Dave Green, a great brother, recently wrote:
“Sam and Jason, on the issue of “paradox,” have relied heavily on Robert Reymond’s Clarkian book, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. In that book, on page 129, Reymond wrote:
“The vast deeps” of God “often stretch the creature’s understanding beyond his powers of comprehension and humble him as nothing else can or will. He will often find himself exclaiming with Paul: . . . How unsearchable [are] his judgments. . . . ”
Elsewhere however, Reymond tells his readers that everything in the Bible should make perfect logical sense to us and that there are no paradoxes (apparent contradictions) in Scripture.
So then, according to Reymond….
On the one hand, the vast deeps of God “often” stretch our creaturely understanding beyond our powers of comprehension. They humble us “as nothing else can or will.” And they “often” cause us to exclaim that God’s judgments are unsearchable. But on the other hand, there is nothing in the vast deeps of the infinite and eternal God that should seem perplexing (contradictory) to our creaturely understanding and comprehension.
The Clarkian pattern:
1. Pay lip service to the fact that the depths of God in general are “often” utterly confounding to the human mind.
2. Yet refuse to call those confounding and perplexing unfathomables “paradoxes.”
3. Then when confronted with a specific paradox (e.g., “eternally begotten”/”eternal generation”), simply declare that it makes perfect logical sense to us and refuse to call it a paradox.”
I cannot make myself clearer in what I have already written. Incomprehensibility does not involve paradox. Somehow, Dave is confused between the two. It APPEARS that he thinks that since God’s knowledge goes beyond our knowledge, that this MUST mean “paradox” or something. Not so. I have given several examples, and Jason has provided many as well. Let me give another one that is in keeping with what I have already written many times. Let’s say on Subject X, God knows 100 propositions. That is, He knows all propositions that there is to know on Subject X. Now, me, a human being, cannot know all 100 propositions. But, let’s say, God has revealed to me in the Scriptures 5 propositions of the 100. The five I know are not contradictory of the 95 others. There is no paradox of the 5 I know, and the other 95 I don’t know. Incomprehensibility simply means, God knows more propositions than I do about Subject X. There is nothing in the 95 propositions that would contradict the 5 I know, and nothing in the 5 I know that would contradict or appear contradictory to the 95 I don’t know.
That’s what Robert Reymond means……and Clark….and Cheung….and Machen…..(shall I go down the list?)…..
Jason
i just love how Dave gets around the “reformed” pattern by calling this a “clarkian” one. The only people he's fooling are those that don't know their reformed history. Sam, pretcosmos has been added to my list of “don't bother” websites now; along with DID and anything Rod is on. I tire of seeing Ed put words in our mouths. When have we ever said or even remotely hinted that we believe we have God figured out? I have said the exact opposite. Notice too, that none of them have dealt with the specific objections raised by Reymond, Cheung, and myself. Dave just repeats the same mantras over and over again, and then ends it with a “you're prideful and full of yourself” jab with each one. *Yawn*
Dave still can't explain to anyone how we can tell the difference between an apparent contradiction and a real one.
I don't see anything “spiritual” or “humble” in degrading God's ability to communicate to man.
All they have done is made themselves the standard. I love JD's quote on preterismdebate….no one turns on logic until it turns on them…fits to a tee. And rather than submit to the objective standards God has given us, they laugh it off and mock those that try, with this talk of fake spirituality. This is nothing more than irrationalism with the bible thrown in. Sad.
Samuelmfrost
That's really the issue here, Jason. It's not man's ability to understand God, but God's ability to communicate to man in a way that makes sense. The Neo-Orthodox belief (and that's what it is, read Karl Barth) in Paradox is an assault on the Scriptures, and the Reformed battled that doctrine through the champion, J. Gresham Machen in the 1920's-40's. You gotta know your history here, as Glen Beck would say, or you are prey to all sorts of false teachings.
Karen White
Where is all your scriptural evidence? Is it asking too much?
hal1
Hi Karen,
You are asking for scriptural evidence. That certainly is not asking too much, provdied God is not silent one way or another on an issue. I guess my question would be, “Specifically for what would you like Sam or Jason to provide scriptural evidence?” Thanks.
Samuelmfrost
Karen,
I am, in many ways, Reformed and, in most aspects, a follower of the Westminster Confession of Faith. In that, that which is Scripture “and may be deduced thereof” is Truth. My argument is a logical deduction based off of the biblical notion that God is omniscient (he knows all things). If, then, he knows all things, then nothing can be added to His knowledge, and, if that is the case, then the number of God's people must be finite. Now, Dave Green and others have recognized this logical deduction, yet have also falsely taught that God's people will increase infinitely. There is NO scripture that teaches this. I can find none. And, it is here that Dave claims “paradox”. But, it is a paradox of his own making, not the Bible's. I do not find “paradox” in the Bible, and know of no verse that teaches it.
