3. A
Christian Philosophy
of Logic
Framing the Use of Logic with Open-Minded
Humility
The doctrines of the
sovereign grace of the Holy Spirit are profound and challenging teachings. Not
everyone sees them in the same light. There are vast differences in viewpoint
regarding these doctrines. Often it is a love/hate issue: either people embrace
these doctrines with joy or they despise them with passion, as was the case
during the historic time of renewal that took place in
England
and
America
during the days of Whitefield and
Wesley in the seventeenth century. In a letter to Wesley, Whitefield spoke of
divine election as a ''sweet, pleasant, unspeakable comfort to godly persons,
and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ" (Third,
A, 3). It was his daily support:
I
should utterly sink under a dread of my impending trials, was I not firmly
persuaded that God has chosen me in Christ from before the foundation of the
world, and that now being effectually called, he will suffer none to pluck me
out of his almighty hand (Ibid).
On the other hand,
Wesley’s mother taught him to despise the reformed view of predestination as
she understood it, and his view of this theme remained the same after his
conversion to the end of his life. There is good reason to question whether
Wesley ever clearly understood the reformed view. It seems evident that we can
detect blind spots in his vision so that he actually opposed a straw man all his
life (cf. J. I. Packer, "Arminianisms," in Through
Christ's Word: A Festschrift for Dr. Philip Hughes, eds. W. Robert
Godfrey and Jesse L. Boyd, 141).
Clearly, the Whitefield
and Wesley reasoned extensively and passionately. We can review that
debate for many lessons in the logic and its relation to theological method.
Here under the heading of a philosophy of logic we are going to consider some of
the lessons that relate to the Christian graces that believers in Christ need
first. In order to tackle this subject and all theological subjects with
the right attitude (in reverence to the Lord Jesus Christ), the Christian needs
a very helpful cluster of graces summarized in the principle of open-minded
humility.
Acts 17:10-11 is a
backdrop for explaining open-minded humility. The Jewish Bereans confronted
teachings on the Bible that were extremely different from their views to
date. Luke describes them to be of "noble character" because they
eagerly examined Paul's message. The Berean spirit equates with a mindset in
dealing with differences, the time when emotions run high. When something
affects us deeply, that is the time when we need clear-headedness the most. In
this context, the attitude of the Bereans is a model for Christians to emulate,
and it is a model of open-minded humility.
Open-minded humility
subdivides into two important areas: openness and humility. Each area has a
number of ingredients, which together make up a deliciously baked open-minded
humility pie. Remember, there is a right kind of humble pie to eat without
getting sick.
Open-Minded Humility
Let me outline the
ingredients of openness. There are at least four and they are all needed or
closed-mindedness results. Closed-mindedness puts logic into a straight
jacket of “invincible ignorance.” As I go through them, note how you could
have some ingredients and still not have openness. Also, note the quip that
calls us to broad-mindedness: "Some people are so narrow that if they turn
sideways, they disappear!" Face to face, they may look broad shouldered but
when they turn on you, eek! They can be razor sharp and cut deeply.
1) The first ingredient
is comparison. It contrasts with the following: "Don't talk to me about
religion or politics." "Don't confuse me with the facts."
Comparison is up front in openness, even with views we perceive to be wrong!
Consider how we view the same facts in different ways in the well-known
duck-rabbit illustration in which the viewer sees either a duck or a rabbit, and
can adjust his perspective from seeing one to seeing the other. How do we know
if we should see a duck or a rabbit (or both)? We must get the point of view of
the author of the facts. Developing open-minded humility includes engaging the
mind from different perspectives to rule out one and rule in another where
necessary. It may be a process with some fluidity at times (of being unsure, or
of wavering on the same idea). Still, there is value and privilege in receiving
exposure to other views. We get a rich vein of perspective from church
history (past and present), an inside view not just that of an outsider, and a
varied diet. This is good because variety is a spice to life.
A quote from Silas
Mariner illustrates the blind-sidedness we experience when we refuse to
disturb ourselves by comparison. "The Squire had been used to parish homage
all his life, used to the presupposition that his family, his tankards, and
everything that was his, were the oldest and best; and as he never associated
with any gentry higher than himself, his opinion was not disturbed by
comparison." If we avoid association with other views, perhaps higher than
our own, then we may avoid being disquieted in our walk, but this will only last
until we stumble and fall due to our willful blindness.
However, comparison is
not enough to ensure true openness. Here is why. You could be willing to compare
in order to tear the opposing view to shreds! While sitting outside and
pondering this principle, I noticed a spider in a large web in the sun. When I
walked over to the huge spider, it slipped behind a leaf. I thought, “What an
ugly surprise hides behind that leaf! Open-minded humility will not spin webs to
trap others. True openness does not operate with an ugly and feigned piety that
tends to hurt and humiliate by showing others wrong and ourselves right. This
kind of "piety" hides an ugly meanness by which we devour people with
our words. This ought not to be so (James
3:10
).
2) We need more than
comparison. We also need empathy to be truly open. This accentuates comparing
that looks for the good; at least some good, however little might be expected.
This involves a training of the mind that includes testing all to hold to the
good and having your senses exercised to discern between good and evil (1 Thess
5.21, note the larger context of pastoral care beginning at v. 12; cf. Heb.
5.14). This is a thought-provoking question to ask in this regard, "Can you
meaningfully understand something without empathy?"
