Paradox Part 1
September 15, 2008
I’m not sure about you, but I’ve heard the term used in Christian circles a lot lately. Those who use the word paradox are usually referring to a type of mystery or tension between two biblical truths. Here’s how J.I. Packer defines antinomy (another word for paradox) in his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Notice he also makes a clear judgment about how we should handle such things:
“An antinomy – in theology, at any rate – is…not a real contradiction, though it looks like one. It is an apparent incompatibility between two apparent truths. An antinomy exists when a pair of principlies stand side by side, seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable…[An antinomy] is insoluble…What should one do, then, with an antinomy? Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it. Refuse to regard the apparent contradiction as real.”
Robert Reymond, former professor of Systematics at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, agrees with Packer’s definition, but not with his conclusion. Here’s part of what Reymond had to say about paradox in his work A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith:
“…many of our finest modern evangelical scholars are insisting that even after the human interpreter has understood the Bible correctly, it will often represent its truths to the human existent – even the believing human existent – in paradoxical terms, that is, in terms “taught unmistakably in the infallible Word of God,” which, while not actually contradictory, nevertheless “cannot possibly be reconciled before the bar of human reason.”
However… “bible students should be solicitous to interpret the Scriptures in a noncontradictory way; they should strive to harmonize Scripture with Scripture because the Scriptures reflect the thought of a single divine mind.”
I’ll be attempting to explore the implications of both views in a short series of upcoming posts. I hope you’ll be challenged to think critically about these things, even if you’ve never heard of them before now.
[...] Christian Paradox Jump to Comments Nathan has posted the first segment of what will be a futures series exploring the idea of paradox and contradiction in Scripture over at Equipping the Mind. [...]
I have always found it interesting, not specifically how one defines “paradox”, but rather what one does with that same paradox once it has been defined. In a rather paradoxical way, I see both statements as true. Now, before you think I’ve gone off the PoMo deep-end, see that they speak to different aspects of epistemologically dealing with a paradox. It would seem Packer is dealing with the primary cognition of a paradoxical idea. Whereas Reymond seems to be dealing with explication of that paradox once the primary cognition has been attempted, specifically in the role of teaching/preaching. Packer says accept and deal with the paradox, and Reymond seems to be saying that in preaching, don’t set the paradoxical relationship itself up as a barrier/hurdle to the propre exegesis and subsequent teaching of the Scripture.
I forgot to add this:
Nathan, what are your thoughts? Do you see these two statements as excluding one another or as paradoxical?
Tom,
Thanks for commenting! I thought no one even knew I was here. In fact, I had accepted my inconsequential obscurity and decided to treat my first attempt at blogging as a personal exercise in wrestling with the seemingly contradictory.
But since you’ve asked, and I’m glad you did, I re-read my own post and in doing so realized that you’re right, I didn’t actually pit the two views against each other accurately enough. Fear not. I will soon (quite the relative word in my life right now) provide some more of Reymond’s perspective which I hope will clear up any confusion as well as give my own thoughts/opinions. Stay tuned.
I certainly will. Also, the blog looks great; I’ve added it to my must read list. Hope you’re doing well.