Van Til and paradox

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
The only question is at what level a doctrine becomes paradoxical. For we understand that we do not have exhaustive and without it then one will run into a paradox at some point.

Clark hasnt solved the question of God's sovereignty and human responsibility, he however places the mystery in the proper place, with God. That is nothing different than what Van Til does.

CT

So are you saying that man cannot resolve this paradox (only God can)?

Maybe all of this talk of paradoxes in scripture (that cannot be resolved by men) would be better discussed using an example.

Can someone present one of these paradoxes that men cannot resolve, and then we can argue using that example?

 

[Magma2]

Dr. R. Scot Clark wrote:

1) To start the broken record again, the centerpiece of CVT's theology, as with all the orthodox was the Creator/creature distinction. Many of his critics do not accept this distinction or apply it inconsistently. The analogue to that was the traditional distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology. We can never know what God knows the way he knows it. In that case our speech about God is always and only analogical. There must be paradoxes. We ought not be ashamed of them. Our salvation is paradoxical! We were saved by the shameful crucixion of God the Son on a Roman cross. Luther called this the theology of the cross. Paul called it the foolishess of the Gospel (1 Cor 1-2).

While the record may be broken, I hardly think your post answers any of the central questions raised by your response. As I see it the question is not whether we can know what God knows in the "œway he knows it," but rather whether or not we can know what God knows as He has revealed Himself in Scripture? It seems to me that you confuse both the *what* and the *how* of knowing. Nobody, GHC included, ever suggested that omniscience was necessary for knowledge to be possible. Conversely, VT has gone beyond orthodoxy in his application of the Creator/creature distinction and has rendered knowledge impossible. So let me ask, you say our speech concerning God is "œalways" analogical, so when we say God is Almighty, Lord, Sovereign, Immutable, Impassible, Omniscient, Omnipotent, etc., what exactly are these terms analogous to? Also, why do you say our salvation is paradoxical? It seems to me that the cross was absolutely necessary for any number of reasons, but most immediately in order that God "œmight be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." I don´t find this doctrine the least bit paradoxical or apparently contradictory in relation to the rest of Scripture. So please show me from Scripture where Paul said that the foolishness of the Gospel is apparently contradictory? Also, please show me where Paul teaches us that the Word of God is analogous and that there is no univocal point of contact between God´s thoughts revealed in Scripture and man´s thoughts as he comes to Scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit? Where does Paul, or any other biblical writer, tell us to "embrace with passion" contradictions while calling them only apparent?

2) Paradoxes have to considered and defined carefully. A paradox is not an absolute contradiction, i.e., not a contradiction for God.

How do you know? By an appeal to Scripture? Impossible, since, per VT (and evidently you) "œall teaching of Scripture is apparently contradictory." So how do you know there is "œno contradiction fo God"? Why not simply conclude, given your understanding of Scripture state above, that God is eternally confused? Further, how do you know that our inability to harmonize various teachings of Scripture is the result of our "œcreatureliness"? Since we will always be creatures it would seem to follow that the apparent contradictions of Scripture can never be resolved either here or in eternity. But how do you know that these apparent contradictions arise from our being creatures and not from our own blindness, ignorance or foolishness and how do you know the difference? By what method do you arrive at which is which? Further, and arguably most importantly, what method do you use to differentiate these apparent contradictions of Scripture from real ones? Is this all just the a matter of your say so or can the average person with his bible in his hand have access to this method?

There are no such things. Are there things we creatures cannot explain fully? Absolutely. The relations between the way God understands things and the way we understand them are properly called paradoxical. Attempts to resolve such paradoxes necessarily flow from or lead to rationalism (the identification of the human intellective faculty with the divine or the use of some created rationality to leverage divine revelation).

I think this is very revealing, if only to make my point. You say that "œAttempts to to resolve such paradoxes necessarily flow from or lead to rationalism," but how do you know? Define "œrationalism"? It seems to me you have just prejudiced any and all attempts to harmonize the teachings of Scripture, therefore all attempts at systemization is ipso facto "œrationalism." You seem to admit that all the teachings of Scripture cohere for God, then why would coherence be akin to rationalism for us as we attempt to systematize and harmonize the various teachings of Scripture? Didn´t God give us the Scriptures so that we might understand? Given what you´ve said, I guess not. In addition, it would seem to me that if Scriptures are not logically harmonious, then the veracity of Scripture comes into question since the Confession asserts that the "œconsent of the parts" is one of the central evidences of Scripture´s truthfulness for the meaning of Scripture is "œnot manifold, but one."

3) I don't see any necessary logical connection between CVT and the FV.

. . . The attempt to tag CVT with causal responsibility for the FV is unhistorical and grounded in a series of false assumptions and conclusions drawn from those assumptions.