But this is not enough
to make one broad-minded because you could say, "ok, I will compare and do
so empathically, but only one time, you get one crack at it and that's it."
The additional quality of dialogue is required for true openness.
3) Third, we need
"counter question and question." What does beginning with
"counter question" imply? A process of dialogue is already going on:
there is a claim, a question, and a counter question already on the table. Now
to the table comes a question regarding the counter question. This is the
"Pete and Re-Pete" principle in dialogue over time. They did not build
Rome
in a day, nor do we edify the people of
God in a day. Learning takes time under the teaching of the Holy Spirit through
pastors as frail human instruments. Nevertheless, they must work hard to handle
the work accurately and to refute that which contradicts the truth (2 Tim
2.14-15, “remind…rightly handling the word of truth”; Titus 1.9, “give
instruction in sound doctrine…rebuke those who contradict it”). Most of all,
they must do their work with humility, patience, and gentleness without being
quarrelsome (2 Tim 2.24-25). In a word, they must argue vigorously without
quarrelling!
But all these do not
make for open-mindedness if we stiff-arm and polarize the situation by a
subjective posture. This closes down discussion. The subjective posture
manifests itself in statements like the following: "I know I am right"
and "I know you're wrong." In addition, it can be subtle (it can be
conveyed in tone, gesture, or in overall approach). For example, some students
never ask questions for clarification, information, and learning, instead, they
only offer objections and alternatives. "There is a time to be a
student" is a lesson sometimes difficult to apply. Some students are not
content to listen for even a class period, let alone for a time long enough to
hear a full presentation of the view they oppose. They must disagree; they must
express their disagreement immediately, they must relay the other side even
before the whole picture they oppose is given (they interrupt flow of thought
and thus divide and conquer by fragmentation).
4) Therefore, fourth, we
need an objective posture. This refers to how we carry ourselves in discussion.
Objective means we try to steer away from saying, "I believe,"
"My view is" and we try to concentrate attention on the issues at hand
(depersonalizing where possible). We will pursue clear definition, historical
perspective, be context sensitive (get speaker's or writer's perspective,
definitions of terms, etc., to receive what he presents, fairly and fully). It
is "reasons oriented" rather than "conclusions oriented"
(emphasize process versus conclusion). We will say, "I may be wrong, but
here is why one might hold x" (even here, we try not to say why “I”
hold x). "Let's talk about the whys and wherefores." "Correct me
if I'm wrong." “Please,
correct me where I am wrong.” These comments depolarize, invite further
discussion, and welcome counter-question. This objective approach opens up
discussion rather than closing it down.
C. S. Lewis made a
statement that has the effect of defining open-minded humility: "I like my
Christianity as I like my whisky, straight." This defines Christian
broad-mindedness as an attitude that says, "Give me the whole picture, both
the easy and the hard stuff, undiluted." Unquestionably, the doctrines of
grace have some difficult aspects that are hard to understand (2 Pet 3.16) and
hard to hear without complaint (Rom 9.18-21). However, we must not complain
against God but submit ourselves to Him, to His sovereignty with adoring wonder.
Therefore, in the first place, a philosophy of logic, that is, principles
regarding the right use of logic, includes an openness of heart to the Lord to
receive all He has said whatever the difficulty.
Open-Minded Humility
Open-minded humility is
concerned with the right use of the mind. This is an aspect of loving God
with all your heart, soul, and mind. One does not have open-minded humility if
he does not engage the mind and engage it critically (one ought not to be so
open-minded that his or her brains fall out: one should have answers, 1 Pet.
3:15).
Looked at this way, as
mindedness, the open-minded humility pie includes presuppositional
self-awareness. Presuppositions enter this discussion in the use of logic
or critical thinking in a self-critical way. The ultimate expression of
humble-mindedness or humility in our use of reason and logic is the submission
of ourselves, of our reasoning selves to Christ speaking in Scripture. This
necessitates the acceptance of paradox.
Another way of speaking
about a Christian use of logic would be to substitute thinking, reasoning, or
meditating for the word logic. That may be useful to do as we now take up a
brief outline of a Christian philosophy of logic that includes a basic use
of logic a) within the general ingredients of humility, b) a self-critical use
of logic, and c) a most humble use of logic.
A Basic use of logic:
Within the General Ingredients of Humility
Four basic ingredients
make up humility. These virtues are of supreme importance for the right use of
logic at a basic level.
1) First, there must be
awareness. That is, awareness and acknowledgement of the "hidden man"
problem (the mask-wearing problem, hiding from ourselves, hiding from our sinful
selves; as Augustine said, we put ourselves behind our backs). The point here is
the personal recognition that sin is my problem. We must each face this
squarely before the Lord or we are not humble.
2) Second, there is
risk. We must be willing to take the risk of being wrong. Pride keeps us from
candidness lest someone shows others and us where we are wrong. We must be
willing to admit it when we are "wrrrr…ong"! The word just does not
want to come out. However, it is good to put our reasons for what we believe on
the table in public view. This helps us see them better, to see strengths and
weaknesses in our thinking better; it helps us see what others offer in critique
and as alternatives. Of course, such a process of exchange gives clearer and
clearer perspective that runs the risk of showing our thinking to be wrong.
Knowing that may happen, we still engage with others “out of reverence for
Christ” (Eph 5.21).
