Q.
1. “What is Rationalism?”
“[Rationalism is] an exaltation of man’s sinful
reason to a position where it becomes the sole criterion of truth, and partly
because it is, by its very nature, anti-biblical. A man cannot be faithful to
the Scriptures and be a rationalist at the same time. He is one or the other.
In fact, rationalism is unbelief; faithfulness to the Scriptures is saving
faith.” (Herman Hanko, “For Thy Truth’s
Sake”)
“Rationalism wants to exalt reason above the
Scriptures.” (Rev. Herman Hoeksema, “A
Power of God Unto Salvation,” p. 58)
############################################
Q. 2. “Isn’t the attempt to harmonize Scripture
with itself or the attempt to solve seemingly paradoxical problems in the Bible
‘rationalism’?”
If the attempt to find, by a deeper study of the
Scripture, the solution of paradoxes is deemed "rationalism" (i.e.
heretical) then it certainly follows that all theology, and especially all
dogmatics, is rationalistic... For theology and dogmatics proceed from the
assumption that the truth revealed in the Bible can be formulated into a
logical system.
No theologian has ever proceeded from the
assumption that we must not try to harmonize Scripture or try to solve
problems. Dogmatics is a system of truth elicited from Scripture. And exegesis
always applies the rule of the "regula Scripturae" (Analogy of
Scripture) which means that throughout the Bible there runs a consistent line
of thought in the light of which the darker and more difficult passages must be
interpreted.
Who does not know that Reformed theologians have
always interpreted those passages of Scriptures, which at first sight seem to
be in favor of the Arminian view, in the light of the current teaching of Holy
Writ that salvation is of the Lord, that grace is sovereign, that the atonement
is particular, and that man is not free to do good? (Rev. Herman Hoeksema)
[Rationalism
is the rejection of] divinely inspired teaching on the basis that it is
inconsistent with what unaided human reason already knows. If
the rejection of Prof. Murray’s formulation of the gospel offer proceeds on the
basis that it contradicts what Scripture explicitly teaches, that rejection is
free from the charge of rationalism and must be accepted as Biblical truth … [The]
rejection of Prof. Murray’s formulation proceeds, not on the basis that it
contradicts the light of nature, but that it contradicts the light of
Scripture. (Matthew Winzer, “Murray on the Free Offer:
A Review”)
############################################
Q. 3. “Is not your whole rejection of ‘common grace’
based on inferences drawn from the eternal decree and eternal predestinating
counsel of God? Are you simply denying ‘common grace’ and the ‘well-meant
offer’ merely because it ‘contradicts’ the decree of reprobation?”
No. God’s revealed truth of predestination is not
the only doctrine that militates against common grace. Against God’s unity (Deut. 6:4), common grace
teaches that God has two loves, two mercies, two lovingkindnesses, etc. Against
God’s immutability (Mal. 3:6),
common grace teaches that God loves the reprobate in time and then hates them
in eternity. Against the divine righteousness,
which is so great that God cannot “look on iniquity” (Hab. 1:13), common grace
says that God loves those who are completely evil (Rom. 3:10-18). In short,
common grace postulates a temporary, limited, changeable, unrighteous love of
God (outside of Jesus Christ!) for the reprobate. But the Scriptures teach us
that God loves Himself, and that He loves His elect church (Eph. 5:25) with a
particular (Rom. 9:18), eternal (Jer. 31:3), infinite (Eph. 3:17-19),
unchangeable (Ps. 136) love in Jesus Christ. (Rev. Angus Stewart, “Common Grace”)
############################################
Q. 4. “Are you simply trying to comprehend things
within your fallen human brain, putting reason on the foreground?”
We are not engaged in trying to harmonise one thing
with another before our rational understanding. We are simply discussing the
ordinary meaning of the words which are used by those who speak of a [common
grace, and a] general offer of grace. When we use words, then those words have
meaning. We cannot simply inject into them a meaning as it pleases us or as it
may best suit us.” (Rev. Herman Hoeksema,
“A Power of God Unto Salvation,” p. 2)
[The] rejection of Prof. Murray’s formulation
proceeds, not on the basis that it contradicts the light of nature, but that it
contradicts the light of Scripture. Moreover, the Scriptural references which
Prof. Murray has alleged in favour of his formulation, do not teach what he has
endeavoured so earnestly to extract from them. (Matthew Winzer, “Murray on the Free Offer: A Review”)
############################################
Q. 5. “In our study of Scripture, are there not
apparent contradictions in the Bible, and that in such cases we simply accept both
sides of the contradiction?”