I disagree since you´ve affirmed many of those same assumptions. Unless you think your own assumptions are similarly false, I think the connection is there for all to see. John Frame said; "œthe doctrine of justification by faith incorporates the paradox of divine sovereignty. The doctrine of justification by faith "“ when fully explained in its relations to the rest of Scriptural truth "“ is just as paradoxical as divine sovereignty." Note carefully, the doctrine of justification is just as paradoxical and contradictory as any other Biblical doctrine in the Vantilian anti-system. Also, note how it is that we come to a paradoxical view of justification. Paradoxes arise precisely when we attempt to explain a doctrine in relation "œto rest of Scriptural truth." For the Vantilian, the doctrine of justification is as resistant to logical harmonization as are all other Biblical doctrines. This is the connection between Van Til´s doctrine of revelation and the current heresies over justification and other doctrines that have emerged in Presbyterian churches. Consequently, it is not surprising to see Frame (and Van Til before him) defending Norm Shepherd and even assuring us that the doctrine of the active righteousness of Christ is a debatable point. Why wouldn´t it be? Since the doctrine of justification is as paradoxical and apparently contradictory as any other doctrine in Scripture, on what basis can you judge a man like Shepherd who both affirms and denies the doctrine of justification by belief alone? Why shouldn´t we conclude that Shepherd has incorporated the paradox of justification in his understanding of justification?

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Paul manata
I mean, c'mon, these are not resolutions. (note: all of the above were not examples of paradoxes for me, just illustrating the rather silly way Clark engages in "resolution."

Good Paul, this is exactly my point. Does not Van Til say that these paradoxes can NOT be reconcile using human logic? If you have, then you do not side with VT. (Correct me if I am not accessing him correctly).

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by Paul manata
I mean, c'mon, these are not resolutions. (note: all of the above were not examples of paradoxes for me, just illustrating the rather silly way Clark engages in "resolution."

Good Paul, this is exactly my point. Does not Van Til say that these paradoxes can NOT be reconcile using human logic? If you have, then you do not side with VT. (Correct me if I am not accessing him correctly).

Which ones?

Van Til would say that there may certainly be cases where God could give us the information, and thus we could see it resolved.

I do "side" with Van Til. I mean, let's say that I have some differences with him on the details, I still "side" with him. Do you believe *everything* Clark teaches? *Everything* Calvin teaches (note: you can't since they contradict eachother )? Even when you do agree, do you agree with every detail? Can't people believe basically the same, but differ in how they argue/apply/etc the situation?

Furthermore, I've already vindicated Van Til from the charge of irrationality. My arguments have not been addressed and refuted.

What's going on here is that people are being rebutted, then they pick on a detail, when that get's answered they don;t say, "hmm, okay I was wrong there," but rather they bring up another detail, etc.

It seems like you guys are grasping at straws just to find one area where I don't answer properly and then you'll jump on that, even though you left the meat over to the side and fought just for a scrape.

I'm not "grasping at straws", I am trying to discuss. Seriously...can I have an example of a paradox that man is not meant to resolve?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
The only question is at what level a doctrine becomes paradoxical. For we understand that we do not have exhaustive and without it then one will run into a paradox at some point.

Clark hasnt solved the question of God's sovereignty and human responsibility, he however places the mystery in the proper place, with God. That is nothing different than what Van Til does.

CT

So are you saying that man cannot resolve this paradox (only God can)?

If by solve it means incorporate all the biblical data and all the implications of that data, then no it cannot be solved. Perhaps one person can go farther than another but solved completely, no.

Maybe all of this talk of paradoxes in scripture (that cannot be resolved by men) would be better discussed using an example.

Can someone present one of these paradoxes that men cannot resolve, and then we can argue using that example?

Lets stick with God's sovereignty and human responsibility, and once we solve it move on to something else.

CT

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
The only question is at what level a doctrine becomes paradoxical. For we understand that we do not have exhaustive and without it then one will run into a paradox at some point.

Clark hasnt solved the question of God's sovereignty and human responsibility, he however places the mystery in the proper place, with God. That is nothing different than what Van Til does.

CT

So are you saying that man cannot resolve this paradox (only God can)?

If by solve it means incorporate all the biblical data and all the implications of that data, then no it cannot be solved. Perhaps one person can go farther than another but solved completely, no.

Ok. This is not what I think of when I think of "solving" the paradox. When I say "solve" it, I mean that it is no longer appearantly contradictory. This does not mean omniscience.

The sovereignty/responsibility "paradox" isn't a paradox in my mind, but maybe you can formulate what you mean when you say "but solved completely, no". With regards to the sovereignty/responsibility "paradox", what deducable statements can man NOT resolve (i.e. they will always be paradoxical to all man, not just for some)?

 

[a mere housewife]

How can God take no pleasure in the death of the wicked and yet inspire the Psalmist to write that happy is he who takes the little babies of the wicked and dashes them against the stones? How could He sob over the judgment of Jerusalem when that judgment was His own justice and power displayed, to His own glory? How can the eternally blessed God sob at all? How can the eternally self-existent One die? How can the Triune God, forsake God? (I won't believe anyone who says they've solved that one)

I'm glad that Christianity is not so flat that it cannot contain what to a limited mind will be an apparent contradiction, that my God is not so little that He cannot hold in perfect harmony things a finite, contingent mind cannot fully grasp and reconcile.

"œO the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Jeff,

Do you "part ways" with Clark?

If not, then your "resolution" is that "God said man is responsible."