3) Third, an element of
distrust is part of the idea of humility. I refer to a basic distrust of
ourselves. I do not mean this as an ostrich extreme, but I have in mind a
seasoning of our view of ourselves. We might use language like this:
"Maybe, I don't have it all together. I need more perspective. I must
suspend judgment on this or that until I get a better handle on it, especially
regarding something new and different." Or we may say, “Although I have
been through all the important arguments for x, I can always do so again,
besides, I may have missed something along the way.” Circumstances and
consideration of the needs of others may call us to revisit stopping points of
arguments that we passed long ago, but we honor the call in honor to Christ, to
the gospel, and to our neighbors in need.
4) Fourth, a
preventative love is part of being humble. Humility is having qualities of love
that are opposite to pride. Love prevents a) scorn, making others feel small or
worthless around you. Some people exude a radius about themselves that says,
"You are not worthy to come into my presence" (a nose in the air
attitude: "don't trouble the bubble"). Love prevents b) an arrogance
that says, "I have all the answers, no one else's opinion is worth
consideration." We should have answers (1 Pet 3.15), and we should engage
in earnest refutation (Titus 1.9), but we must always give due consideration to
other views (to other people and their views). If they do not give us due
consideration, then we must strive after patience and gentleness without
quarrelling (2 Tim 2.24-25). In addition, love prevents c) a leveling spirit or
destructive criticism. What happens when you tear other people down? You lift
self up! If logical criticism is necessary, and often it is, it will emerge from
self-criticism (doing something about the telephone pole in one's own eye) and
will be gentle (with a speck of dust in the other person's eye; the analogy here
concerns the eye with all its sensitivity, Mat 7.3-5).
Self-Critical use of
Logic: Presuppositional Self-Awareness
Presuppositions enter
this discussion because we are to use logic in a humble way (it is
open-minded-humility oriented). For it to be humble, it must be self-critical
(thus, we have self-critical thinking and not just critical thinking; we are
usually better at the latter than at the former). Moreover, note that a
necessary and deep-rooted ingredient in self-critical thinking is being critically
aware of that with which you think, which brings us to our use of
presuppositions. Without presuppositional self-awareness, we will not have
humble mindedness or be self-critical in our thinking.
Presuppositions are
beliefs of a particular kind in a hierarchy of beliefs. Not all beliefs are the
same. Some have a unique supportive role in holding other beliefs in place. They
are like foundations to buildings, if you take away the foundation the
superstructure will not remain in place. They subdivide into two types: weak and
strong. Weak presuppositions hold up some beliefs but other beliefs hold them in
place being more foundational. Think of a superstructure on a foundation that
rests on bedrock. The foundation is a weak presupposition. Strong
presuppositions are beliefs over which nothing else takes precedence. They are
like the bedrock in the building illustration. Presuppositions are comparable
with sunglasses. They color all that you see (thus they govern how you see
everything), perhaps without noticing it; hence, the need for self-awareness.
It is like someone wearing blue tinted glasses and someone else wearing gray
tinted glasses. One says I want to prove that that cat is gray. Here is my
evidence: this piece of paper is gray and it is the same color as the cat, so
the cat is gray. The problem is that all the evidence is already tinted gray. To
find a solution, we must look at (not just through) each pair. This
is often very difficult. Each contrary presupposition must be tested and
examined to determine if it gives a true representation of reality (or
supportive of the very intelligibility of the world that we presuppose when we
make claims about it, cf. the proof of proof in the justification of logic).
We need to be able to
look at that with which we look, (as I can do when I tilt my head and see the
line in my bifocals; I can see that with which I see and which governs what I
see). Accordingly, some questions we have to ask in the discussion of total
depravity are these: Does belief in free will often have presuppositional status
in Christian thought? How does this look or work out in a practical way? Does
this presupposition stand the test of Scripture? Finally, what is the ultimate
presupposition of the Christian worldview? What is the ultimate presupposition
of the non-Christian worldview? The ultimate presupposition of the Christian
worldview is belief in God speaking through Christ by the Spirit in the Bible
(for short: it is belief in Christ speaking in Scripture). The ultimate
presupposition for the non-Christian is belief in the autonomy and
self-sufficiency of human experience and reason (cf. Col 2.8, man-centered and
creature-centered versus being God-centered and depending on Christ). Therefore,
the ultimate presupposition for the non-Christian is belief in human autonomy,
which refers to claiming independence from God in some way or another. What
results is the contrast of theonomy (God's law) versus autonomy (self-law), and
this ethical posture asserts that logic is the ultimate standard for truth.
Notably, this assertion is moral and theoretical at the same time: ethics and
epistemology are inseparable in such a way that true knowledge is only
attainable by submission to Christ.
Consider the example of
an atheist and a Christian who agree against abortion but disagree on capital
punishment. The Christian holds to the latter based on Genesis 9.6. Both have
the same presupposition of the sanctity of life. Thus, the atheist argues for
the preservation of life from "the womb to the tomb" opposing abortion
and euthanasia as well as capital punishment. Why does the Christian favor
capital punishment despite his belief in the sanctity of life, and how do we
account for this difference with the atheist? The answer is not in the
"common" presupposition regarding the sanctity of life. These views
diverge because belief in the sanctity of life is a weak presupposition that
depends for its existence and its shape on the diverging strong presuppositions
that hold it in place. For the non-Christian, the strong presupposition is
belief in the autonomy and self-sufficiency of human reason and experience.