The Bible is the revelation of God to us, adapted
to our understanding. God, who created our logical mind, also adapted His own
revelation to that mind. Hence, there surely cannot be contradictions in the
Word of God. There are no contradictions in God. How could there be
contradictions in His revelation to us? (Rev.
Herman Hoeksema)
##########################################
Q. 6. “Are there not statements in Scripture that
at first blush appear to contradict each other?”
Granted. But it has always been sound Reformed
method of exegesis to make a serious attempt to solve the difficulties by
explaining those passages that appear to contradict the current teaching of the
Bible, the analogia Scripturae, in the light of the latter. Van Til, himself,
even emphasized that this method must be applied in such cases. Only, for some
reason, he quite arbitrarily [wanted] to stop at a certain point. And his
objection to [our] method can only be that [we] insist that this method must be
applied throughout, to the very end.
And when [we] apply this thoroughly Reformed method
to the interpretation of Holy Writ, [we] come to the conclusion that the theory
of common grace is a myth, an invention of man’s mind, not a truth of
revelation.
But suppose now that after all our efforts there
should still be apparent contradictions in the Bible. What then? Must we then
not accept both sides of the contradiction? I have already shown that this is
impossible. No, but in that case:
(a) We adhere to the current teaching of Scripture,
and
(b) We humbly confess that as yet we have not
sufficient light to solve all the difficulties, and continue our search. (Rev. Herman Hoeksema)
##########################################
Q. 7. “Are there not mysteries in Scripture?”
“We
have indeed the calling to contemplate and study the Word of our God until we
understand it. And although we gladly concede that there are mysteries, things
which for our finite understanding are never to be fathomed, because our God is
unfathomable, yet we maintain that in Scripture we have a revelation of God
which is adapted to our thinking and our understanding, and which we indeed can
understand. We maintain that this Scripture does not teach and cannot teach
that black is also white, that God will not bestow but also will bestow grace
on the same persons, that He offers what He does not will to bestow. Scripture
is not both Reformed and Arminian. (Rev.
Herman Hoeksema, “Believers and Their Seed: Children in the Covenant,” [RFPA,
1997], p. 130)
Q. 8. “Are you not reasoning too much out of the hidden counsel of God?
Wouldn't it be better if you would consider that the revealed things are for
us?”
That a Reformed person can preach a particular gospel in general is
perfectly clear to [us]. There is no mystery or contradiction involved in that.
The mystery arises when someone wants to bring a general gospel (according to
its content) in harmony with the truth of election. That is impossible. But
[we] never occupy [ourselves] with hidden things. [We] do not visit fortune
tellers, and [we] certainly do not take note of the barking of dogs or the cry
of birds. (Rev. Herman Hoeksema, "A
Power of God Unto Salvation," p. 62)
##########################################
Q. 9. “Is not the relationship between the general offer of the gospel
and the doctrine of election and reprobation a ‘mystery’? Something
‘incomprehensible’ to our finite mind, and therefore cannot be understood or
harmonised?”
This is not a mystery. It is nonsense. It is so nonsensical, because the
latter is not true, while the former is true; the latter is not in harmony with
Scripture, the former is: the latter is not Reformed, the former is thoroughly
Reformed. You want to join the lie to the truth. Therefore you end up with a
so-called mystery. (Rev. Herman Hoeksema,
“A Power of God Unto Salvation,” pp. 76-77)
##########################################
Q. 10. “How do you respond to Murray and Stonehouse’s argument that
there is no contradiction between a desire to save only the elect and a desire
to save all men because, after all, the one pertains to His decretive will and the other pertains to
His revealed will, and it would only
be a contradiction if we would attribute these two desires to the same will
(either decretive or revealed)?”
In the introduction to [their pamphlet entitled The Free Offer of the Gospel, Murray and Stonehouse write the
following]:
It
would appear that the real point in dispute in connection with the free offer
of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that God desires the salvation
of all men.
It
should have been apparent that the aforesaid committee, in predicating such
‘desire’ of God, was not dealing with the decretive will of God; it was dealing
with the free offer of the gospel to all without distinction and that surely
respects, not the decretive will of God, but the revealed will. There is not
ground for the supposition that the expression was intended to refer to God’s
decretive will.