But no one disagrees with that. That's not where the debate lies.

If someone thinks saying "God said man is responsible" counts as a "resolution" then I got ocean front property in Arizona to sell ya.

Paul,

We've gone round and round on this. Again, I will be happy to debate this with you (maybe we can even dedicate a new thread to it!), but it does no good to this debate if you admit this paradox CAN be resolved by man. Our differences lie in the paradoxes that only God can resolve. If this is one of them, please let me know, but you said in the other thread that this was NOT a paradox for you.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Paul manata
The Clarkian says we can find out and understand God's ways, otherwise revelation is irrational.

Quote me please. :bigsmile:

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Paul manata
I didn't say that.

Originally posted by Paul manata
I mean, c'mon, these are not resolutions. (note: all of the above were not examples of paradoxes for me, just illustrating the rather silly way Clark engages in "resolution."

Originally posted by Paul manata
But, I'm happy to leave it here, since you're now admitting that there's paradox in Scripture, even if we've now or can resolve them.

I do not deny that there are things in scripture that APPEAR to contradict, but I don't see this as the crux of the issue. Rather, the crux of the issue as I see it is the paradoxes that man's logic can NOT resolve (not due to sin, but due to the logic or lack of information given to him).

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by a mere housewife
How can God take no pleasure in the death of the wicked and yet inspire the Psalmist to write that happy is he who takes the little babies of the wicked and dashes them against the stones? How could He sob over the judgment of Jerusalem when that judgment was His own justice and power displayed, to His own glory? How can the eternally blessed God sob at all? How can the eternally self-existent One die? How can the Triune God, forsake God? (I won't believe anyone who says they've solved that one)

I'm glad that Christianity is not so flat that it cannot contain what to a limited mind will be an apparent contradiction, that my God is not so little that He cannot hold in perfect harmony things a finite, contingent mind cannot fully grasp and reconcile.

"œO the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"

Heidi,

Good examples. Thank you for providing them. So then are these the famous unresolvable (by man) paradoxes? I do not believe that they are unresolvable by man, and in fact, men have went to great lengths to show that they are not contradictory, even to man.

I will try to address them tomorrow, but until then, I will say that I believe that Mr. McMahon does a fine job in his volume "The Two Wills of God" in showing that they are not, in fact, contradictory to man. I would recommend this book everyone.

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Jeff,

Do you "part ways" with Clark?

If not, then your "resolution" is that "God said man is responsible."

But no one disagrees with that. That's not where the debate lies.

If someone thinks saying "God said man is responsible" counts as a "resolution" then I got ocean front property in Arizona to sell ya.

You better start digging that ocean, cuz "God holds man responsible is" what Scripture says. And and it says that God is sovereign over all things, then we have two coherent statements. Nothing in these two statements is a contradiction. Case closed. Get out you shovel.

:bigsmile:

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Anthony,

I've been over this above. Take a breath and re-read the thread:
....
yada yada yad
.....

I'll have to bow out of this discussion unless something interesting gets brought up, translated Q --> P.



[Edited on 5-24-2006 by Paul manata]

Until you can explain how we can embrace contradictions that are unresolvable by man, then Van Til is still un-vindicated. If you want to say that Van Til did not mean for us to embrace unresolved contradictions, or that he was wrong to suggest otherwise, then you've left Van Til undefended.

Better yet, is to get away from all this "paradoxical" language. It was a terrible idea to start with, and Van Til would have been better off without it. He said many good things, and we can agree on those things. Pushing he (apparently) irrational positions is bad theology and worse apologetics. I'm all for stressing Van Til's solid statements affirming the non-contradictory truth of Scripture, and that God made man in his image, to know and understand His Word. Van Til seemed to say a lot of good solid rational things in the post from Chris, and since I do want to give VT some credit, then that's what I'd like to see done. All it takes is for some Vantillians to admit that Van Til was not always clear, and this whole paradox business was a bad idea.

Don't you want to emphasis the agreements between Clark and Van Til? Or are you only interested in defending Van Til at all cost. Isn't there anything you think Van Til said that was wrong?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Oooo, yeah, us Van Tillians never knew that.

The question has been: how can God be sovereign and man be a responsible free agent???

We all know Scripture says that, I think that's why people have said there's a paradox.

So, the Clarkian comes here and just restates the problem, calls it a resolution, and then pats himself on the back.

These threads are priceless!

Paul, you never stated the problem. You said "The question has been: how can God be sovereign and man be a responsible free agent???"

Well what do you mean by free agent. And what does that have to do with being responsible.

I see you are almost slipping in the non-biblical premise, but it's still fuzzy. Once you make the problem clear, then the non-biblical cause of the problem will be apparent.

So flesh it out. What is the problem with God's sovereignty and man being a "responsible free agent". Clarify the contradiction.

And Explain the biblical basis for all your premises. What is the biblical basis for saying man is a "free agent" and what does that mean. You should be able to break it all down into propositional forms that show the contradiction, and give scriptural evidence for all your premises.

Remember, each premise must be be clearly biblical.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by Paul manata
Anthony,

I've been over this above. Take a breath and re-read the thread:
....
yada yada yad
.....