Because of this strong presupposition, to be consistent, the non-Christian must
respect human life across the board. For the Christian, the strong
presupposition is belief in God speaking in Scripture. Since God is the
life-giver par excellence as creator and sustainer of everything, His
word regarding capital punishment is final in the matter. Therefore, because God
designed and governs the sanctity of life, the unlawful taking of a human life
demands "life for life" regarding men and women, His image bearers
(Gen 1.26; 9.6).
Therefore, it bears
repeating that a self-critical use of logic is necessary to a humble use of
logic, and a central ingredient in self-critical reasoning is presuppositional
self-awareness. We discussed two aspects of a philosophy of logic and one more
remains, the relationship of paradox to a believing use of logic. In this
relationship, logic, that is, logic's user is humbled to the utmost and the
bearing of this on spiritual renewal should be evident: The Spirit mends and
renews the broken heart of true humility by His sovereign grace.
Most Humble Use
of Logic: Accepting Paradox
As we enter the domain
of paradoxical
thinking, let me begin with a definition. A paradox is an apparent
contradiction (cf. a brief and helpful discussion of this theme by Hoekema in Saved
by Grace, pp. 5-7. However, Hoekema's approval of citations of Dowey on
Calvin mistakenly defines paradoxes as logical inconsistencies and
incompatibilities, p. 6). It grows from the notion of a contradiction, for which
there is almost universal recognition in the history of Western philosophy.
Outside of the kind of thinking we have inherited in our culture, some people
try to make sense of statements like "you are to meditate on one hand
clapping." However, this example shows that one of the reasons that
contradiction is wrong is that it is meaningless and blocks communication. You
cannot make sense of "one hand clapping." Try to clap with only one
hand; it becomes "one hand waving." It is ambiguous (you can
"clap" one hand against something) but what is meant is "clap
your hands together but only use one hand" (trying it I cannot even keep my
left hand still!). That is contradiction. It breaks down communication; very
often, it breaks down honest communication.
However, no one is
allowed contradiction. It is ethically wrong. We have argued this ethical
dimension in the defense of logic already presented. Simply put: we are to be
like God as His image and likeness in the wholeness of what makes us tick as
human beings, created in His image, male and female. God is logical because He
is truth. If there were contradictions in God's knowledge, then some of His
knowledge would be false, He would not be the truth, and He would not be God.
Therefore, to fulfill
our role on earth receiving God's communication to us in nature and in Christ,
we ought to be logical, consistent, and non-contradictory in our thinking. It is
an ought, an ethical ought. Being logical is being godly. It is God-like. It is
good and proper. It is required of us not only academically or intellectually
but also morally and spiritually.
Granted, not everyone
has the same mental taste buds for logic due to their inherited predisposition
and to their training. Nevertheless, we all use it everyday. If we did not use
it at all, then we would not make sense to ourselves or to others in anything we
said or did (with great confusion "I'm going to the store" could mean,
"You take a nap" or anything else!).
Here is an important
rub: we can all improve our reasoning skills. Moreover, we ought to improve our
reasoning skills where it is possible. It is one thing to have poor logic; it is
another to have a poor interest in improvement (as a teacher of a college course
in logic I have discouraged students from going into law as a career not simply
because they showed poor skill in logic, but because they showed poor interest
in improving their logical skill).
To live by Scripture as
God's image bearers, it is necessary that we improve our reasoning skills. One
very important way is by strenuous study of the arguments in Scripture (cf. the
arguments in, and the argument of, the book of Romans). How else are we going to
obey the Lord when He says, "Come now let us reason together"? To
place a healthy emphasis on logical and critical thinking is a hurdle all its
own. However, once we jump this obstacle, we face other ones. This is not an
end; it is a beginning.
This brings us back to
apparent contradictions. Note the key word, apparent. We must not tolerate
contradictions in our thinking, but we must come to terms with apparent
contradictions, which are beliefs (or claims) that seem to be inconsistent with
one another. Importantly, we know that there is no inconsistency between them
because God has given them to us in the Bible. Because it is God's word, the
Bible has no contradictions. As the word of God to man, it should not surprise
us to find apparent contradiction or paradoxes.
How then do we know that
something is a paradox? One way to answer this question is by comparing
paradoxicality with a pie and by directing our focus to its ingredients.
Ingredients
of the Paradox Pie
How do we know something
is a paradox? Here are some general ingredients (perhaps these may be likened to
both ingredients and baking instructions). 1) There are two claims or beliefs.
Let us call them threads. 2) Both are in Scripture; they are threads of biblical
teaching, threads of truth. 3) They seem to contradict each other. This means we
have difficulty seeing how these threads fit together in the whole fabric of
Bible truth. It means that human reason has trouble accepting one of the
teachings because of the corresponding paradoxical thread. 4) The imminent
danger, in our analogy of a baking danger, is that we will tend in various ways
to do damage to one ingredient or the other by our reasoning. Our logic may
inform us that A contradicts B so both cannot be true. Then we will try to
eliminate one or the other. We may take a biblical truth and use it to deny
another biblical truth! It is like reading directions that say, "Bake at
350 and at 600 degrees" presumably in the same sense and at the same time.
On this presumption, we intuitively eliminate one requirement or the other. 5)
Failure in the handling of paradoxes shows up in the twisting of words and the
forcing of passages beyond clear contextual warrant. Sometimes we will have to
debate about what is clear. What may seem clear to me may not seem clear to you.