It
must be admitted that if the expression were intended to apply to the decretive
will of God, then there would be, at least, implicit contradiction. For to say
that God desires the salvation of the reprobate and apply the former to the
same thing as the latter, namely, the decretive will, would be contradiction;
it would amount to averring of the same thing, viewed from the same aspect, God
wills and God does not will.
Again,
the expression, ‘God desires,’ in the formula that crystallises the crux of the
question, is intended to notify not at all the ‘seeming’ attitude of God, but a
real attitude, a real disposition of loving-kindness inherent in the free offer
to all, in other words, a pleasure or delight in God, contemplating the blessed
result to be achieved by compliance with the overture proffered and the
invitation given.
Let
us restate, in other words, the real matter in dispute. It is, whether in the
Reformed doctrine of redemption, the desire and pleasure of God concerns only
the salvation of the elect whom He has chosen in Christ from the foundation of
the world, or, whether it also refers to the nonelect whom God has made the
objects of His everlasting displeasure and wrath.
There are three important
facts to notice from the above quotations.
Firstly, the Professors have posited in God a sensible and reasonable
will concerning His precepts for the salvation of all men. If any should object
that the Professors have not used the words, ‘sensible and reasonable,’ then
that which they have written is meaningless. Furthermore, if there is a
sensible and reasonable desire in God which respects His preceptive [i.e.
‘revealed’] will that all men shall be saved, such desire is internal to the
mind of God. It would be contrary to Scripture and to reason to suppose that
there is a desire in God which is without sensibility and reason, and which
does not belong to His internal mind. The Professors have put the matter beyond
doubt in the following quotation from their study:
The
expression ‘God desires’ in the formula that crystallises the crux of the
question, is intended to notify not at all the ‘seeming’ attitude of God but a
real attitude, a real disposition of loving-kindness inherent in the free offer
to all, in other words, a pleasure or delight in God, contemplating the blessed result to be achieved by
compliance with the overture proffered and the invitation given.
Secondly, if there is a sensible and reasonable desire in God for the
salvation of all men, and that desire is internal to His mind, then unless
there are two minds in God, that desire must belong to the same mind which
executes His eternal decrees.
Thirdly, the Professors have attempted to avoid the obvious
contradiction which must exist if the desire of God for the salvation of all
men has reference to God’s decretive will, by referring that desire to His
preceptive [or ‘revealed’] will. In other words, the Professors believe that by
confining the desire of God for the salvation of all men to His preceptive
will, it does not involve a contradiction with God’s decretive will by which He
purposes to save only some. Now as we have clearly pointed out, a desire in God
for the salvation of all men must belong to the same mind which executes His
decrees. The Professors, therefore, have failed to avoid the internal
contradiction in God. Rather, they have by positing a desire in God’s preceptive
will, created it.
If a duplicity is implied,
it matters not, in this case, if it is held that there are two minds in God or
only one. If it is proposed that God desires the salvation of all men, and at
the same time purposes to save only some, there must be a contradiction in the Divine Mind.
The Professors have not
comprehended within their theology the fact that a desire in God, whether it be
made to belong to His decretive will or His preceptive [revealed] will, is a
state or act of the Divine Mind. If
it is held that the Divine Mind is rational, then all the desires of God must
be consistent with His purposes and decrees. The non-fulfilment of desire in
God implies that there is an internal contradiction or want [lack] of
blessedness in the ever blessed God. The Scripture teaches that God will fulfil
all His good pleasure. God in the human sense does not desire or want of
anything, but decrees all things according to the pleasure of His own will.
The obscurity and
confusion of the modern modified Calvinist system, in the understanding of
many, stems from the fact that the idea persists that the desire of God, which
He is said to have for the salvation of all men is external to Himself, because it is posited in His preceptive
[revealed] will. The basic error, in this respect, is simply the positing in
the mind of God a desire concerning His precepts [i.e. that God’s commands are
His desire]. God’s preceptive will
[i.e. His commands] which is given for man’s rule of duty, is in no way
declarative of what God desires or
what He intends to do. To say that God desires the salvation of those whom He
does not purpose to save, by granting them the gifts of repentance and faith,
is to make God insincere and a monster in the worst sense. The free offer of
Christ in the gospel, which God’s ministers are commanded to preach unto all
men, is not a declaration of whom He desires to save, any more than it is one
concerning the particular individuals whom He purposes to redeem.