So, my question to you would be, “where's the scriptural evidence for infinite procreation and paradox”? Thanks for posting
Sam
Martin
Sam,
Would it be fair to say that this debate over infinity is just another manifestation of the long standing debate between Clark(ians) and Van Til(ians)?
martin
Samuelmfrost
Martin,
Certainly. Clark was very clear in his denial of attributing “infinity” (as the Greeks understood it) to God. He noted that Christianity changed the definition of the word and mean by it “unlimited” or “perfect”. God is “boundless”. But, when we say God's knowledge neither increases nor diminishes, we are no longer talking about infinity at that point. Clark's insistence on logic over and against Van Til's insistence on paradox is what is at the heart of this debate.
davo
Sam you said… “In that, that which is Scripture “and may be deduced thereof” is Truth.”
Wouldn't it be the case that there could well be a fair degree of subjective-ness to one's deductions, and therefore straining the gnat to equate one's deductions as thereof the Truth? – wouldn't it further be the case that such presumptiveness might foster any amount of mistaken belief?
Mograce2u
Sam,
PaulT seems to think he has a scripture that supports the idea that procreation will one day cease – Mat 22:22-30 *. Where the Sadducees question Jesus about a scenario for a woman who married all 7 brothers who died.
Now I realize that for PT, he sees this time when the dead are raised as being at the end of the world once all natural life has ceased in this world. But given that the Pharisees also challenge Jesus with the greatest commandment, seems to be more about the end of the Mosaic law as the end of the age in view for the time of resurrection and the coming kingdom age. The Sadducees seemed to think that the Mosaic Law would have to govern that kingdom too, which is why they mocked the Pharisees' idea of a resurrection. But even the Pharisees' use the love of God as being the greatest commmandment to challenge Jesus that the law cannot possibly cease. And Jesus clearly says that love of God and neighbor continue in the coming age. But the greater truth they both need to understand is just who the scriptures say the Son of David is who will rule in that kingdom at the right hand of God.
A few things we know about these members of the Sanhedrin is that they both expected to rule with Messiah when He came. It doesn't seem that they were expecting anything but an earthly kingdom or that physical life & death as they knew it would cease – at least not for the Gentiles whom they expected to rule over by that law of Moses. So for them the rising of the dead must have meant they would walk upon this earth as we do now. PT seems to share this view in his understanding too since it is how he justifies that procreation will one day cease by presenting this verse.
But is Jesus even talking about that here as He hints at His own resurrection and ascension to the throne of God in this discussion about their error in not knowing the scriptures which spoke of the age to come? I pointed out to PT that the law of Moses is no longer in effect and that we do not procreate in order to bring children into an inheritance in the kingdom as Israel was required to do under her old covenant. Yet we still multiply and fill the earth according to the first command of God given to His creation, which was repeated to Noah, Abraham and Israel. We don't find that command reissued to the saints who are in Christ. In fact we see them selling off their earthly goods in Acts which shows that their expected inheritance was not in this world. Nor is Jesus walking the earth 'physically' in His resurrected glory as He dwells with the saints and rules over them whether in this earth or in heaven.
So I am wondering why are we still so focused on the carnal side of things in thinking that the temporal world must someday end for these truths to be 'fully' known? Procreation and death are the cycles that define life here – neither of which are found in that realm where Jesus lives. If marriage (procreation) is not needed in heaven to keep it populated, then it is needed here – as is death, lest we have no way to get there! No end to the kingdom of Christ is what we are told. Since that kindgom is here in the earth extending to eternal life in heaven at death, how can it ever end in either realm under the never ending covenant Christ brought to this earth? Is procreation to stop so that no more men can be converted to faith? Then love must abandon this world – yet the love of God is what Jesus told the Pharisees would never end. Is it only in heaven that must be true? Surely you have children for whom you have given them hope in the knowledge of Christ. I know I will not give up that hope for my son til the day he dies. And the love of God is greater than mine for His creation!
Perhaps the knowing that God has of all His saints has less to do with the number of them and more to do with their thoughts and heart since that is where He sets up His rule. The idea that the 'elect' of God is a finite number can only apply to OC Israel. That is the age that ended and we know when the law that governed marriage as the means to gaining an inheritance into the kingdom of God ended for who would be counted among the sons of God in the age that was about to come.
Robin
(* see Pret Blog: Jolly Green Theology)
Mograce2u
Just read Sam's last post over at PretBlog @ Jolly Green Theology – I will hold my comments in reserve until someone else comments. Suffice it to say it does not set well with me.
Robin
Woldeyesus
Whatever past and present theologians say, to the contrary, one can know all the hidden treasures of God's wisdom, knowledge and power (without their paradox) by unpretentious authentication of Christ's LIVE, perfect and transfigurative death on the cross “according to the Scriptures” (Rev. 5). AMEN.