I'll have to bow out of this discussion unless something interesting gets brought up, translated Q --> P.



[Edited on 5-24-2006 by Paul manata]

Until you can explain how we can embrace contradictions that are unresolvable by man, then Van Til is still un-vindicated. If you want to say that Van Til did not mean for us to embrace unresolved contradictions, or that he was wrong to suggest otherwise, then you've left Van Til undefended.

Better yet, is to get away from all this "paradoxical" language. It was a terrible idea to start with, and Van Til would have been better off without it. He said many good things, and we can agree on those things. Pushing he (apparently) irrational positions is bad theology and worse apologetics. I'm all for stressing Van Til's solid statements affirming the non-contradictory truth of Scripture, and that God made man in his image, to know and understand His Word. Van Til seemed to say a lot of good solid rational things in the post from Chris, and since I do want to give VT some credit, then that's what I'd like to see done. All it takes is for some Vantillians to admit that Van Til was not always clear, and this whole paradox business was a bad idea.

Don't you want to emphasis the agreements between Clark and Van Til? Or are you only interested in defending Van Til at all cost. Isn't there anything you think Van Til said that was wrong?

Honestly, I see this as a cop out. I don't see a "defend Van Til at all costs" but a disagreement on the core of man's capacity.

You want Van Tillians to abandon the idea that man's knowledge is analagous to God's due to the Creator-creature distinction. Then, and only then, would they be able to meet you.

Frankly, all I see is silly name-calling repeated over and over: "You embrace contradictions...you embrace contradictions...you embrace contradictions..."

When pressed on the extent of your knowledge, and ability to plum the depths you seem to jump back and forth about whether there is anything that might be paradox. Your solution, to me, is unacceptable: I must change the premises from what I think Scripture has presented until I am satisfied, by reason, that no apparent contradictions exist anymore. Alternatively, I must admit I know nothing for sure about either proposition because Scripture doesn't give me enough information to form premises that don't appear to contradict.

I'm therefore left with the rule that I must keep pushing premises to remove the paradox of God's sovereignty and human responsibility or I must admit I know nothing of either because I was only able to form premises that appeared to contradict given the Biblical data.

Neither solution above is acceptable so you can heap the "You embrace contradictions..." at Van Tillians all you want but I'd rather admit myself a creature then believe it's up to me to resolve all apparent contradictions or know nothing at all. God's thoughts and ways are completely "searchable" or we know nothing - baloney.

In short, you call Van Tillians to abandon their stance that man's knowledge is analagous as a creature but you offer no credible alternative in its stead to embrace. This is my conclusion as somebody who has never considered himself a "died in the wool" Van Tillian...

[Edited on 5-24-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Paul manata
So, if we want to agree that attacking Van Til will get you nowhere, because your attacks are false and misinformed, and that Van Til was not the irrationalist that men like Robbins say he is, then I'm all down with that.

Yes I see that any criticism Van Til will get me no where with you. You are a die-hard Vantillian, and any criticism of Van Til is a call to arms.

I can't agree to say Van Til was not an irrationalist until his personal contradictions are resolved. Simply defending each and every position he appeared to take will only lead to more unresolved contradictions - as this thread has clearly demonstrated. The dogmatic defense of Van Til, does not help the cause, and Van Til would be the first to say so. He'd say that if anything he taught was later shown to be false or unhelpful, then reject it. You can excuse yourself by blaming the Van Til bashers all you want, but it won't help resolve Van Til's issues. There are far too many things that Van Til said (or seemed to say) that were contradictory. Just read some of the paper given by his more rational defenders like Frame. Clearly, there is a lot to be desired in Van Til's apologetics. And I'd hope that a rational person like you might want to jettison the bad stuff and stick with the good.

Otherwise, you appear to be a Vantillian worshiper, who does not think Van Til can ever go wrong. (Even Van Til seemed to suffer from this attitude - "darn the torpedo's, full steam ahead". We can never admit fault or weakness. Better to slander you opponents and make fun of them, then try to fix the apparent problems in our system.

I enjoy this hyperbole stuff you've introduced me too. I should use it more often. Never seriously address your opponents questions and remarks, just laugh at them and turn it all around on them. Very productive.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Shameful? There was nothing shameful about Christ's sacrifice to save us. It was necessary.

With all due respect, the point has been missed.

Surely we all agree that Jesus was ritually humiliated, (we do after all, speak of the humiliation of the Son [Inst 2.11.12; 2.16.17] as one of the states of his existence beginning with the incarnation) regarded and treated as a criminal. This is the point of Phil 2 and the traditional Reformed interpretation of the Carmen Christi.

He conquered death through death (1 Cor 15) - that's paradoxical! Just when it appeared to all, even the Evil One, that God the Son had been defeated by sin and death, Jesus the righteous and suffering servant was in the process of conquering sin and death, through becoming sin and enduring a bitter death for us! (John 3:14; John 12:32-33)

He was cursed b/c he was hanged on a tree (Gal 3:13).

He became (or was made to be) sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21)

Christ crucified was a skandalon to the Jews (1 Cor 1:21) because the cross was a social stigma and deeply offensive to them. It represented Roman oppression but also the humiliation of the victim and guilt.