(Evangelical
Presbyterian Church of Australia, “Universalism and the Reformed Churches: A
Defense of Calvin’s Calvinism”)
##########################################
Q. 11. “Why can’t saving
faith accept mutually exclusive propositions that are contrary to all logic?
Does not the word of God demands us to accept such?”
We maintain that this is impossible even for saving
faith and that Scripture never makes such a demand on faith. The truth may far
transcend our comprehension, but it never conflicts with the fundamental laws
of logic. If it did, it could not be apprehended. A truth that is contrary to
our understanding would elude our grasp. (Rev.
Herman Hoeksema, “God’s Goodness Always Particular” [RFPA 2015], p. 23)
##########################################
Q. 12. “What is the
‘archetypal/ectypal distinction in Reformed theology?”
The
word archetype means “pattern in an ultimate sense.” Simply
put, archetypal knowledge is theology as God knows it. The term refers to God’s infinite, perfect
self-knowledge. It is knowledge that the triune God has of Himself apart from
any creature. This knowledge of God is the ultimate pattern of all knowledge.
The word ectype means “copy or reflection of the archetype or ultimate
pattern.”21 Ectypal
knowledge is theology as we know and do it. It is the knowledge that we humans
have of God. More specifically, ectypal knowledge is the knowledge that the believer
and the church have of God by means of revelation. (Joshua Engelsma, PRTJ, vol. 45, no. 2
[April, 2012].)
##########################################
Q. 13. “How is archetypal
knowledge and ectypal knowledge distinguished? Is there is a difference?”
[There] is a difference between how God
knows [archetypal knowledge] and how we know [ectypal knowledge]. Archetypal
knowledge is intuitive; ectypal knowledge is derived. This understanding also
acknowledges that there is a difference in quantity between archetypal and
ectypal knowledge. Archetypal knowledge is infinite and boundless; ectypal
knowledge is finite and limited. (Joshua
Engelsma, Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 45, no. 2 [April,
2012].)
For our part, we believe that the
distinction ought to be made between the quantity
of our knowledge and God’s knowledge and the way in which we know and God
knows. The quantity of God’s knowledge is infinite while ours is finite. God
knows intuitively while our knowledge is derived. But the quality of the
knowledge we have by revelation is not different from God’s knowledge. What we
know from God’s Word is true and is not in any way contradictory. (Joshua Engelsma, Protestant
Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 45, no. 2 [April, 2012], pp. 93-94.)
##########################################
Q. 14. “Does not the archetype/ectype distinction teach that there
is a complete break between the content of God’s knowledge and knowledge
possible to man?”
This
is not the proper understanding of this distinction. The proper understanding
of this distinction can be summed up rather briefly: quantitative difference.
The knowledge that God has is distinguished from the knowledge that we have as
regards quantity. God is infinite, and so is His knowledge of Himself
and all things. Our knowledge, by comparison, is finite. God’s knowledge is
intuitive. Ours is acquired. There is now and forever shall be in heaven an
infinite gulf between the quantity of our knowledge and God’s.
But
we must not assume that there is a qualitative difference between God’s
knowledge and the knowledge that we have of things. The knowledge that we have
is received by revelation. God revealed Himself
to us in His Word. That Word is the source of all the believer’s knowledge. And
that Word is infallible, sufficient, and reliable. God reveals to us in His
Word who He really is and what He has sovereignly decreed. We may not know
everything there is to know about God, but the knowledge God has given to us in
Scripture is identical to the knowledge that God Himself has. If this is not
our confession, then we have absolutely no assurance that what we know is the
truth. We may think something is true, we may hope that it is true, but we have
no certainty that it is actually true. We cannot know whether our knowledge of
something is the same as God’s knowledge. (Joshua
Engelsma, Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 45, no. 2 [April,
2012].)
##########################################
Q. 15. “So you’re saying that though our knowledge is ‘quantitatively’
different from God’s, yet it is ‘qualitatively’ the same as His? Does not
Deuteronomy 29:29 contradict that?”
