradox. They concede this immediately; they don't even start by contending with the first-premise of the unbeliever. And they may do this subtly, that is for the sake of argument (not deceitfully); or they may, consciously or not, actually believe this is the case. And so yes, believers say this very thing to unbelievers.

I don't consider that stance to be "faith in Scripture" of a robust sort, but merely a "so far as it goes" sort. The phrase: "seeming contradictory truths [under consideration are] truthful [in] nature due to faith," appears to grant the Bible contains both phenomena: 1) A, and 2) non-A; and that faith (whatever its definition) is that which contains both, or reconciles both in a religious (noumenal) realm separate from history, substance, and logic. The following sentence that says a particular kind of "faith... defin[es] the paradoxes in the Bible," certainly offers support to that reading.

I think identified challenges to biblical consistency are properly met by rigorous investigation using tools of historians, forensic science, and logic. I do not retreat to "faith," though I agree with Augustin, "I believe, therefore I understand." Faith is prior. My faith undergirds both my basic regard of the Bible as divine revelation, and my confidence in the tools of natural investigation. I think most unbelief "cheats" on its use of said tools, and unbelievers are the ones who should be "retreating to faith." I don't think there is any substance to the claim that the tools and knowledge of the modern age has proven the folly and futility of Christian-religious claims about the "real world."

Is the understanding of where someone is coming from, the same as saying his argument is valid? If I listen to a modernist skeptic talking about Scripture, I don't have to agree with him to understand his viewpoint, do I? (Not a rhetorical question).

I am not saying that we should fail to understand where an unbeliever (or anyone else) is coming from. I'm saying we need to formulate our own Christian position in such a way that we clearly stand at odds with both the Kantian dialectic, and the postmodern flight to radical skepticism and subjectivism.

So. my problem with the expression of the OP (taken as a whole and as it is, not as wholly mistaken) is not that it affirms that faith (properly defined) is prior to understanding (ala Augustin), for well it does; or that it does not understand and challenge unbelief at all. But, that it is not clear that it understands where an uncompromising Christian position begins.

Perhaps this post has offered some clarity.

 

[Von]

Thank you, Rev Buchanan, you have definitely helped clarified this issue for me.
The following words clinched it for me:

They concede this immediately; they don't even start by contending with the first-premise of the unbeliever. And they may do this subtly, that is for the sake of argument (not deceitfully); or they may, consciously or not, actually believe this is the case.

If I understand you correctly, at this point the believer should rather ask for definitions and/or examples, instead of arguing from very shaky ground.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

We believe that the Bible contains no contradictions. Subsequently any (seeming) contradiction is usually deemed a "paradox" (ie both truths being equally true, even though they seem to be contradicting each other).

Contradiction: a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
Paradox: a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

Both of these are the same thing.

Biblical hermeneutics has to overcome any difficulty in that way. To have a "seeming contradiction" is as much suspect as an "actual contradiction." What "seeming contradictions" do is allow the student, theologian or pastor who is not as biblically astute in their hermeneutics as they should be, to throw everything they don't like or can't explain into that little convenient "box of mystery." (a la Dabney, Murray, Stonehouse, Packer, Frame, Ware, etc., in dealing with issues on the will of God and attributes of God.)

I do not believe the Bible has any "statements or propositions that lead (seemingly or otherwise) to conclusions that are illogical, unacceptable or self-contradictory."

Like:
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."(Pro. 26:4-5).

If you have some of those, its not an issue with the text. Its an issue with your hermeneutics and your personal misunderstanding of the text.

 

[RamistThomist]

Paradoxes in math and logic are real. See set theory or Godel's formulations.

 

[Von]

Both of these are the same thing.

A contradiction and a paradox cannot be the same thing. Even according to your own definition, the one defines a situation where A and B are opposed to each other. But in the other, they only *seem* to be opposed to each other.