The whole argument about the gospel being foolishness in 1 Cor relies on the notion that the cross was socially shameful and the paradox is that God used what we regard as shameful and beneath his dignity -- this is exactly the argument used by rationalist Jewish critics to defame Christianity in the early church to which we had to respond by appeal to paradox! This is the basis for Luther's theology of the cross which is fundamental to all Protestant theology -- to redeem his people and reverse their fortunes, just as the flood seemed an unlilkely way to redeem and reverse or marching around Jericho etc.

The whole history of redemption is full of paradoxes. God continued the line of the covenant through Tamar's deception, through the faith of a prostitute manifested in a lie, Abraham's offer to ritually sacrifice his son, and through the conversion and subsequent ministry of a Christ-hating pharisee.

These are paradoxes, are they not?

Is there nothing about the faith that we cannot explain exhaustively to the satisfaction of any rational man?

Can we really explain exactly how Jesus is one person with two natures without being two persons or one nature or exactly how God is one God in three persons without being one person or three Gods or how God can be sovereign and we morally responsible (and all these with no contradiction within or for God)? I'm not asking whether we can say true things. That is not in question. What is in question is whether for creatures there are paradoxes, things about which we, because finitum non capax infiniti, must say apparently mutually contradictory things?

To deny that this is the case, seems to me, to verge on denying the biblical doctrine of divine-human relations and the Creator/creature distinction.

I understand that there are two fixed schools in this dispute. Once again I point readers to my essay in the Strimple festschrift (see the p&r website).

I dispute the claim that CVT's doctrine of analogy is not traditional. See the essay in the Strimple festschrift where I think I proved that it is, unless makes Thomas' neo-Platonic version of analogy "traditional."

The Reformation was not, as has often been wrongly claimed, a war against Aristotle as much as it was a war against Plato's ontological theology. It was a re-assertion of the Creator/creature distinction, that we do not have be God or become God (contra Thomas) for their to be true knowledge of God by creatures.

The Reformation was a rejection of ontic or intellectual intersection with God. We aren't going to be absorbed into the deity, contra Catherine of Sienna or Meister Eckhardt et al.

rsc

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Shameful? There was nothing shameful about Christ's sacrifice to save us. It was necessary.

With all due respect, the point has been missed.

Dr. Clark,

Consider my "shameful" comments withdrawn. Your other comments where more to the point. I'm not skipping the rest or your post, just withdrawing that one point I made about "shameful" as unimportant and don't want to waste your time with it.

Thanks.

 

[Civbert]

Dr. Clark,

Thank you for your calm approach and thoughtful comments.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Shameful? There was nothing shameful about Christ's sacrifice to save us. It was necessary.

With all due respect, the point has been missed.

I concede that point.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Surely we all agree that Jesus was ritually humiliated, (we do after all, speak of the humiliation of the Son [Inst 2.11.12; 2.16.17] as one of the states of his existence beginning with the incarnation) regarded and treated as a criminal. This is the point of Phil 2 and the traditional Reformed interpretation of the Carmen Christi.

He conquered death through death (1 Cor 15) - that's paradoxical!

It's amazing, wonderful, extraordinary. But paradoxical is not the word I would use, because we can understand the requirements, and see why he had to die in order to give us to have salvation. It makes sense, even if at first blush it seems crazy. And to the unbeliever, it will seem foolish because he does not accept the Scriptures.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Just when it appeared to all, even the Evil One, that God the Son had been defeated by sin and death, Jesus the righteous and suffering servant was in the process of conquering sin and death, through becoming sin and enduring a bitter death for us! (John 3:14; John 12:32-33)

He was cursed b/c he was hanged on a tree (Gal 3:13).

He became (or was made to be) sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21)

The Gospel is an amazing thing! That God would deem to go through all that, to redeem us, who merit only His wrath. I would not take anything away from that.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Christ crucified was a skandalon to the Jews (1 Cor 1:21) because the cross was a social stigma and deeply offensive to them. It represented Roman oppression but also the humiliation of the victim and guilt.

The whole argument about the gospel being foolishness in 1 Cor relies on the notion that the cross was socially shameful and the paradox is that God used what we regard as shameful and beneath his dignity -- this is exactly the argument used by rationalist Jewish critics to defame Christianity in the early church to which we had to respond by appeal to paradox!....

No doubt to the Jew this was true. Although I thought it was the Greeks who we're considered rationalist. (But again that's an aside, I have not major disagreement with you here.)

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
....This is the basis for Luther's theology of the cross which is fundamental to all Protestant theology -- to redeem his people and reverse their fortunes, just as the flood seemed an unlikely way to redeem and reverse or marching around Jericho etc.

The whole history of redemption is full of paradoxes. God continued the line of the covenant through Tamar's deception, through the faith of a prostitute manifested in a lie, Abraham's offer to ritually sacrifice his son, and through the conversion and subsequent ministry of a Christ-hating pharisee.

These are paradoxes, are they not?