The
fact that our knowledge is qualitatively the same as God’s is in harmony
with Deuteronomy 29:29, the chief passage on which the archetypal/ectypal
distinction is based. There we read, “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are
revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the
words of this law.” This passage is not saying that the ectype is different
from the archetype. Rather, Moses is telling the people not to pry into the
things that God has not revealed but to observe all that God has revealed in
His law. Applied to the call of the gospel, this verse tells us that we are not
to pry into the hearts of men to see whether they are elect or not, but we are
to confine ourselves to what God has revealed, namely, that all who repent and
believe will be saved. And Scripture is clear that only the elect truly repent
and believe. There is no antimony or apparent contradiction taught in this
passage. (Joshua Engelsma, Protestant Reformed Theological
Journal, vol. 45, no. 2 [April, 2012], p. 80.)
##########################################
Q. 16. “Is not our knowledge of something only ‘analogical’ to
Gods? Is not our knowledge only ‘analogically’ true?”
The claim that our knowledge is only analogical to God’s is
erroneous. The analogical idea essentially means that the believer can have no
truth at all. The best that we can hope for is an analogy to the truth, but the
truth will forever escape us. In this case the truth is that God desires the
salvation only of the elect. But all we can know is that God desires the
salvation of all men who come under the preaching of the gospel. The truth is
not something we can know and ought not be something we are concerned with.
Gordon Clark writes, “If God knows all truths and knows the correct meaning of
every proposition, and if no proposition means to man what it means to God, so
that God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge do not coincide at any single point,
it follows by rigorous necessity that man can have no truth at all.”43
We confess that the truth must be the same for us as it is for God.
We do not know everything that God knows, nor do we know in the same way that
God knows, but what we do know to be true is the same as God knows it. That is
to say, the quantity of our knowledge and the way in which we know is
different. It must be, for God is the infinite God and we are but finite
creatures. But the quality of the knowledge that we do have is identical with
that which God has. What we know about a certain proposition is identical to
what God knows about that same proposition. Revelation requires that this be
true. God’s revelation to us is a revelation that is reliable and accurate. He
reveals Himself to us as He actually is. He reveals in His Word to us the truth
about the way He works. Faith requires that this be true as well.
[Robert L. Reymond writes,] “Accordingly, since the Scriptures
require that saving faith be grounded in true knowledge (see Rom. 10:13-14),
the church must vigorously oppose any linguistic or revelational theory,
however well-intended, that would take from men and women the only ground of
their knowledge of God and, accordingly, their only hope of salvation.”44
--------------------
FOOTNOTES:
43 Quoted in Reymond, New
Systematic Theology, 99.
44 Reymond, New Systematic
Theology, 102.
(Source: Protestant
Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 45, no. 2 [April 2012], p. 86)
-----------------
[Claiming that our knowledge is only
‘analogically’ true] leaves the door open for contradictions
and paradoxes in our knowledge. What we know is essentially different from the
way things actually are. We are convinced that this undermines the very
existence of systematic theology. We are also convinced that this is perilous
for the faith and salvation of the child of God. If we are unsure of the
truthfulness of our knowledge, our faith and salvation are unsure. (Source: Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, vol. 45, no. 2 [April
2012], p. 94)
##########################################
Q. 17. “Scripture portrays God as having a nose, eyes, ears,
passions, and even portrays God as repenting. Does this not imply that the
reflection we see in the Bible is distorted? The image we have of God in the
Bible is not who God is as He is. It is who God is as He has revealed Himself
to our weak finite capacity.
The problem isn't the mirror. The problem is us. The mirror is
accommodated to us and our problems which include sinfulness, creatureliness,
and finiteness. God is reflected and revealed in the Scriptures but that
revelation is not who God is in His essence since He is essentially
unknowable.”
Your question concerns what theology calls “anthropomorphism.” God reveals Himself to us in Scripture in
language and forms reflecting human characteristics. As spirit, God has no body or bodily parts;
but He states that He has eyes, a hand, etc. As modes of revelation, therefore,
they are not to be taken literally, but make known that to God belong the
realities that these body parts perform in human life: seeing; acting, etc.
That these characteristics of God are figurative does not, however,
imply that they are unreal. God’s are
the realities, of which the human parts and activities are the figures. God
made man with the bodily parts and activities to manifest the realities in
Himself. God’s are the real eyes, hand, etc. The realities are the divine,
spiritual seeing, acting, etc.
To view the matter from another angle, although the ascription of
bodily parts to God is not to be taken literally, physically, but as revelation
to humans concerning who and what God is, the revelation is true, although God
far exceeds the revelation. Revelation can be true, although not complete. God
far exceeds the revelation of Himself in Scripture, but He is not different
from the revelation. There may be a faint shadowing of this in our own lives
with each other. You, or even my wife, knows me truly, if I am an
unhypocritical man; but neither of you knows me fully, not even as fully as I
know myself.