Nonetheless, in a rough and ready way, we can say that one thing is critical to
clarity in reading a passage. The flow of a given context is super-important.
We must saturate ourselves with a passage by prayerful meditation and reflection
in order to absorb the pattern of thought. We must work hard at grasping
the writer's purpose in a verse within a paragraph, within a book in the New
Testament, within the Bible, within the history of redemption, remembering that
the ultimate author is the Holy Spirit. This is saying that context is king,
especially the immediate flow of thought within the larger framework of biblical
teaching as a whole. This is easier to say than to do: we need to practice the
art of careful contextual thinking. We need to expend much effort to absorb the
patterns present in the word of God (cf. the outline of sound words, 2 Tim
1.13).
We might illustrate this
by reference to the gears in a mechanical clock. Taking a word or phrase out of
context is like removing a gear from a clock. When this happens, things will not
mesh properly and you will not be able to read the proper time. Both “taking
away” and "adding in" mess up the mechanism. Switching analogies, we
can say that we must be concerned with every relevant thread that intersects
the piece of fabric at any given time; otherwise, our work of interpretation
will come apart at the seams. Paradoxical truths are threads of truth that are
clearly and tightly woven together in the fabric of Scripture even though how
they can co-exist in the same fabric may be difficult or even impossible to
grasp.
The fact of paradox
implies a number of things for the Christian. First, careful, diligent and
seasoned interpretation is presupposed. A paradox does not exist unless the
threads in tension with one another actually exist. Therefore, approved
workmanship and prayerful meditation are essential in the discovery and
interpretation of paradoxical truths (2 Tim 2.15); an awareness of
paradoxicality itself is vital in the process of identifying truths that make up
an actual paradox. Second, facing the fact of paradoxicality demands that we
exercise faith. The saint must take God at His word even when, and especially
when, things spoken by the Holy Spirit are difficult to accept or seem to
contradict each other. Third, wrestling with paradoxes in Scripture is wrestling
like Jacob with the Lord. In prayerful persistence, we wrestle with God for His
blessing. Ultimately, we must be humble in the presence of the covenant-keeping
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We end up on our faces in worship. Logic bows
to its Creator. We submit our reason, we submit our reasoning selves to God
speaking truths that soar above our thoughts like the heavens above the earth.
Truly, such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high and I cannot attain
unto it (cf. Ps 139, especially v. 6). Still it reaches the ear, inflames the
heart, and enlivens the believer's walk in the steps of the Spirit (Gal 2.14;
5.16).
For clarification, it
will be helpful to list some of the major paradoxes of Scripture with some brief
comments. With each, we tend to do injustice to one claim because of another. We
have difficulty seeing how both are true. We cannot resolve much.
A
Paradox List
This list of biblical
paradoxes is not exhaustive. It is representative of truths that are slices of
the pie of Scriptural paradox. Each slice has all the ingredients mentioned
earlier (another addition to the list is the foreordination of evil and God's
holiness; He wills the existence of evil but is not the author of sin; cf.
Calvin on this point as reported by Warfield, Studies in Theology, 189).
1) The Bible: God's Word
and man's word
We want to say, "If
God's thoughts are not our thoughts, then if it is His word it is not man's
word." Nevertheless, and this is central, He tells us that the Bible is His
speech and He tells us that it is the word of Isaiah, Peter and Paul.
2) Jesus: God and man
If He is God, how can He
be a man? If a man, how can He be God? Scripture teaches both; they do not
contradict each other, but contradiction does seem to be present.
3) God's Decree and
God's Desire
God tells us of His
decree or plan to save particular sinners out of the fallen human family. He
elects some for salvation and passes over others. To raise a question of justice
here is different from discerning a paradox. There is no injustice with God
since no one deserves salvation. Paradox enters the picture here when we find
that the Bible also tells us that God desires that all people come to repentance
for salvation. Therefore, we tend to think, if there really is an unconditional
election, then this desire cannot be true or if this desire is true, then
unconditional election has to be false. However, both are true. They appear to
be contradictory, but we must accept both and live by both because God gives us
both in His holy word.
4) Divine Sovereignty
and Human Responsibility
Sovereignty refers to
the kingship and rule of God over all that He created and made. He is in control
of all things. Nothing is outside of His control. He has foreordained whatsoever
happens in time. Then we ask, “If this is so, how can man be responsible?”
Does this not make man a puppet on a string? No, he is not a puppet on a string.
True, God planned and controls all things, and God tells us that man is
responsible. Both facts are true and we strain to grasp how it can be so (cf.
soft-determinism as briefly described by Honer in Invitation
to Philosophy, 122).
A subset of the paradox
of divine sovereignty and human responsibility is the sovereignty of the Holy
Spirit and human responsibility in spiritual renewal. To nourish ourselves on
the word of God in this connection, we need balance in two crucial areas. First,
we need balance with regard to biblical teaching, as expressed by Calvin,
between earnestly pursuing all that the Holy Spirit has given and closing the
way to inquiry at the precise point where the Lord has closed his holy lips:
Scripture
is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which, as nothing is omitted that is both
necessary and useful to know, so nothing is taught but what is expedient to
know. Therefore we must guard against depriving believers of anything disclosed
….in Scripture, lest we seem either wickedly to defraud them of the blessing
of their God or to accuse and scoff at the Holy Spirit for having published what
it is in any way profitable to suppress.