Not really. If you mean is it something that seems amazing at face, sure. If you mean it seems extraordinary - I agree. But calling them paradoxes is confusing. I understand what you are saying, but others will think you mean this is all irrational and totally beyond or ability to understand at any level. But the Christian faith is rational, not just for God, but for his elect. These things that were mysteries have been revealed to us. We can understand them, if only at a basic level. Each of these things had a purpose. To show us that God's love for us has nothing to do with our personal merit - he can convert a "Christ-hating pharisee" to use to His glory - to show that He can forgive any sin, and change any heart, and use any person to His glory. That's not a paradox. It makes sense.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Is there nothing about the faith that we cannot explain exhaustively to the satisfaction of any rational man?

Some things are hard to understand, some are easy. The important things are clear, the less important are less clear. Some things we'd like answers to, God does not provide in his Word. What He does give us, is perfectly sufficient for "His own glory, man´s salvation, faith, and life" (WCF 1:6). If we can't figure it out because it "is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (WCF 1:6) then it's not something we need to know.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Can we really explain exactly how Jesus is one person with two natures without being two persons or one nature or exactly how God is one God in three persons without being one person or three Gods or how God can be sovereign and we morally responsible (and all these with no contradiction within or for God)?

Yes. We may not have the perfect answer, but these things can be explained reasonably. Maybe they are hard things to understand, but they are not beyond us because we have the "mind of Christ".

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
I'm not asking whether we can say true things. That is not in question. What is in question is whether for creatures there are paradoxes, things about which we, because finite non capax infiniti, must say apparently mutually contradictory things?

No, there are no mutually contradictory things. This is a logical fallacy. It's basic logic on the most fundamental level. There is nothing we correctly understand in God's Word that is, or can lead to a contradiction. And since that is the case, then we know that anything we determine to be a contradiction, must not be from God's Word. (This is one of the reason we have systematic theology, because Christianity is a rational system of thought.) It is our mistake in understanding that creates artifical contradictions. The logic is easy, the understanding is the hard part. We may not be able to understand some things, but we can say without reservation, that nothing that is Scripture is a contradiction. Not only does finitum non capax infiniti not make any contradictions necessary from a logical point of view, but the inerrancy of Scripture rules out all together.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
To deny that this is the case, seems to me, to verge on denying the biblical doctrine of divine-human relations and the Creator/creature distinction.

To assert that seems to be on the verge of denying the inerrancy of Scripture and the power of the Holy Spirit and the Word as a means of knowledge about God and all things necessary.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
I understand that there are two fixed schools in this dispute. Once again I point readers to my essay in the Strimple festschrift (see the p&r website).

I dispute the claim that CVT's doctrine of analogy is not traditional. See the essay in the Strimple festschrift where I think I proved that it is, unless makes Thomas' neo-Platonic version of analogy "traditional."

I'll see if I can find it. Whether is "traditional" is an interesting question. It doesn't tell us if it's correct, but we all know that.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
The Reformation was not, as has often been wrongly claimed, a war against Aristotle as much as it was a war against Plato's ontological theology. It was a re-assertion of the Creator/creature distinction, that we do not have be God or become God (contra Thomas) for their to be true knowledge of God by creatures.

I agree, all that is need is for God to give us knowledge of Himself.

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
The Reformation was a rejection of ontic or intellectual intersection with God. We aren't going to be absorbed into the deity, contra Catherine of Sienna or Meister Eckhardt et al.

Not sure what that means, "intellectual intersection". Clearly there is no ontic intersection, but we do know God's thoughts because He speaks to us through his Word. The stress on the creator/creature separation seems overdone. We have God's Word, we have the mind of Christ. If we can know anything at all, it's the things God has revealed to us in His Word. I think you would agree.



[Edited on 5-24-2006 by Civbert]

[Edited on 5-24-2006 by Civbert]

 

[Arch2k]

It seems to me that there might be some unclear usage of the term "paradox." We need to be CLEAR.

According to Gary Crampton in his article
Does the Bible Contain Paradox?, there are two types of paradox:

According to Kenneth S. Kantzer, editor of Christianity Today, there are two sorts of paradoxes: rhetorical and logical. The former is "a figure used to shed light on a topic by challenging the reason of another and thus startling him"(Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 826, 827; Robert L. Reymond, Preach The Word! 31, 32). The Bible dearly contains rhetorical paradox (compare Matthew 10:29; John 11:25,26; 2 Corinthians 6:9,10).

Logical paradoxes, however, are altogether different. Here we have a situation where an assertion (or two or three assertions) is self-contradictory, or at least seems to be so. One way or the other the assertion cannot possibly be reconciled before the bar of human reason. The hypostatic union of the divine and human natures in the one person of Jesus Christ, unconditional election and the free offer of the Gospel, and God´s sovereignty and man s responsibility, are examples set forth by the advocates of biblical (logical) paradox.

The first type of paradox I accept, the second I do not.

If Crampton's assessment is consistent with that of Clark, then it is clear that Clark would not have disagreed with all forms of paradox, but would reject the form that are unable to be resolved by human reason.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Anthony,

Did you miss the part where I said that the question is not whether we can say true things, revealed things (theologia ectypa)?