 

[Von]

Just to add to the discussion:
Anthony Hoekema in Saved by Grace:

“....We could say that we are here dealing with what is commonly called a paradox – that is, a combination of two thoughts which seem to contradict each other...If we wish to understand the Scriptures, therefore, we must accept the concept of paradox believing that what we cannot square with our finite minds is somehow harmonized in the mind of God.”

(This is where he discusses God's sovereignty vs man's responsibility)

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

A paradox is a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

Scripture may present to our fallible minds "charlie horses between our ears" (aka, paradoxes), but these are readily resolved if we take the time to think, study, and pray. God is three and one readily comes to mind along these lines, yet is resolvable once we get our categories aright. The reality is that there is nothing genuinely paradoxical in Scripture. Just because something seems incomprehensible to us, does not mean we must grant paradox as a component of Scripture.

 

[Von]

Scripture may present to our fallible minds "charlie horses between our ears" (aka, paradoxes), but these are readily resolved if we take the time to think, study, and pray. God is three and one readily comes to mind along these lines, yet is resolvable once we get our categories aright. The reality is that there is nothing genuinely paradoxical in Scripture. Just because something seems incomprehensible to us, does not mean we must grant paradox as a component of Scripture.

Sorry, I must be missing something here...
Something that is three cannot (in human-logic terms) be one at the same time.
But,
God is three and one at the same time.
Is this not illogical in human terms?

 

[Von]

Or do you mean that all paradoxes (math and logic included) when examined adequately, will be resolved as non-paradoxical?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

God is three and one at the same time.
Is this not illogical in human terms?

How is this illogical?

The law of non-contradiction states that "two contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense."

 

[Von]

[you]in the same sense[/you]."

Can you expand this further?

Just as a side: I sometimes wonder if it is the fact that english is my second language, that causes me to misunderstand certain statements...

 

[Ben Zartman]

Sorry, I must be missing something here...
Something that is three cannot (in human-logic terms) be one at the same time.
But,
God is three and one at the same time.
Is this not illogical in human terms?

Here is an example of an everyday object that is one and three at the same time: a piece of rope. It is one rope. It has three individual strands. Each strand is of the same substance as the others: it is all nylon. By itself it is nylon. But the three stands are one rope. No one says: "this is three separate ropes twisted together!" It is one rope in three strands.
I am not reducing the mystery of God to a piece of string, mind you: I'm simply showing that something that is three, in human logic terms, can one at the same time.

I think rather than concede that there are paradoxes in Scripture, we do better to concede that our finite minds cannot comprehend certain things. Rather than put something away in the closet of paradoxes as an inexplicable mystery, we should own that we simply cannot understand it and look forward to the day that we do, even if we have to wait for Glory. No doubt when we know as we are known, there will be nothing that even resembles a paradox or contradiction in the nature of God and of His work.

 

[RamistThomist]

Sorry, I must be missing something here...
Something that is three cannot (in human-logic terms) be one at the same time.
But,
God is three and one at the same time.
Is this not illogical in human terms?

They are not one in the same sense. Person isn't the same thing as nature.

 

[Von]

I think rather than concede that there are paradoxes in Scripture, we do better to concede that our finite minds cannot comprehend certain things.

Person isn't the same thing as nature.

Thank you. I'm starting to grasp the concept now even though it's wide and my arms are small.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sorry, I must be missing something here...
Something that is three cannot (in human-logic terms) be one at the same time.
But,
God is three and one at the same time.
Is this not illogical in human terms?

Contradictions exist when two statements are made that cannot both be true and not true in the same sense at the same time. Things properly true and not-true are necessarily mutually exclusive.

How then do we resolve the matter of God being one, yet God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are in fact God?

Enter categorical principles (the usual solution to so-called paradox in Scripture) related to essence and person. The three Persons of the Triune Godhead are God, the one and only God. God is one in essence, and three in person. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God; yet at the same time the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. The three Persons of the Godhead are consubstantial (of the same substance or essence) with one another, being both co-eternal, and coequal, such that there are not three gods, nor are there three parts of God.

If we have our thinking aright about these matters, we have nothing to fear from the oft-heard rejoinder of the Arian pointing to the Shema.