Let us,
I say, permit the Christian man to open his mind and ears to every utterance of
God directed to him, provided it be with such restraint that when the Lord
closes his holy lips, he also shall at once close the way to inquiry (Calvin, Institutes,
2, bk. III, ch. 21, sec. 3: 924).
Calvin then calls for
equilibrium in our walk in the Spirit where we are to "follow God's lead
always." We are "not investigate what the Lord has left hidden in
secret, that we should not neglect what he has brought into the open, so that we
may not be convicted of excessive curiosity on the one hand, or of excessive
ingratitude on the other" (Ibid, sec. 4: 925).
Second, having this
commitment regarding the things revealed and the secret things firmly in mind,
we must balance this responsibility (itself balanced as stated above) with the
teaching of Scripture that renewal by the Spirit is His sovereign work. This is
concisely put by Calvin when he says that no one benefits of God's word unless
the Father "either gives eyes or opens them" (Ibid., 1, bk. II, ch. 2,
sec. 21: 281) by the illuminating work of the Spirit:
If we
are not ashamed of the gospel we must confess what is there plainly declared.
God, by His eternal goodwill, which has no cause outside itself, destined those
whom he pleased to salvation, rejecting the rest; those whom He dignified by
gratuitous adoption he illumined by His Spirit, so that they receive the
life offered in Christ, while others voluntarily disbelieve, so that they remain
in darkness destitute of the light of faith (Calvin, Concerning
the Eternal Predestination of God, 58, italics mine).
All these paradoxes
challenge us to a remarkable depth. They challenge the very place of reason in
giving a reason for our hope (1 Pet.
3:15
). The danger is that we give logic, and
thus the reasoning self, an ultimate status as a standard of truth.
At least three relevant
biblical principles must govern our approach to Scripture in general and paradox
in particular. a) First, some things belong to God and He reveals other things
(Deut. 29:29a). His thoughts are far above ours and demand acceptance with
submissive hearts and minds as creatures before our Creator. Otherwise, we run
the risk of exalting the creature above the Creator. b) Second, all revealed
truth is clear and beneficial. It is for us and for our children (Deut. 29:29b).
All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction (2 Tim.
3:16
-17). c) Third, some teachings in
Scripture are difficult to understand (2 Pet.
3:16
), and we face paradoxicality.
However, we should note
that with the areas of difficulty there is the great promise of profitability.
Further attention to the example of Jesus will bring out some of the value of
reflecting on the biblical paradoxes. We can then further illustrate the process
of reflection on paradoxes and its benefit by examining the paradoxical language
of Isaiah 55. We begin with Jesus as a case in point where the Spirit calls the
believer to an interpretive effort that confronts paradoxicality with due
humility and adoring worship of the Lord Jesus Christ, the risen Lord of glory.
The
Example of Jesus
How can Jesus be both
fully God and fully man in one person, concerning whom we must neither divide
the person nor confound the natures? In the history of Christian thought, many
have denied that Jesus is a man on the basis that He is God and others have
denied that He was God on the ground of His true humanity. How does a humble use
of logic proceed? It follows the biblical text on the humiliation of Christ
(birth, eating and sleeping, growing and learning; the Word became flesh) and
affirms his humanity. It listens to the references that characterize Jesus as
existing before his incarnation and His equality with the Father (the Word was
God; I forgive you). Moreover, it accents the biblical teaching that that Jesus
is a single person. The same one that existed before the creation of the world
is bound to the limits of time, space, and suffering while at the same time He
continues to uphold all things by the word of his power! No wonder Matthew
reports of Him, "no one knows the Son except the Father" (Mat 11.27).
Even the Christian, the one to whom the Father has revealed the Son (cf. Matt.
16:16
-17), cannot know Jesus exhaustively
though He does know Him truly by the Father's gift of "the Spirit of wisdom
and revelation" to enlighten the eyes of the believer's heart (Eph.
1:17
-18). Meditation on the Scriptural
presentation of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ stretches our
reasoning capacities to their limits. However, we know there is no contradiction
because the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture; we have God's speech in
Scripture and He does not contradict Himself. In addition, this stretching of
reason to its limits is not disheartening because the gracious renewing work of
the Spirit enlightens the eyes of our hearts in order that we may "know him
better" (Eph.
1:17
).
It is a rich blessing to
encounter the Lord Jesus personally by the work of the Spirit in spiritual
renewal. The fact of paradox does not prevent this rich blessing. Our next
example will flesh out further the most humble use of logic in the acceptance of
paradox. I refer to the paradoxical language of Isaiah 55, where we should not
be surprised to find the good news of divine sovereignty and human
responsibility in spiritual renewal.
The
Paradoxical Language in Isaiah 55
There is a literary as
well as theological paradox in Isaiah 55. Some reflection on this text will
flesh out how facing paradox calls for a most humble use of logic. There is a
play on words between buying food while do so with no money. This sounds
contradictory but this apparent contradiction is a literary device that draws
attention to something unique with regard to receiving divine nourishment (note
that there is a difference between paradox in a literary sense and paradox in a
theological sense). It refers to obtaining something as your own in some unusual
way. What is it? It is mercy and pardon for the nourishment of the soul
(55:6-7). The way to this blessing is by seeking, calling, forsaking, and
turning. This is how you quench your spiritual thirst. This is how you fill the
emptiness. This is how you overcome spiritual famine with abundance. This is
where you find true riches (v. 2). This is where your soul may live (v. 3).