I would contend that the revelation of God is essentially who God
truly is. He is not different from His revelation of Himself. But He is more
than the revelation.
When we see God face to face in Jesus, we will not exclaim, “How
different thou art from your revelation in Scripture.” But we will say, “I know
you. I always knew you. I knew you truly. You are exactly the one whom I knew
in my life on earth. But greater and more glorious.”
Revelation is true, not false.
And by it, we do know God. By His own gracious act of revelation,
He is essentially knowable.
Hear Bavinck:
“... In order to convey the knowledge of him to his creatures, God
accommodates himself to their powers of comprehension. Our knowledge of God is
always only analogical in character and, therefore, only a finite image, a
faint likeness and creaturely impression of the perfect knowledge that God has
of himself. Finally, our knowledge of God is nevertheless true, pure, and
trustworthy because it is founded in God’s own self-consciousness, its
archetype, and his self-revelation in the cosmos.”
Read all that Bavinck has to say on the subject in the first part
of his Reformed Dogmatics. (Prof. David J. Engelsma)
##########################################
Q. 18. “Herman Bavinck makes an interesting point when he says that
our knowledge of God is ‘always only analogical in character and, therefore,
only a finite image, a faint likeness and creaturely impression of the perfect
knowledge that God has of himself.’ I recall that Cornelius Van Til also
discussed extensively in his writings the concept of ‘analogical’ knowledge. Is
Bavinck there teaching the same concept as Van Til? Or is there a different
understanding of ‘analogical’ knowledge between these two men?”
With regard to your question about analogical knowledge in Bavinck,
a careful, full reading of Bavinck on the subject will make plain that he had
something different in mind from Van Til.
Bavinck insisted that our knowledge of God by revelation is true, that
we know God truly from His revelation.
Bavinck was concerned to point out that God reveals Himself to us in
language and by figures that draw upon comparisons with the makeup of
humans. Van Til, although he may have
supposed that he was grounded in Bavinck's theology, meant by analogy that
there is no oneness of divine revelation and of human's knowledge. This denies the truth and reality of our
knowledge of God. Our knowledge is
always mere similarity.
For Bavinck, as I read him, our knowledge of God by divine
revelation is true knowledge, making known to us what and who God really
is. God's making Himself known is
(genuine) revelation of Himself.
This is reality by means of revelation that uses anthropomorphisms,
likenesses of God and His actions to human features and actions.
The fundamental expression of this genuine revelation, though
taking form in anthropomorphism, is Jesus.
He is genuine revelation of God, not only in spite of His humanity, but
exactly by means of His humanity. (Prof.
David J. Engelsma)
##########################################
Q. 19. “What did Cornelius Van Til mean by ‘analogical knowledge’?”
Van Til developed his concept of “analogical knowledge,” meaning
that all human knowledge can only ever be a representation of God’s knowledge.
In this view, there is no defined point of contact between God’s knowledge and
man’s knowledge; there is never an identity between God’s knowledge of Himself
and our knowledge of Him. Hence, propositions cannot have the same meaning for
God as they do for man, with the result that propositional knowledge of God
ultimately becomes impossible. (Philip
Rainey, “Calvinism Cast Out: The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland and
the Free Offer of the Gospel”)
##########################################
Q. 20. “We may not and cannot apply the laws of logic to the Being
of God.”
[This] position is self-contradictory: [one] has to use logic in
order to disparage logic. [The modern notion] is that God’s attributes cannot
be reduced to the level of human logic ... Yet it is only on the basis of logic
that [someone] can say [we are] wrong. Obviously, we cannot both be right at
the same time; that would be a denial of the law of non-contradiction. [This
ideology allows a person] to deny logic only when it suits him. (Philip Rainey, “Calvinism Cast Out: The
Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the Free Offer of the Gospel”)
##########################################
Q. 21. “The truth about God always eludes our logical categories
and it is the part of a true Christian humility to let the doctrine of a love
of God for all men stand in tension with the truth of sovereign reprobation.”
This position represents a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture.
