A Brief on the Paradoxical Method in Theology
by R. Ostella
Introduction
Because we must endeavor to avoid "human tradition" and "the principles of this world" (Col. 2:8), we need a method to counter the assertion of autonomy in ourselves as we go to the text of Scripture. In this connection, we will consciously use a paradoxical method in order to handle Scripture in a consistently Christian way. This is a method of approach to the Bible that was emphasized by C. Van Til and is outlined briefly by John Frame in Van Til, The Theologian. The paradoxical method is presented in the context of analogical reasoning.
1A. Explanation of analogical reasoning and the fact of paradox
Analogical reasoning is thinking God's thoughts after him (p. 28). But it is this in a particular way. It is thinking God's thoughts after him in recognition of our creatureliness as thinkers. We labor to conform our thoughts to God's but we do this as finite creatures. It is this awesome privilege that leads to the notion of paradox in theology. Paradox means "apparent contradiction." The claim is that reading Scripture will lead to apparent but not actual contradiction. God cannot deny himself; he is truth; in him is no inconsistency or contradiction; so, in his word there is no actual contradiction.
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. Therefore, the student of Scripture will inevitably encounter apparent contradiction or paradox.
Paradox is simply a way of saying that our knowledge of God's thoughts is limited. He has given creation an interconnectedness in his wise plan wherein everything dovetails together. But we do not know all the interconnections. We cannot see all the dovetailing. In one sense, this 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 (cf. Peter said of Paul's writings: much that is hard to understand, 2 Pet. 3:16).
2A. An illustration of analogical reasoning by an example paradox
An example paradox is that "God controls evil
and God is holy" or "God's foreordination of evil and God's
holiness." As Frame points out the two truths, God is good, yet He
foreordains (controls) evil deeds, are interdependent. God can foreordain evil
only if He is himself good, for in Scripture "evil" is
"evil" only by contrast with the goodness of God. God is truly good
only if the evil in the world is foreordained by Him, for only if evil is fully
controlled by God can we be confident that there is a good purpose in it, and
only if (we are confident that) there is a good purpose in it can we trust the
overall good purpose of God. This is an example where we have difficulty seeing
the interconnections in the problem of evil within the outworking of the good
plan of God.
We know some of the interconnection. We do know
that God's holiness and his foreordination of evil are both taught in Scripture.
We know further that these doctrines require each other. There can be the
foreordination of evil only if God is good because otherwise there is no evil;
evil is such by contrast with the goodness of God (p. 29). On the other
hand, for God to be good, he must foreordain evil, as he foreordains all else.
This is the case because evil must be controlled for a good purpose to be worked
out through it. There is still paradox. Recognizing the interdependence of
God's goodness and the foreordination of evil, does not mean that we fully know
how this can be the case. We cannot totally show the logical compatibility
that is involved in the doctrine that God in his goodness foreordains evil. This
example of the goodness of God in the foreordination of evil reveals a key
principle in analogical reasoning. The principle is that we must seek to
maintain a balance between the interdependence and interconnectedness of all
truth and the fact of paradox due to our creaturely limitations. In order
to think in submission to Scripture, we must work at maintaining this balance.
The characteristic method of theology is the pulling together of biblical data and accepting paradox where it is warranted (p. 32). Logic is properly used when it is governed by the recognition of our creaturehood and hence of the limits of creaturely reasoning. The distinction between Creator and creature must be acknowledged and control the use of logic.
Can we speak of necessary consequence and that which is implicit in the explicit teachings of Scripture? Yes, since the truth of the laws of logic is founded in the character of God. 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.
For example, how can it be said of Jesus that he is 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 other have denied that he was God on the ground of his true humanity. How does theology 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 which characterize Jesus as existing before his incarnation and his equality with the Father (the Word was God; I forgive you). We may have apparent contradiction but no actual contradiction (it cannot be shown though it may stretch our reasoning to the limits; we know there is none because God is the author of Scripture, we have God's speech in Scripture and He does not contradict Himself). And theology notes that Jesus is always referred to as 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 he continues to uphold all things by the word of his power! No wonder it is said of him: "no one knows the son except the Father."
From another angle, this turns out to be the question of application because all theology is application (at least we can say that it is all for application). Scripture gives clear guidance (p. 37) by the same teachings that seem contradictory (and cannot be demonstrated 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. The apparently contradictory truths are interdependent and applicable. Consider how we can apply the dual nature doctrine of the Lord Jesus. As man, he can and did die for sinners. But 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 fall on our knees and worship the Lord Jesus.
Some observations about application that surface here are as follows. We are engulfed with ethics here.
1) Knowing the truth, having good theology is itself a matter of ethical duty. We ought to believe the truth and work it out consistently (logically) in worldview thinking. Frame is dealing here with an emphasis on epistemological procedures. But having this emphasis is not in a vacuum separate from conduct.
2) Knowing is for doing. We need right thinking on the teaching of Scripture to embrace and the errors it tells us to avoid (like claiming areas of independence) to guide our conduct. Theology is always for application.