Quote:
Originally posted by SemperFideles
I broke this off of the Van Til and Paradox thread to keep the discussion threads "clean":
Clarkians criticize Van Tillians for accepting paradoxes or apparent contradictions if you will. It is lazy, some say, because we should not accept two conclusions that apparently contradict as it leads to irrationalism.
Here is my question:
1. Assume Biblical premises and the right use of reason lead you to conclude that the nature of man's responsibility and freedom are of a certain type.
2. Assume Biblical premises and the right use of reason lead you to conclude that God's sovereignty is of a certain type.
3. Assume the two conclusions (both derived by valid Scriptural premises and reason) appear to contradict.
What do you do?
|
If the conclusions fit the form of two contradictory propositions, then either my understanding of one (or more) of statements of Scripture is false, or my reasoning is faulty. But since your scenario specifies "right use of reason" then I must assume my understanding of one of the meaning of Scripture is false. (By definition of contradiction, one premise must be true and the other must be false).
Now if you mean by "appear" to contradict - that it
seems like both conclusion can not be true at the same time, this is rather vague. And I would not say they contradict, because they may be contrary instead. But either way, I apparently have not really worked out the meaning of the conclusions because I'm not sure they should be classified as contradictory. I.e., it sounds like my thinking has been a tad lazy at this point.
Quote:
Originally posted by SemperFideles
The reason I ask is because this charge by a few Clarkians appears very flippant to me. It's as if they assume every Christian that came before Clark didn't reason from the Scriptures at all but merely jumped to their concussions, admitted the paradox, and then went to sleep theologically. This is a slanderous charge in my estimation.
Historically, Christian thinkers have encountered puzzles like the above and came to some cognitive rest and said: "You know what, I don't understand it. It appears to contradict but I can't seem to resolve it. God knows what we're all missing but I can't figure it out."
Now I will grant that Clark might have figured out how to harmonize the two without any paradox left. Maybe he really did fix some Biblical premises or some inferences along the way that led to two conclusions that no longer were in tension.
But maybe he didn't... 
Why didn't he attack the problem from the other direction and fix the Biblical premises or repair some inferences to weaken God's sovereignty as others have done (open theism)? The ultimate goal of real theology is achieved by moving the conclusions together to resolve the paradox in either case. Paradox, remember, must be resolved at all costs or we're lazy, I keep being told.
|
The problem is usually in the premises to start with. The inferences and the conclusions are clear. The deductive conclusions follow "necessarily" from the premises. So all things considered, it's a problem of incorrect premises in most cases.
Quote:
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Why must he assume that the premises or inferences used by historic Reformed orthodoxy that held them in paradox were faulty at all? The only reason I can discern is that, a priori, they must be faulty if they only leave a paradox.
|
I don't see a problem. If they lead to necessary contradictions, then one or the other premise must be false and the other true. That's by the definition of contradiction. But if you go by the WCF, it is notable for it's lack of contradictions. There may be some questionable points, but otherwise, it's a rejection of the contradictions produced by earlier heresies and false doctrines.
Quote:
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Do you see what I'm getting at? Clarkians accuse Van Tillians of "arrogance" in ascribing that there are apparent contradictions that cannot be resolved. There may be more merit to that issue that I need to consider and I am willing to do so. Nevertheless, there is a serious danger that Clarkians, in their unwillingness to accept any apparent contradictions, will keep tweaking premises or inferences until they achieve their goal.
|
Not at all. We also admit when we just don't know. The key difference is, we don't accept both of two contradictory propositions. We also don't "tweak" premises without warrant. But a contradiction is a warrant that one of two premises are false, and the other true. A logical contradiction is a strong statement. It is not simply that something appears to conflict with something else, but that one statement is in fact true and the other is in fact false. Nothing in between, not sort of true and sort of false, not seems kinda sort of conflicting - but if one is true, it makes the other false.
Quote:
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Change the premises or inferences of human responsibility or Divine Sovereignty and you get to the same place. In resolving the paradox, however, you may well have departed from Scripture in your method.
|
Clark's solution was to remove the human presumptions. In fact in that case Clark showed that the "paradox" only existed for those that went beyond Scripture. The paradox is created by asserting a premise that is not in Scripture. The solution, eliminate the nonbiblical presumption, and the paradox is gone.