According to [free offer men], [both double predestination and the well-meant
offer] are taught in Scripture. But since Scripture is the revealed will of
God, if it contains contradictions, then it is unclear, and if unclear, it
cannot be sufficient. (Philip Rainey,
“Calvinism Cast Out: The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the Free
Offer of the Gospel”)
##########################################
Q. 22. “Surely we have no right to say that God cannot both love
and hate a man at one and the same time. After all, God’s mind is infinite, and
therefore He is perfectly capable of loving and hating the same person. Such a
concept is simply one of the many mysteries we must humbly accept.”
That is simply a contradiction. Such a view is a denial of the
attribute of God’s simplicity. The doctrine of God’s simplicity means that God
is one and undivided in His Being. Although we speak of and distinguish individual
attributes of God, it is nevertheless true that his attributes are all one in
Him. Hence, God’s simplicity means God always acts consistently with His
nature; God is always in harmony with Himself; there is no tension in the Being
of God. The very thought is utter blasphemy. He is the one, perfectly blessed,
incomparable God, unto whom be glory forever. Even in human relationships do we
not regard consistency as a virtue? That we do is a reflection of the eternal
and self-existent Jehovah, who as the I AM THAT I AM simply is. Jehovah God is never anything other
than what He is. Hence, to will opposite things … is impossible for God, as Job
declares, “He is in one mind, and who can turn him?” (Job 23:13). God’s will is
God and so His will is one and undivided; you obviously cannot say this about
one who wills both A and not A at the same time: God is not the great
schizophrenic! (Philip Rainey, “Calvinism
Cast Out: The Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland and the Free Offer of the
Gospel”)
##########################################
Q.
23. “A ‘paradox’ (or antinomy) is two truths which are both
unmistakably taught in the Word of God but which also cannot possibly be
reconciled before the bar of human reason.”
[From the definition of paradox proposed thus, it
immediately shows itself to be] inherently problematical, for the one who so
defines the term is suggesting by implication that either he knows by means of
an omniscience that is not normally in human possession that no one is capable of reconciling the
truths in question or he has somehow universally polled everyone who has ever
lived, is living now, and will live in the future and has discovered that not
one has been able, is able, or will be able to reconcile the truths. But it
goes without saying that neither of these conditions is or can be true.
Therefore, the very assertion that there are paradoxes, so defined, in
Scripture is seriously flawed by the terms of the definition itself. There is
no way to know if such a phenomenon is present in Scripture. Merely because any
number of scholars have failed to reconcile to their satisfaction two given
truths of Scripture is no proof that the truths cannot be harmonized. And if just one scholar claims to have
reconciled the truths to his or her own satisfaction, this ipso facto
renders the definition both gratuitous and suspect. (Dr. Robert L. Reymond, “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian
Faith” [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville; USA], p. 105).
Q. 24. “But paradoxes are only apparent contradictions
and not actual or real ones!”
[This attempted solution to the problem] seem to be
oblivious to the fact that, if actually non-contradictory truths can appear as
contradictories and if no amount of study or reflection can remove the
contradiction, there is no available means to distinguish between this
“apparent” contradiction and a real contradiction. Since both would appear to
the human existent in precisely the same form and since neither will yield up
its contradiction to study and reflection, how does the human existent know for
certain that he is “embracing with passion” only a seeming contradiction and
not a real contradiction? (Dr. Robert L. Reymond, “A New Systematic Theology
of the Christian Faith” [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville; USA], p. 105-7).
##########################################
Q.
25. “But even so-and-so (e.g. Berkhof, Murray, Van Til, Spurgeon, etc.) himself
has stated that not even he can reconcile these apparently contradictory truths
… and he is an eminent theologian. Is that fact itself not enough to prove that
not even we are able to solve this, and neither is anyone else for that
matter?”
Merely because any number of scholars have failed
to reconcile to their satisfaction two given truths of Scripture is no proof
that the truths cannot be harmonized. And if just one scholar claims to have
reconciled the truths to his or her own satisfaction, this ipso facto renders the definition both gratuitous and suspect (Dr. Robert L. Reymond, “A New Systematic
Theology of the Christian Faith” [Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville; USA], p.
105).
##########################################
Q.
26. “Are you trying to make the gospel consistent?”
[This] begs the question: “Is the pure gospel inconsistent then?” (“British Reformed Journal,” issue 46 [Winter 2007], p. 26).
Q. 27. “Is it not the height of impiety to require a non-contradictory basis for the offer or preaching of the
gospel?”