Yes, we can and must confess the revealed truth, all of it, concerning the Trinity and the two natures, but those truths are sometimes in apparent tension.

This tension is inherent to finitude. If we didn't experience mystery and paradox we wouldn't be humans or creatures. My wife is a mystery to me! My children are a mystery to me. I am a bear of very little brain and what little still works does not intersect with God's at any point. On this see the Strimple festschrift. See Horton's Covenant and Eschatology.

For God there is no paradox, but he (to the best of my knowledge) has not revealed everything there is to know. For example, God is fully present in Tokyo and Berlin repletively. How can that be? I can't say. God doesn't say. He simply says that he is and it's true. God is absolutely sovereign and causally comprehends all things in his decree yet I make apparently uncoerced free decisions. How can that be? These things are no surprise or mystery to God, for whom there is no mystery, but they are difficult for us.

I don't think that if you or I typed for a million years we could say EXACTLY how the two natures relate. What is revealed, however, is that Christ is one person in two natures. They are not confused or separated. After that, there isn't much we can say (except to elaborate on the implications and to deny heresy) but there's much that God knows that he cannot tell us without killing us.

This is because we cannot know God in himself. Even Thomas knew that. ALL our theologians confess that (except for Prof. Frame!).

That's why Calvin spoke of God's "accommodation." We've done whole threads on this.

We only know God as he reveals himself.

Thus we experience epistemic limits.

Please read the essay in the Strimple festschrift and read Van Asselt's essay on theologia archetypa et ecytypa in the Westminster Theological Journal. He's not a partisan in the Clark-Van Til debates.

Finally, I can't see how this touches on inerrancy/infallibility unless one concludes that to disagree on exegesis entails denial of infallibility/inerrancy. That would seem to be a non sequitur.

Whatever God's Word says, it says infallibly/inerrantly, but one's interpretation is not inspired and infallible etc. That's an axiom of Reformed theology.

Cheers,

rsc

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Definition

The OED says:

1. Rhetoric. A figure of speech consisting of a conclusion or apodosis contrary to what the audience has been led to expect.

2.a. An apparently absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition, or a strongly counter-intuitive one, which investigation, analysis, or explanation may nevertheless prove to be well-founded or true.

2b. A proposition or statement that is (taken to be) actually self-contradictory, absurd, or intrinsically unreasonable.

2c. Logic. More fully logical paradox. An argument, based on (apparently) acceptable premisses and using (apparently) valid reasoning, which leads to a conclusion that is against sense, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory; the conclusion of such an argument. Freq. with a descriptive or eponymous name.

I think I'm using paradox in the sense of 2a, though 1 also accords with biblical revelation. I don't see why they are not complementary.

There is no question that everything can be resolved in God's intellect.

The question is whether everything can possibly be resolved by the exercise of the human intellect.

There is no question that God has revealed himself and that we can and must know that revelation. That revelation, however, cannot be identified wholly with God's self-knowledge or archetypal (natural and free) knowledge.

It is a fact that our Reformed forefathers spoke of God's revelation as analogical. That is patently obvious in Junius and Polanus and Wollebius to name but three.

I am not jealous for the term paradox.

I'm only looking for a way to account for and protect the unique and inviolate knowledge that God has that cannot be had by creatures, i.e., the Creator/creature distinction.

rsc

 

[Civbert]

Dr. Clark,

I appreciate your considerate response.

Although I agree with much of what you say in your reply, God is in the details. Maybe it would help if I give you the nut-shell version of what I think is the essential difference between GHC and CVT.

I think it's fair to say that one of the differences between Van Til and Gordon Clark was in their conception of man's knowledge. Where Van Til seem to say there was a qualitative as well as quantitative difference between God's knowledge and mans', Clark said that the difference was essentially quantitative. (This is oversimplified, but it illustrates the key point).

In Van Til's system, there is no overlap between God's knowledge and mans'. What man knows is a shadow or God's knowledge. For Clark, it is impossible to know anything and it not be the same as God's knowledge. For God knows all true propositions, all true propositions are God's thoughts by definition - because God is omniscient.

If man can know any true propositions, it must be what God knows. To say we can know the truth, but not know the same truth that God knows, is a contradiction. If X is true, and you know X, it is the same X God knows.

That we know what God knows, and not some shadow or reflection means we do have intellectual overlap with God's mind. Indeed, there are epistemic limits, our minds have a limited capacity and ability to carry out all the necessary implications and hold all the knowledge God knows. But when we see a contradiction (a violation of the law of non-contradiction) then we know that without question that some proposition in question is false. It's really quite simple.

All true propositions are known to God.
Man can know true propositions.
Therefore, man can know propositions that God knows.

It's not complicated. There are differences in "how" we know, and "how much" we know. But it's clear that if knowledge is available to the Christian, then it must be the same thoughts God knows. The alternative is we really don't have knowledge, which is irrational, unbiblical, and a rejection of the inerrancy of Scripture.

The connection with the inerrancy of Scripture is apparent. If we can not know anything without error, we can not know Scripture. And if that is the case, Scripture is not God's inerrant revelation to man, for mans knowledge, but it is a shadow of God's knowledge. The shadow can not be knowledge from God. It is neither true or false because it has no univocal true meaning.

