The following is an excerpt from Vincent Cheung’s Systematic Theology on the absurdity of embracing the idea that the Bible contains apparent contradictions that can not be resolved. Vincent’s observations are right in line with the observations Jason has pointed out on the Route 66 podcast.
~~~
For any proposition that affirms X, the proposition that contradicts it is one that affirms not-X. This is what a contradiction means. Any proposition that affirms one thing is by necessity also a denial of its opposite. To affirm X is to deny not-X, and to affirm not-X is to deny X. To keep this simple, let us assume that Y = not-X, so that the opposite of X is Y. Thus to affirm X is to deny Y, and to affirm Y is to deny X. Or, X = not-Y, and Y = not-X. Then, since to affirm a proposition is to deny its opposite, to affirm X and Y at the same time is the equivalent of affirming not-Y and not-X. Thus to affirm two contradictory propositions is in reality to deny both. But to affirm both not-Y and not-X is also to affirm X and Y, which again means to deny Y and X. And so the whole operation becomes meaningless. The upshot is that it is impossible to affirm two contradictory propositions at the same time.
To affirm the proposition, “Adam is a man” (X), is to deny the contradictory proposition, “Adam is not a man” (Y, or not-X). Likewise, to affirm the proposition, “Adam is not a man” (Y), is to deny the contradictory proposition, “Adam is a man” (X). Now, to affirm both “Adam is a man” (X) and “Adam is not a man” (Y) is only to deny both propositions in reverse order. That is, it is equivalent to denying “Adam is not a man” (Y) and “Adam is a man” (X). But then we are back to affirming the two propositions in reverse order again. When we affirm both, we deny both; when we deny both, we affirm both. Therefore, there is no intelligible meaning in affirming two contradictory propositions. It is to say nothing and to believe nothing.
To illustrate, it is clear that divine sovereignty and human freedom contradict each other.8 If God controls everything, including man’s thoughts, then man is not free from God. If man is free from God in any sense or to any degree, then God does not control everything.9 Yet some theologians claim that the Bible teaches both divine sovereignty and human freedom, and so they insist that we must affirm both. However, since to affirm divine sovereignty is to deny human freedom, and to affirm human freedom is to deny divine sovereignty, then to affirm both only means to reject both divine sovereignty (in the form of an affirmation of human freedom) and human freedom (in the form of an affirmation of divine sovereignty). But to deny both means to affirm both in reverse order, and to affirm both means to deny both in reverse order again.
The necessary result is that the person who claims to believe both divine sovereignty and human freedom believes neither. In claiming to believe all of the Bible, he in fact believes none of it. In this example, since the Bible affirms divine sovereignty and denies human freedom, there is no contradiction – not even an apparent one. On the other hand, when non-Christians allege that the incarnation of Christ entails a contradiction, the Christian does not have the option to deny either the divinity or the humanity of Christ. Rather, he must formulate the doctrine as the Bible teaches it, and show that there is no contradiction. The same applies for the doctrine of the Trinity. In any case, if a person claims that he sees contradictions in the Bible, this means that he does not – he cannot – believe the Bible.
A popular response is that these are only apparent contradictions; that is, the doctrines only seem like contradictions to the mind of men, but they are in perfect harmony in the mind of God. This answer is futile. There is no difference between an apparent contradiction and an actual contradiction when it comes to affirming it. It remains that to affirm one thing is to deny the other at the same time, so that to affirm both is to deny both, and that to deny both is to affirm both again. Thus the person who affirms an apparent contradiction really affirms nothing and denies nothing. Whether the contradiction is only an apparent one is irrelevant. As long as it appears real to the person, it is real enough.
Moreover, how can a person distinguish between an apparent contradiction from an actual contradiction? He can never know that a contradiction is only an apparent one.
Unless he knows how to resolve the apparent contradiction, it will appear the same to him as an actual contradiction. And if he knows that a contradiction is only an apparent one, then he has already resolved it, and the term contradiction no longer applies. If we must tolerate apparent contradictions, then we must tolerate all contradictions. We often challenge non-Christian views on the basis that they contradict themselves. But if we tolerate apparent contradictions, then there is nothing to prevent non-Christians from claiming that the contradictions in their worldviews are only apparent ones.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones illustrates how the tradition of embracing paradox has poisoned our theology. He makes Christians look like fools before the world. This is so ridiculous that I must make a point of saying that these are two consecutive paragraphs, with no interruption in between:
Above all, we shall have to realise that there are certain things which we, with our finite minds, will not be able to reconcile with one another. Now I am trying to avoid the use of technical terms as far as I can, but here I must introduce the word antinomy — not antimony. What is an antinomy? It is a position in which you are given two truths which you yourself cannot reconcile. There are certain final antinomies in the Bible, and as people of faith we must be ready to accept that. When somebody says, “Oh, but you cannot reconcile those two,” you must be ready to say, “I cannot. I do not pretend to be able to. I do not know. I believe what I am told in the Scripture.”