However, we have no
money, we are wicked, and we are evil. The prophet still says, "Come, turn
to the Lord and to our God" (v. 1, 7b). This is how God works. He works in
ways we cannot anticipate that express thoughts very different from what we
might expect. God and man are on such different planes of thought and action as
to be mutually exclusive in some fundamental sense. "You do not think my
thoughts and I do not adopt your ways of doing things," the Lord says
(55:8). God tells us that His ways and thoughts are not only different from our
ways and thoughts; they are higher as the heavens are higher than the earth
(55:9).
This is grace. It is
astounding to think honestly of what sinners we are before a holy God and to
still know and be assured that we are His children, that He is our father, that
we belong to Him in life and death. The Heidelberg Catechism expresses this
point well by asking, "What is your only comfort in life and death?"
The answer is "That I belong-body and soul, in life and in death-not to
myself but to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ, who at the cost of His own blood
has fully paid for all my sins" (Q. 1).
Furthermore, this is
powerful, effectual, and saving grace. Picture in your minds what happens when
the rain and snow come down from the heavens to the earth. The water does not
immediately evaporate back to the clouds. No, it waters the ground for buds,
seeds and food (55.10). God tells us that His word is like that natural cycle
that He has created and that He sustains. He gives a spiritual watering to the
dry and parched heart. He makes it bud. He causes spiritual life to germinate
and flourish.
This is an awesome
thought. We would not expect grace in the first place when we consider our sins.
Then given our destitute condition with no money, no food, no life, no heart for
the things of God, we would not expect Him to do it all and make His word bud
and flourish in the hearts of sinners. However, that He does. It is His delight
to accomplish and achieve exactly what He purposes (55.11). The implication is
solid: everyone He sets out to save will in fact find salvation. He will not
fail to bring this about. He will accomplish this by His Spirit through His
anointed bringing renewal to the ruined cities and freedom for captives (Isa
61.1-4). Thus, Jesus never fails. The Heidelberg Catechism speaks powerfully to
this point also on comfort in life and death: "indeed...everything must fit
his purpose for my salvation. Therefore, by his Holy Spirit, he also assures
me of eternal life, and makes me wholeheartedly willing and
ready from now on to live for him" (Q. 1, italics mine).
This encourages us to
come, buy, and eat of the gospel feast knowing that the salvation offered here
depends totally on God and not at all on us. If it depended on us in any way,
shape, or form, it would be a tainted gospel and no longer good news. We know
ourselves well enough to know that a salvation that depends on us is no real
hope.
Isaiah's message is
clear, bold and comforting. Salvation is all of God, so look away from yourself,
turn from trusting in yourself. Come. Buy. Eat. In the face of the realities of
life, listen, give ear, seek the Lord, forsake the pathway you are now on, turn
to the Lord and to our God for He will have mercy and freely pardon!
Consequently, Isaiah 55
presents us with the paradox of human responsibility (it is your duty to come,
buy, and eat, even though you are unable to do so!) and divine sovereignty (God
causes the plant that is unable to grow, the sinner unable to come, to bud,
flourish, and embrace His word).
Some
reflections on the fact of paradox
The fact of paradox
reminds us that total consistency of aspects of Scripture is beyond our reach.
There is mystery. Our knowledge will necessarily have loose ends but without
contradiction. This is humbling. On the other hand, the rationalist must have
all the loose ends tied together.
Why do we face paradox?
Our knowledge of God's thoughts is true in that it actually conforms to what God
is thinking. However, it is not exhaustive because 1) we are finite creatures
and 2) because it is God's sovereign decision to reveal what he chooses to
reveal while keeping other things, some we could presumably grasp, to Himself.
Paradox is simply a way of saying that our knowledge of God's thoughts is
limited. He has given creation interconnectedness in his wise plan wherein
everything dovetails together, but we do not know all the interconnections. We
cannot see the entire dovetailing (Frame, "The Problem of Theological
Paradox," in Foundations,
321).
Given these limits, do
we have true knowledge? Due to God's gift of logic, to His placement of logic in
a meaningful relation to the facts He first interprets, we can in fact think His
thoughts after him. We do know truly, though we do not know exhaustively (Van
Til, Defense,
40-41). How do we know that there is no contradiction in Scripture? God
cannot deny himself; He is truth, in Him is no inconsistency or contradiction;
so, in His word there is no actual contradiction.
In one sense admitting
paradox is simply another way of saying that God's thoughts are above ours as
the heavens are above the earth and it should not surprise us when we face
difficulty. What we must do in faithful quest of the truth is pull together
biblical data and accept paradox "where it is warranted" (Frame, Ibid,
323-24). Logic is properly used when it is governed by the
recognition of our creaturehood and hence by the recognition of the limits of
creaturely reasoning. We must acknowledge the distinction between Creator and
creature, and thinking this way must control the use of logic because the laws
of logic are founded in the character of God (He is truth and thus there can
be no contradiction in His knowledge or revelation). Properly used, the laws of
logic will reveal no contradiction in the biblical system of truth because as
God's revelation it has no real contradiction.
From another angle, the
whole problem of paradox turns out to be a question of application because all
teaching is for living. Scripture gives clear guidance by the same teachings
that seem contradictory, but which we cannot demonstrate by the canons of logic
in all the fullness of their consistency. What we do know, we know in truth and
in conformity to God's thinking. This guides our conduct even if we cannot
reconcile all the interconnections (Frame, Ibid, 328).