We do not believe it is a sign of piety to cry “mystery!”
when contradictions are evident in one’s theology, especially when the
contradiction is of one’s own making. (Rev.
Christopher J. Connors, “The Biblical Offer of the Gospel”)
Q. 28. “We simply have to accept paradox, tension
and antinomy in Scripture. To do otherwise is impious and is to impose man’s
reason upon the Scriptures”
Antinomy and tension are more problematic. You can
take paradox in a good way, however, though not the way it’s intended. Paradox
can be very powerful rhetorically and linguistically. Take the following as an
example of a rhetorical paradox: “By honour and dishonour, by evil report and
good report: as deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as
dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful, yet
alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet
possessing all things” (II Cor. 6:8-10).
Then there is the paradox whereby there is a ‘contradiction.’—and
when there is a contradiction, the minister or theologian has various things
which he can do. He could say, “Whoops … Since God is true and the Scripture is
entirely clear (for the perspicuity of Scripture is involved here), and God is
one, and true, and His word is ‘truth’ in the very beginning … I’ve made a
mistake. Where did I go wrong?” But then the other way is to say, “We have a
paradox! Isn’t that wonderful! We’re so humble … We can’t understand what God
says in His word … And look at those proud people who think they can explain
the Bible in a way that it makes sense … But we’re so humble because we don’t
know what the Bible says.” And then you ask them, “How many paradoxes are there
in the world?” Van Til said “Everything is paradoxical!” And how do you know if
something is a ‘real’ paradox or only
a ‘seeming’ paradox?
The will of God is that with ‘seemingly’ contradictory things in the Bible, the church wrestles
with them, prays with them, studies them and thinks about them and comes to
understand them rightly.
With the idea that we must not try to understand
and solve seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible, somebody could say
that about every doctrine …
E.g. Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I”
(John 14:28) See? One passage says He’s God, and another one says He’s ‘not’ God … Isn’t it wonderful? We have a
paradox! Why don’t we just worship God, because Jesus ‘is’ God, because He is equal with the Father (John 5:18; 10:30),
and yet He’s ‘not’ God … Wonderful!
Worship God in the mystery of it all! Don’t try to understand these things.”
Someone could also say, “This passage says that the
Spirit is God, and the Father is God, and the Son is God (because they have
divine attributes and works, and worship is attributed to them), and then other
passages say that God is one … Therefore God is three ‘and’ God is one … and I
don’t know how it all makes sense, so I’m just going worship God and simply say
that He is both three and one …”
But you’re ‘supposed’
to put it together. And you’re supposed to do it with the will of God. It’s not
pride to do that, but its wisdom and grace.
If you hold two things which are actually
contradictory, you’re in trouble in your mind. It’s not good, psychologically,
for people to hold contradictory things. One of the very things the world says
is, “There is no truth; you can hold contradictory things,” and that’s what
makes people confused.
Paul says “I will not have you ignorant, brethren”
(I Thess. 4:13. Cf. Acts 13:38—“I want you to ‘know’ …”), and sound doctrine does that. Rhetorical paradoxes, by
all means, but it’s a false humility to insist on believing contradictory
things.
(Rev.
Angus Stewart—audio lecture, “God’s Saving Will in the New Testament,” Q&A
Session)
Q. 29. “Isn't the hypostatic union itself a
paradox? Or the Trinity?”
A. The hypostatic union, namely the personal union
of Christ's divine and human natures, is a truth taught in the Word of God and,
consequently, in the Christian creeds. The fact of it is clear. As to how
God achieves such a wonder, that is deep but it is preferable (given our day's
debased theological vocabulary) not to call this a "paradox." The
reason is that people then create a theological category of "paradox"
including all sorts of things THAT THEY CLAIM ARE CONTRADICTORY. Thus when
people are faced with a god whom they claim loves those whom the Bible says God
hates (Rom. 9:13) or a god who wants to save those whom God has reprobated
(Jude 4; I Pet. 2:8; etc.), and realising that this is contradictory, they use
big words to calm their consciences and lead the unwary astray: "antinomy,"
"paradox," etc. Next they claim that the Trinity or the two natures
of Christ are also in this category. The truth is that there are no
contradictions in the Trinity or the natures of Christ or in any biblical
doctrines. For Scripture is the Word of truth and God is a God of truth and in
Him is no darkness at all. (Rev. Angus Stewart)
No comments:
Post a Comment