I did find your comments on what we can "say" a new twist on the subject - but I'm only interested in what we can know. Please let me know where you think I am in error. I hope you can explain it in simple terms too (that is, with limited technical jargon) so we can all try to understand what you are saying.

Also, could you please tell me where I can get the "Strimple festschrift".

Thanks,

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Anthony,

Look at the P&R website. www.prpublications.com

I have to beg off now too much work.

Wir sein Pettler, hoc est verum.

rsc

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Civbert
Also, could you please tell me where I can get the "Strimple festschrift".

I've searched on P&R's website, and can find no results. I am interested as well.

 

[Magma2]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Anthony,

Look at the P&R website. www.prpublications.com

I have to beg off now too much work.

Wir sein Pettler, hoc est verum.

rsc

I take it that you either missed my questions to you on the previous page, or you've chosen not to provide answers to the questions I've raised, or you simply cannot answer (which is par for the course for Van Tilians I've come in contact with over the last decade). Without a further response, I'm leaning toward the last option - despite all of Manata´s posturing and chest thumping.

[Edited on 5-25-2006 by Magma2]

 

[Magma2]

Originally posted by Paul manata
Gerety writes,

So how do you know there is "œno contradiction fo God"?

Seriously, how many times does this question need to get beaten down.

Pages ago we left this bleeding on the street. back then you should have put a tourniquet on it, it's too late now, it bled to death.

I think I understand the tactic. ignore refutation and keep asking the same question and hope you'll trip up the tired suspected criminal. Once a confession is forced, run to the media and dance about how you "cracked" the Van Tillian.

Good stuff!

Seriously, I would love to see that question beaten down once. But all I get is a bunch of double-talk, evasions and posturing complete with endless boasting that this has been answered and the objection refuted (I'm learning this is the heart of your m.o. Paul). in my opinion you wouldn't know what a refutation entails if it bit you in the putickis. So, assuming I missed your brilliant post, please reprint your answer or provide a link so I can see it for myself. For what it's worth, given your contradictory methodology and theology, I don't think you can provide an coherent, much less biblical, response. Don't feel bad, I'm confident the professor can't either. However, I have a hard time believing that even his first year philosophy students haven't brought up the questions I´ve raised a thousand times over. Maybe that´s his broken records, which is hardly a replacement for sound, biblical answers. It´s always possible that his students are more worried about getting a good grade then ruffling the good profs feathers. Ya think?

Hey, Paul, while you´re at it, please provide the method by which you can determine an apparent biblical contradiction from a real one? Thanks in advance.

 

[Magma2]

Originally posted by a mere housewife
How can God take no pleasure in the death of the wicked and yet inspire the Psalmist to write that happy is he who takes the little babies of the wicked and dashes them against the stones? How could He sob over the judgment of Jerusalem when that judgment was His own justice and power displayed, to His own glory? How can the eternally blessed God sob at all? How can the eternally self-existent One die? How can the Triune God, forsake God? (I won't believe anyone who says they've solved that one)

I'm glad that Christianity is not so flat that it cannot contain what to a limited mind will be an apparent contradiction, that my God is not so little that He cannot hold in perfect harmony things a finite, contingent mind cannot fully grasp and reconcile.

"œO the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"

I suggest you search some good commentaries since all the difficulties you raise have been harmonized with the rest of Scripture and, I might add, very satisfactorily. Good exegesis is the key to the right understanding of the passages you allude to. The Confessional principle is that the "œinfallible" interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself; what the Puritans (not to be confused with modern Van Tilians who have more in common with Karl Barth) called the analogy of faith. Of course, if you take joy and religious solace in incoherence and an unintelligible revelation, please don´t search any further.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Magma2
Don't feel bad, I'm confident the professor can't either. However, I have a hard time believing that even his first year philosophy students haven't brought up the questions I´ve raised a thousand times over. Maybe that´s his broken records, which is hardly a replacement for sound, biblical answers. It´s always possible that his students are more worried about getting a good grade then ruffling the good profs feathers. Ya think?

How is any of this relevant to the topic at hand Sean? Respect your elders! Stick to the issue.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Ok. I would be curious to investigate this allegation further. I've heard people argue that Vantil believed there were contradictions or paradoxes in theology. Some argue this is the basis for Federal Vision thinking. I would like to explore this allegation of paradox.

Is this allegation true?

Thread rules:
1) Use PRIMARY sources to prove or disprove the allegation.
2) Charity brothers!!! Stick to this particular issue. No ad homs against Van Til or each other.

Sooo....back to the scheduled programming. I did 1) and we're slipping on #2...so how about a further question to get the ball bouncing....

From what I can tell following this thread, the claims against Van Til regarding paradox/irrationality/neo-orthodoxy etc. (despite sources that counter it) all hinge on the debate between Clark and Van Til on the incomprehensibility of God. Round and round we go discussing God's knowledge and man's and whether they intersect as an explanation/solution to the issues at hand.

Does anyone want to provide *primary source* material that could shed some light (not heat) to the matter?