(The following is an edited email message. It elaborates on my position regarding "apparent" contradictions.)

It is possible that two propositions can appear contradictory to a person when they are in fact not logically contradictory. The problem, then, is with the person and not the propositions. Maybe he has made a mistake in reasoning, or maybe he lacks some information that he needs to correctly understand the propositions. However, I contend that (and this is the unpopular point) as long as two propositions appear contradictory to a person (whether or not they are logically contradictory), he cannot truly affirm both propositions. This is because for two propositions to be contradictory (whether in appearance or in reality), it necessarily means that to affirm one is at the same time to deny the other. Therefore, to affirm two contradictory propositions is really to deny both in reverse order.

That is, if X and Y are contradictory, then X = not-Y and Y = not-X. Then, to affirm both X and Y is the same as affirming not-Y and not-X, which is to deny both X and Y, only in reverse order. Of course, since not-Y = X and not-X = Y, then this means to deny both X and Y is really to affirm both in reverse order. But again, to affirm both is to deny both in reverse order, so on ad infinitum. Therefore, to affirm two contradictory propositions (whether contradictory in appearance or in reality) is to say nothing, or worse than nothing.

Now, I agree that when a person sees two propositions in Scripture that appear to him to contradict one another, he should "know" that the contradiction is only in his own mind and that the propositions appear to contradict only because of his own lack of understanding or fallacious reasoning, and not that there is a real logical contradiction. But I would still say that as long as the two propositions appear contradictory to him, he still cannot truly affirm both at the same time. Since Scripture really does not contradict itself, this is just another way of saying that a person cannot truly affirm a proposition until he truly and correctly understands what the proposition means. Or, a person cannot truly affirm a part of Scripture that he does not truly and correctly understand. If he does not understand what a proposition means, then whatever he is affirming is not really that proposition, but some other proposition in his mind. My position on this point is correct by necessity. To oppose it would be to suggest that one can affirm a proposition that has not even entered his mind, which is nonsense.

That is, when a person reads propositions X and Y, but misunderstands at least one of the propositions so that his mind perceives X and A, and if X and A contradict each other even though X and Y do not contradict, then it would appear to the person that X and Y contradict each other even though it is really X and A that contradict each other, since the person thinks that he is thinking about X and Y, when he is really thinking about X and A. A biblical proposition misunderstood becomes a non-biblical proposition in one's mind. A biblical proposition can certainly contradict a non-biblical one; or, two non-biblical propositions can certainly contradict each other. This is what really happens when a person sees an "apparent" contradiction in Scripture. One or both sides of the alleged contradiction is really not the biblical proposition, because it has been distorted or misunderstood.

Or, a person might correctly understand propositions X and Y, but then he also affirms some other false premise Q, which appears to make X and Y contradict each other when by themselves they do not contradict. One example is the relationship between divine sovereignty (X) and human responsibility (Y). By themselves, there is no contradiction between the two, whether actual or apparent. However, the two will appear to contradict once you impose the premise "responsibility presupposes freedom" (Q). All of a sudden, it appears that X contradicts Y. In fact, if Q is true, then this would be a real contradiction, and not only an apparent one. But once we realize that Q is false, even the appearance of a contradiction disappears. The key, then, is to correctly understand what Scripture says, and to avoid adding to it false ideas that do not come from Scripture at all.

To summarize, if a person understands what the Bible is saying in every instance, then in no instance will two propositions in the Bible even appear contradictory to him. This is because in reality no two propositions in the Bible contradict each other. But if the person does not always understand the Bible correctly, then in some cases two propositions might appear to contradict (even when they really don't). In those cases, he can still "know" that the contradiction is only "apparent," since both propositions are found in the Bible. However, he cannot affirm both as long as they still appear contradictory. What must he do? He must study to grasp the true meaning of each proposition, and when that happens, he sees that the contradiction never really existed in the first place.

Failing to understand and acknowledge the above, Christians are often too quick to scream "Mystery!" and "Paradox!" when confronted with biblical propositions that are obviously non-contradictory unless made contradictory by some spectacular distortion or some strange extra-biblical assumption. This is not a sign of genuine reverence. It is in fact an implicit denial of the perspicuity (clarity) and the unity of Scripture, and a tremendous insult to the wisdom and integrity of God, who inspired the Scripture for us to understand, believe, and obey. In the light of this, it appears almost trivial to mention that this illegitimate appeal to mystery and paradox also unnecessarily grant ammunition to the enemies of the faith.

Thus if we wish to truly honor the greatness of God, we should boldly and reverently affirm that Scripture is clear, and clearly non-contradictory in every respect.

Recommended:

Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology (PDF version), p. 18-20.
Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians (PDF version), p. 16-18.
(See www.rmiweb.org)

Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will
(See www.monergismbooks.com)

Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy
(See www.trinityfoundation.org)

Posted in Theology, Philosophy, Apologetics | Permanent Link