Response to James N. Anderson’s “Theological Paradox”

June 30, 2010 by Samuel Frost

19 Comments 19 Comments

The following article was written by Gary W. Crampton for the Trinity Review. It seem the old Barthian notion of “paradox” is fashionable in some Preterist circles, and we have voiced our criticism as well. Anderson is a Van Tillian, of course, and argues for paradox as a “rational” (!) means to do theology. I plan on buying the book (I already have Ralph Smith’s book on the same subject matter, where he (another Van Tillian) argues for paradox. I read that book years ago and will probably review it here as well. For now, here is the review of Anderson’s new book on paradox:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=267

Samuelmfrost

And, to be fair, James N. Anderson responded to Crampton here
http://www.proginosko.com/docs/ResponseCrampton…

I found the review a little childish. Needless to say, folks, the Reformed are divided on this subject. All I can say is that I side with those present theologians, and those long dead, who rejected paradox.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Edward-Hassertt/100001212543726 Edward Hassertt

And I side with those present theologians and those long dead who accepted the truth of God's word even if it defies human logic.
Samuelmfrost

Ed,

And there you have it. Disagreements are a part of life. We have to learn to live with them. They are the grounds for cultivating the fruits of the Spirit, and those fruits, I am sure, you try to cultivate as much as possible. Good to see you on here again (thanks Jason).
http://thereignofchrist.com Jason

Sam, i don't want to take any credit for something i didn't do. I haven't changed anything. I guess Ed figured out how to get around his ban by logging in using his facebook credentials, which just enforces my opinion that Ed has no respect for what we are doing here. Now, if you have told Ed he can come back, then i apologize. But i haven't done anything. I know you've told me that you two have worked things out; so if that's the case, then i'll just let it be. I would still like to see from Ed however a retraction of his statement that i somehow obtained a private email of his and read it on one of my route 66 podcasts.

So how bout it, Ed? I still have people asking me about that, wondering if i really did; all based on something you completely made up. Care to clear my name?
http://thereignofchrist.com Jason

1) What is human logic? As opposed to what, God logic? A contradiction is the same for God as it is for man. Please demonstrate from the Scriptures where we are told that God thinks of a contradiction differently than the standard, formal law we have defined. Is a “king” not a king and a king at the same time and in the same respect for God? If it is, then what is meant by the word “king” when God uses it in communication with us?

2) To defy means to challenge, to resist, to oppose. Again, please provide the Scriptures that teach that God has communicated to us in such a way that his communication opposes, say, what we call the law of noncontradiction.

What is really happening is that you have a very poor understanding of what constitutes a contradiction, and you are doing one of two things: either calling things apparent contradictions that really are not and/or embracing INTERPRETATIONS of texts that have created real contradictions, of which should be rejected; not because God teaches what you claim he teaches, but because your understanding of it is skewed.

3) The law of contradiction is symbolically expressed as “not both A and not-A”. A contradiction is “both A and not-A”.

Now, you claim that the Bible gives us “both A and not-A”s that only appear to be “both A and not-A”s, but in reality are not.

Well, if a “both A and not-A” appears exactly as a “both A and not-A”, then please explain to us how you know that a “both A and not-A” is not really a “both A and not-A”, but is instead a “not both A and not-A”?

How can a “both A and not-A” APPEAR as a “not both A and not-A”?

The only “answer” i have seen so far from the pretcosmonauts is to appeal to things like “God doesn't lie” or “God is truth”. This, however, begs the question. Because “apparently” for you guys, God's “truth” contains “both A and not-A”s. And when the problem of such thing is pointed out, you merely brush it off as only an “apparent” “both A and not-A”, not a real “both A and not-A”.

Thus, you still have not answered how a person can tell the difference between a “both A and not-A” that appears in that exact form, but really isn't exactly that as it appears vs. a “both A and not-A” that really is in fact a “both A and not-A”.

