Home » Academics » Lecture Hall

A Backpack, Not a Fort: Theology for the Journey of Life

Looks Like a Duck, Quacks Like a Duck …

I shun paradox and I advocate a skeptical and forbearing biblicism, one that wrestles with problems until they are solved and that does not quit.

I do not believe that the resolution of theological paradox is possible only for an Omniscient God. To untie difficult doctrinal knots, one need not know everything; one only needs to have true and sufficient knowledge. Insight is required, not omniscience. The fact that we do not possess infinite understanding does not, of itself, mean that paradoxes are unresolvable. Though such resolutions might be quite difficult to find, and quite time consuming as well, I believe they can be identified (if not here, then hereafter) when we know more things, even if we don’t know all things. In other words, we require more hard work, more perseverance, clearer thinking, and more data to disentangle ourselves from our theological dilemmas, not all possible knowledge.

When I speak of paradox, you, the reader, should understand that I speak of actual logical contradiction. I give no place here to the idea of "apparent contradiction," which I consider a dangerous self-deception and an intellectual no-man's land. When two or more ideas appear contradictory, they must be considered to be contradictory until they are shown not to be. That is, things are normally to be thought of as what they seem to be unless, and until, it can be shown that the appearances are actually misleading.

"Apparent contradiction" and "unresolved paradox" too often are euphemisms — smokescreens — for the authentic contradictions we refuse to acknowledge because, were we to recognize them as genuine, we would be forced to admit that we were wrong. In theology, as in other academic disciplines, we must beware of every euphemism.

Put differently, I consider the category of "apparent contradiction" usually baseless and useless, at best, and downright misleading and deceptive, at worst. Ideas can be labeled "apparent contradictions" (and not "actual contradictions") only if we can, in fact, reconcile or harmonize them. If we could do that, however, they probably would no longer appear contradictory.

Paradox, Piety, Sleight-of-Hand, and Tyranny

In some readers' minds, the question might arise, does not Paul himself hunker down in — even glory in — unresolved paradox in passages like Romans 11:33ff? No, he does not. Paul's point is not that God's ways are paradoxical or that somehow they are without explanation — he has just spent three chapters explaining them. His point is that God's ways are not fully known by us, but, based upon what we do know of them, are worthy of our praise nevertheless. He is not saying that God’s ways are paradoxical or contradictory. But they are surpassingly wonderful.

While I stand firmly against any theological position that enshrines a paradox (and then falsely pietizes this error by reminding us that we walk by faith and not by sight), I am equally opposed to any attempt to resolve it improperly. For example, some theologians label the relationship between divine sovereignty, on the one hand, and human responsibility and freedom, on the other, a paradox. All too often, they attempt to resolve this difficulty by means of an exegetical sleight-of-hand.

Some of the Calvinists and Arminians I have seen in action identify those biblical passages that seem to affirm their own position as the more clear and more foundational passages, downplaying those that seem to contradict their view as the unclear or "problem" passages. They then explain away the so-called "difficult" data in light of the favorable data.

But rather than explaining away half the biblical witness on an issue, they ought to let the Bible say what it says fully and strongly on what we perceive to be both sides of that issue and then develop a theology that allows the full witness of Scripture to be fully true. That is, they ought to acknowledge that the Bible is, in some way, both Calvinistic and Arminian. They ought to acknowledge that, given the whole of Scripture, divine sovereignty and human freedom are not mutually contradictory concepts, and therefore, they cannot be reduced to an either/or option. If the two sides really were contradictory, and if the Bible taught both, then the Bible would not be inerrant, or without error.

Inspiration is perhaps a useful parallel issue. We say that the Bible is the Word of God in the words of men. That affirmation means that while we say that Luke wrote his gospel, we do not say that God did not. It is true to say both that Luke wrote the text in question and that God did. The options are not mutually exclusive.

The same sort of conclusion, it seems to me, applies to the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Just as we affirm that simply because God was active in the writing of Scripture and do not therefore affirm that the human writers were passive, so also we affirm that simply because God was active in the salvation of a sinner we do not therefore affirm that the sinner must be merely passive. To affirm that sinners are active agents in their own destiny does not indicate a denial of grace any more than to affirm that their role in writing the Bible is a denial of divine inspiration.

Of course, some theological instructors react violently to this suggestion. I have seen some of them strenuously endeavor to banish it from the classroom and from discussion, which is an enormous theological and pedagogical error. (An aside: I do not intend to name names when I critique a position. I am trying to expose error, not embarrass a theological colleague, a school, or a denomination. This is an exercise in mental discernment, not an evangelical scandal sheet. That I decline to name names means that I am trying to be respectable, not that I am inventing things as I go.)

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

Do you believe that paradoxes are valid and real or smokescreens for contradictions?

Join the discussion!

Of course, I am not the first one to oppose this kind of pedagogical tyranny. Let two brief quotations suffice. According to Gilbert Highet, "The aim of those who try to control thought is always the same, and they always work on the same principle. They find one single explanation of the world, one system of thought and action that will (they believe) cover everything; and then they try to impose that on all thinking people."¹

A similar point is made by Helmut Thielicke, "One cannot dispute with ideologues because their thinking does not deal with questions of truth, but rather with an interest that must be defended, come what may."²

In such cases, of course, the result is indoctrination, not education.