The apparently
contradictory truths are interdependent and applicable. Consider how we can
apply the dual nature doctrine of the Lord Jesus. As man, He could and did die
for sinners. However, this would be of no avail to save if He were not also God.
As God, He was able to endure the eternal punishment of sinners in His own body
on the tree! Being God, He was able to pay an infinite price on the cross.
Hence, Scripture speaks of the blood of God! Because of both sides of this
paradox, we worship Him, the Son of God who came from glory to claim a people
given to Him by the Father and who as the Son of man is one with us. Still this
Immanuel, this one with us, is God with us! Finally, we must fall on our knees
and worship the Lord Jesus. This is the most humble use of logic. Here logic
is at its best when the reasoning self bows in submission to the risen Savior
and there finds renewal by the work of the Holy Spirit through the words of the
Holy Spirit.
Calvin
on Pastors and Paradoxes
Before we leave this
area of paradoxicality, it will be good to recall the place of the work of
pastors (and by analogy all Christians) within the process of spiritual renewal,
because spiritual renewal cannot be confined to the individual level. It is
personal but not individualistic. The believer is joined to the Lord Jesus
Christ as the Elder Brother in the renewed human family. Therefore we must
always think of spiritual renewal as that work of the Spirit, which brings us
out from the nations by a call that introduces us to fellowship with Jesus
Christ our Lord (1 Cor 1.9) and with one another (1 Jn 1.3). Furthermore, this
means that we must always think of spiritual renewal in terms of the church and
the means of grace appointed by the Head of the Church. Furthermore, it is
understood that one of the means appointed is the consistent (i.e., logical)
preaching of the word by pastors. In this context, it will serve us well to
consider some thoughts from Calvin on pastors and paradoxes. This will remind us
that belief in the sovereignty of God cannot be divorced from responsible,
consistent and thus logical conduct in the life of the church in both the giving
and receiving of ministry of the word. Nevertheless, remarkably, the summons
here is to a most humble use of logic in submission to God with a teachable
spirit.
Calvin stresses that it
is God's will to teach us through human means as we "grow up into manhood
solely under the education of the church" (Institutes, 2, bk. IV, ch. 1,
sec. 5: 1017). Thus, preaching and public assemblies are not
superfluous. Instead, God, by ordaining them, has shown them to be necessary and
highly approved. Calvin writes:
On the one hand, he proves our obedience by a very
good test when we hear his ministers speaking just as if he himself spoke. On
the other, he also provides for our weakness in that he prefers to address us in
human fashion through interpreters in order to draw us to himself, rather than
to thunder at us and drive us away (Ibid, 1018).
He notes further that we
do not want to exaggerate the dignity of ministers and give to them "what
belongs to the Holy Spirit" (Ibid, sec. 6: 1020). Thus, for balance Calvin
puts the relevant passages into two categories. There are passages that express
that God is the author of preaching, that God joins His Spirit with it, and that
promises His benefits to it (i.e. Jn 15.16; 1Cor 4.15; 2 Cor 3.6). Another
category contains passages where God separates Himself from all outward helps
and "claims for himself alone both the beginnings of faith and its entire
course" (Ibid, i.e. 1 Cor 3.7; 15.10). This balance comes out in the
paradox of illumination:
Surely we ought to remember those statements in
which God, ascribing to himself illumination of mind and renewal of heart, warns
that it is sacrilege for man to claim any part of either for himself. Meanwhile,
anyone who presents himself in a teachable spirit to the ministers ordained by
God shall know by the result that with good reason this way of teaching was
pleasing to God, and also that with good reason this yoke of moderation was
imposed on believers (Ibid, 1021).
It is a paradox of
illumination because a) man cannot claim "any part" of either
illumination or renewal for himself, and b) man's responsibility is to present
himself in a teachable spirit in hope of good result. A bold balance of divine
sovereignty and human responsibility comes to expression in this way of
connecting them without doing injustice to either. The key is rigorous attention
to Scripture alone as the steps of the Spirit to follow.
It
will be interesting to discover how Whitefield includes paradoxical distinctions
in his defense of reformed teaching in his letter to Wesley. Clearly, though
without using the word paradox, Whitefield uses the paradoxical model.
Non-reformed approaches to theology not only oppose the particular paradoxes
Whitefield cites but they often oppose the notion of paradox itself; our claim
here is that at this point non-reformed approaches reveal themselves to be
rationalist at heart and committed to some form of human autonomy.
Conclusion
Indeed, by definition,
the Christian travels the road of life in firm commitment to Christ as his
prophet, priest, and king in every step he takes (Mat 11.28-30; cf. 1 Thess 1.5;
2.13). Submission to the risen Lord, submission of the reasoning self to Him, is
central. There is an essential balance here that two quotes from Pascal
highlight (cited by Morris
p. 81):
·
Two excesses: to
exclude reason, to admit nothing but reason.
·
Submission and use of
reason; that is what makes true Christianity.
Commenting on another
quote by Pascal ("the heart has its reasons of which reason knows
nothing"), Edgar
(p. 14) emphasizes heart affection for God with an important word of caution:
Reason
is good and necessary as long as it knows how to submit to the truth. To
do that, it needs the heart's right disposition. The heart, as Pascal puts
it, does have its reasons. But a system of dry rationalism alone
will never lead to God.