Please give us a symbolic representation of an “apparent” “both A and not-A”. How is the word “appears” symbolically expressed?

Anyone who has given this any serious thought will soon realize that any symbolic expression of an apparent “both A and not-A” is in reality a contradiction itself, because it claims that the “both A and not-A” is itself a “not both A and not-A”.

Hence, why i call it irrationalism. It is sheer nonsense, regardless of who endorses it. I await your responses.
Samuelmfrost

Jason,

Spot on. Dead center. Right on the money. That is EXACTLY the point, and I cannot understand why they continue to deny this FACT. They claim logic, then deny it when it comes to the “vast deepness of God”. They use logic as a “tool” then deny it when it comes to the “mysteries” of God. If you are going to use logic, use it all the way or don't use it at all.
Samuelmfrost

Jason,

I posted this at Larry's PreterismDebate site in response to Dave Green:

Dave,

Now you sound like a Clarkian, man! Your whole definition of paradox is an APPARENT CONTRADICTION to human logic! Are you now speaking in terms of “what Dave Green says is even a paradox!”? Because, right now, that's what you are doing! If God FULLY KNOWS all His people, then it CANNOT be an infinite number (for up to point that he knows them all, one more can be added that he doesn't know, and when he knows that one, another can be added, and so on). In infinity, one more can always be added to the “all”. Thus, there is no “all”….it's INFINITE. You believe that God's people INFINITELY increase, and you also believe God knows ALL of them……yet, I can always assert “at what point he knows them all, one more can be added”. That's what INFINITY means (at least to the Greeks). But, once you assert that He knows ALL of them, then this must mean there is an ALL to know….a FINITE number….not an ever increasing number. Hence, this is why I assert that procreation MUST come to an end. Yet, when I do that, you assert that I am “worshipping logic” above God! And, you assert “paradox” – which means that, logically, what I am saying is CORRECT, but you don't accept it because of your belief in infinite procreation! Here is where you assert “paradox” because you believe that infinity and the fact that God knows all things CANNOT be squared by “human logic” and so we must accept two IRRECONCILIABLE propositions: God knows all things and nothing can be added to all that he knows, 2. God's people increase infinitely. Indeed, these are two irrconciliable propositions, logically speaking, and here is where you simply say, “paradox”. For me, the paradox is SOLVED by asserting that God's people are finite in number. That's the LOGICAL solution. And, you have agreed with me that this is, indeed, the logical solution. However, you ALSO believe that God has revealed the Preterist doctrine of infinite procreation. I ask, “where”? Now, in other places you have asserted that the earth may, in fact, come to an end. Well now! If the earth may one day come to an end, then the paradox is SOLVED. But, you have also said I elevate logic above God. But, if the earth may “one day” come to an end, thus solving the paradox, would that make God any smaller? Of course not. Also, if the earth “may” one day come to an end, this ending procreation, then where is this FIRM doctrine of infinite procreation in the Scriptures? Do the Scriptures teach “infinite procreation” and then turn around and reveal “maybe”?

The end is near, Dave, my old friend and brother…….maybe.

I feel like I am getting the run around.
Mograce2u

Sam, which scripture are you referring to for this “all” whom the Lord knows?
http://preterism.ning.com/profile/Martin Martin

Sam,

After reading both Crampton’s review and Anderson’s response, I’m still in the Clark camp. It’s the logical choice :).

However, one thing that intrigued me is Anderson’s reference to Clark’s defense of the Trinity. He mentioned that Clark has Jesus as being two persons, one divine and the other human. I hadn’t heard that before. I admit that I haven’t studied the Trinity in depth. What I’ve heard is that the scripture teaches a triune God, three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) but one substance, a mystery for sure but not a “logical” contradiction.