So, then, we approach this great doctrine like this: in the light of the things we have already considered about the being, the nature, and the character of God, this doctrine of the eternal decrees must follow as an utter, absolute necessity. Because God is who and what He is, He must work in the way in which He does work. As we have seen, all the doctrines in the Bible are consistent with one another, and when we are considering any particular doctrine we must remember that it must always be consistent with everything else. So as we come to study what the Bible tells us about the way in which God works, we must be very careful not to say anything that contradicts what we have already said about His omniscience, His omnipotence, and all the other things that we have agreed together are to be found in the Scriptures.10
In the first paragraph, he insists on contradiction. In the second, he insists on coherence. It is difficult to ascertain the precise reason for this insanity. Perhaps the first paragraph shows that he has been infected with the human tradition that there are contradictions in the Bible, whether apparent or actual, and that piety entails paradox. And perhaps the second paragraph expresses what he is compelled to admit, that if the Bible is true, it must be self-consistent, and that if we are to understand the Bible, or if we are to affirm the Bible, then we must perceive it as self-consistent, with no apparent or actual contradictions. In any case, he says, “There are certain things which we, with our finite minds, will not be able to reconcile with one another.” But if these two paragraphs provide any indication, it would appear that some minds are vastly more finite than others.11
Scientists and non-Christians may wallow in contradictions, but Christians must not tolerate them. Rather than abandoning the unity of Scripture or the law of noncontradiction as a “defense” against those who assert that biblical doctrines contradict themselves, we must affirm and demonstrate the perfect harmony of these doctrines. On the other hand, Christians should expose the incoherence of non-Christian beliefs, and challenge their adherents to abandon them.
—
8 The doctrine of divine sovereignty will be discussed and applied throughout this book. Also see Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians and The Author of Sin.
9 The doctrine of compatibilism teaches that man is not free from God, but that man is still free in a sense. However, unless the kind of freedom under consideration is freedom from God, it is irrelevant, since the topic concerns God’s control over man. See Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin.
10 D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Great Doctrines of the Bible, Vol. 1 (Crossway), p. 95-96.
11 See Vincent Cheung, Blasphemy and Mystery.
Sharon N.
“Moreover, how can a person distinguish between an apparent contradiction from an actual contradiction? He can never know that a contradiction is only an apparent one.”
Exactly!
Andrew
Cheung’s logic here is poor at best. Paradoxes and contradictions are not the same thing. He goes out of his way to say that they are, but his logic fails. Here is what I am referring to:
“A popular response is that these are only apparent contradictions; that is, the doctrines only seem like contradictions to the mind of men, but they are in perfect harmony in the mind of God. This answer is futile. There is no difference between an apparent contradiction and an actual contradiction when it comes to affirming it. It remains that to affirm one thing is to deny the other at the same time, so that to affirm both is to deny both, and that to deny both is to affirm both again. Thus the person who affirms an apparent contradiction really affirms nothing and denies nothing. Whether the contradiction is only an apparent one is irrelevant. As long as it appears real to the person, it is real enough.
Moreover, how can a person distinguish between an apparent contradiction from an actual contradiction? He can never know that a contradiction is only an apparent one.”
I heartily agree with Cheung that there are certainly no contradictions in Holy Writ. There cannot be. God is not a God of contradiction and confusion. That being said, how does the topic at hand (absolute sovereignty) relate to human freedom? The answer is certainly not the one that the Libertarians give us; that is, that God is not absolutely sovereign. Libertarian free will and absolute sovereignty are a real contradiction. They cannot and do not coexist. But, absolute sovereignty is completely compatible with human reasoning and choices, so long as our choices are a direct function of our nature and our desires. These are not a contradiction, especially after careful examination. Humans make choices, but they are always in line with the greatest inclination at that moment. We always choose what we want. Of course, applied to soteriology, this results in the TULIP. For in the case of regeneration and salvation, from whence did that desire to choose Christ come? Obviously, the only acceptable answer, per scripture and logic, is the Holy Spirit implanted that desire.
So, I must say this: Cheung is completely wrong that apparent contradictions are the same thing as actual contradictions. if an apparent contradiction can be resolved (such as absolute sovereignty vs. human freedom) it’s not a contradiction, is it?
He is correct that Lloyd-Jones argument is sloppy. But I hold that the two are completely compatible. What you end up with is absolute divine sovereignty and compatibilism. Not contradictions.
Scripture leaves room for mystery and paradox, but not contradiction. But to lump paradox in with contradiction is irresponsible when the paradox can be easily resolved on a scriptural as well as philosophical level.
Jason
Andrew, i second Sam’s comment. You need to go back and carefully re-read Chueng again, and spend some time on his site, if you haven’t already. He clearly states that the “no difference” part is in “affirming it.” In other words, practically speaking, one is no better off calling something an irreconcilable paradox then they are calling something a contradiction. People who argue irreconcilable paradox are just too chicken to call it what they really think it is…a contradiction. It’s a cop out. One that is created, not because the Bible contains these irreconcilable paradoxes, but because their faulty exegesis creates them. The problem is not the Bible; it is with them. I have spent a great deal of time reading Cheung over the years and he has no problem affirming “mysteries”, that is, there are some things we will never know. But they are not known simply because they have not been revealed. What has been revealed however, is perfectly harmonious and “solvable” and the people who don’t want to bother with the hard task of working these things out, get lazy on us and holler, “irreconcilable paradox.”
Cheung and Clark encourage us to use our minds. The I.P. folks encourage laziness and irrationality.
Samuelmfrost
Cheung is not doing what you say he is doing. He clearly makes the distinction between the two, and, like you, argues that biblical paradoxes “can be easily resolved”. What he is arguing against is the view that DEMANDS that we live with UNRESOLVED paradoxes – that is, Proposition A contradicts Proposition C, and can be resolved only if we had Proposition B – which only God knows, and we shall not ever know it. That is what Barth, Van Til, Smith, Kierkegaard and others meant.
Cheung is not saying that “apparent contradictions” are the same thing as “actual contradictions.” What he is saying, though, is that TO US, one cannot tell the difference between an apparent CONTRADICTION and a real CONTRADICTION and those who advocate such nonsense as “paradox” in theology must provide a criteria between how to tell the difference between the two.