Quote:
Originally posted by SemperFideles
The rule seems to be "resolve paradox at all cost". Some criticize Van Til for accepting paradox and asking "Where does the Scripture say we have to accept paradox?" I would like those same people to answer the question: "Where does the Scripture ever promise that there won't ever be some paradox (confusion perhaps) that our created minds can't resolve even using logic?"
|
Sure there will be confusion, some things we can not resolve. But we can not accept any contradictions. Because it's a fact that two contradictory premises can not be resolved with additional premises.
This is a confusion many have that do not understand the basics of logic. We don't say that sentences in the bible are contradictions, or the prose contradict. Only propositions contradict. And propositions are the meaning of the sentences. Until you can correctly determine the proposition that is the correct meaning of a sentence or statement, you can not determine if it leads to a contradiction. And nothing added to two contradictory propositions will make them non-contradictory.
Additional information will help us correct our understanding of the meaning, to come up with the correct proposition. If we have determined a contradiction is involved, we know the some premise we think is correct, is actually false. So we come up with *new* propositions by adding new information. The original propositions are still a contradiction. You don't get rid of the contradiction really, you get rid of the false premise.
Quote:
Originally posted by SemperFideles
When God claims that His ways are higher than our ways, this seems to indicate we ought not be surprised that will occur.
What is unacceptable to some Clarkians, it seems, is cognitive rest that God might be witholding the premises they need to achieve their pre-commited goal. If Van Tillians are "lazy" then perhaps Clarkians are dangerously busy unravelling secrets that God has purposefully not left for us to unravel.
|
This reveals another misunderstanding about logic and it's use with Scripture. We can not find anything that God has hidden from us using logic. But everything that we can deduce from Scripture, is simply the logical consequence of what Scripture says. It's already revealed. If you can deduce something by good and necessary consequences from Scripture, then you are merely discovering what God has revealed to us.
Quote:
Originally posted by SemperFideles
With respect to arrogance, is it not equally arrogant to assume that all Reformed theology prior to the 1940's could neither get their premises correct nor reason properly from them to come to Clark's conclusions? Until the Reformed Camp at large accepts his conclusions, I would be careful about who is calling whom arrogant.
|
I think the WCF shows that they did get their premises straight. Calvinism itself is systematic and non-contradictory. That goes back long before Clark.
Quote:
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Finally, with respect to paradox and one of many biblical bases for it: in Romans 9, Paul acknowledges a point at which men are going to logically deduce something from what he's saying. His answer is basically "How dare you infer such a thing about your Creator." What he doesn't do is spell out how the two resolve. If ever there was a case to demonstrate the "Paradox is evil" rule of thumb it is in this passage. Paul doesn't seem too bothered to not satisfy that urge.
|
I don't see this. Paul is constantly correcting false conclusions and inferences. He's whole method of writing is syllogistic. Look at all the verses that start with "for" and "so". Paul usually gives his conclusions, and then gives the premises they are inferred from.
All that we need to know can be found in Scripture, or can be deduced by good and necessary consequences from Scripture. The propositions that are the meaning of the verses can never contradict. Nor can anything that they infer contradict. What they infer is revealed as much as what they say at face value.
****************
Additional comments about the logical nature of contraditions:
It is basic to logic that given any set of premise that are contradictory or contrary (at face value or by consequence of good reason), no added premises will change that fact. Being contradictory is a state of being. Once the contradiction is determined to be the case, that can not be undone.
On the other hand, given a set of logically coherent (non-contradictory and non-contrary) premises, one may determine them to be contradictory or contrary by adding additional premises. Basically, one does this by adding premises that induce the incoherence that was not present (making the system irrational by their addition). Or the premises added link originally unconnected premises in a contrary or contradictory manner. (So prior to adding the premises, the logical connection was unknown, and the additional information shows them to be incoherent.)
The point is, you can not "un-contradict" contradictory premises by adding additional premises, but you can reveal contradictions by adding premises.
Logically, it makes more sense to speak of apparent "non-contradictions" because you can reveal contradictions that are not apparent by adding information to your system.
[Edited on 5-23-2006 by Civbert]