Also, he represents Clark as supporting a rather muddled view of what a “person” is. Other works by Clark don’t seem muddled to me, so I plan on getting Clark’s book on the Trinity and see for myself. I’m also intrigued to see what exactly Anderson’s arguments are for his view since neither paper seems to address them in much detail, so I’m thinking about getting his book too.

martin
http://thereignofchrist.com Jason

2 Tim 2 is one place that comes to my mind immediately: for the Lord knows those who are his…”

“All” is implied, lest one wants to argue now that God only knows some of his people.
J Grant

Not necessarily, IMO.

Big difference between God knowing those who are His, and saying God knows “all” of His people. He could easily have decreed ongoing procreation and “know” every single one from beginning to everlasting, since A) he is outside of time – “everlasting” is a temporal concept; and B) he decreed it, so He knows it.

Also, since we do not know how a timeless being thinks about things “in time”, we could easily say there is an “all” # at any particular point in time. So, from an a-temporal perspective, “neverending” people could be known, and from a temporal perspective, there is most definitely an “all” at a particular point in history.

Just rambling here. I do see the argument, and if “all” means a “total number”, then that entails a beginning and end. I just don't know that we can make some of these assertions when we cannot know how a timeless being thinks (or even INTERCEDES in “time”). Even saying God is in one “eternal now” is a TEMPORAL concept. “now” as opposed to “then”, etc. Just seems like there are some things we may not be able to understand about this topic, and I'm not quite ready to make an absolute statement regarding God's mechanism of thought and ability to be omniscient.

And like I've said, I have no dog in this hunt. If God wants to end the planet tomorrow, so be it :) But if omniscience requires an “end” to things, then that pretty much ends the debate over everlasting punishment/torment, since such a thing requires succession (temporality). And then there's that whole issue with everlasting life in heaven, which, as Clark says, is TEMPORAL and we think and learn, etc…so, if God is to be omniscient for every thought we'll ever have in heaven, that requires an “end” to those thoughts in heaven, otherwise there'll always be one more to know, hence no “every thought”.

:-)
Samuelmfrost

J Grant. You are a busy man! About “thoughts”, I used the example of Rubric's Cube. There are only so many permutations one can perform on the cube. However, can perform those permutations over and over and over again. Finite human beings can only think a certain number of thoughts. We are not God. We cannot think “new” thoughts outside of what has been decreed. “I know your thoughts, every one of them” says the Lord.
J Grant

Sam, that is a great point, one I hadn't pondered. But, if the ACTION of thinking doesn't cease, and we still think in succession, how does this change the issue here? If I “rethink” a thought I had a day ago, it's still succession, and how can God know I was going to rethink it if I'm living forever?

:=D
Mograce2u

2 Tim 2:19 – Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Is that knowing of a number or in line with this context:

Psa 139:23 – Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:

1 Chr 28:9 – And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Edward-Hassertt/100001212543726 Edward Hassertt

Jason you stated word for word what I said to Sam in private emails. So did you read my mind, know the exact words by esp, or just guess right?

SO what am I supposed to think. I didn't even realize it automatically signed me in with facebook, I just assumed you let me back on since Sam was back on pretcosmos discussing the issues.
http://thereignofchrist.com Jason

Ed, post the “emails” (now there is more than one?) here and tell me what show it was, for all to see.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Edward-Hassertt/100001212543726 Edward Hassertt

I believe it is a breach of trust to post private emails in order to win an argument, belittle or attack people. Private correspondence is between two individuals, not mean to be shared with everyone. They were private and specifically not for all to see! That's is why it was so upsetting Jason! So why would I share them publicly, when my whoel complaint against you si that you shared them publicly!
http://thereignofchrist.com Jason

Well Ed, if i really did read these emails out on my podcast, then they aren't “private” anymore, are they? Asking you to prove your allegations is to hold you accountable, not to just “win an argument, belittle, or attack people”. The FACTS: i never shared any emails. You made this up. You're a liar and have now created this ridiculous excuse to avoid exposing your accusation for what it really is…a load of crap.

See ya, Ed! You're done here.
Samuelmfrost

well that didn't last long

Share with your friends!