Let us now turn to two articles that are more theologically involved. They provide richer materials as illustrations, for here at least God is back in the conversation. But, alas, just because some people remember God in their discussions does not mean that they respect him much more than those who forget him. They mention him in order to abuse him.

To begin, in "Double Graded Absolutism," I am presented with the astounding statement, "If he has no right to the answer, then to deceive him cannot be classified as a lie."

Now, some people enjoy controversy so much that they would probably lose interest in their faith if there were no opposition against it. The devil is more like a sparring partner to them than an enemy of the soul. They love controversy more than they love knowledge. Their works almost exclusively consist of polemics — it is error, not truth, that defines their purpose and meaning. They enjoy trying to sound learned and clever, only that they are usually neither. And most of the time they are inept at even simple argumentation.

Christians should not be this way. I can refute false doctrine — it is easy — but I do not enjoy it. Of course I delight in upholding the truth against error, but I do not enjoy reading things that dishonor the Lord. Here is a good example. "If he has no right to the answer, then to deceive him cannot be classified as a lie." The statement grieves me deeply. How can a Christian say that with a straight face and a clear conscience?  

Imagine teaching this to a child. Do not be surprised if he grows up to be a deceiver, but of course, according to that statement he would not be a "liar" as long as he deceives only those who have no right to the truth. In principle this can mean a hundred percent of the people that he will come across in his lifetime.

Imagine telling this to an unbeliever. Do not be surprised if he never believes another word we say again. Now he thinks that we can deceive him whenever we want, and as many times as we want, only that when he has no right to the truth, these do not count as lies. And then we have the audacity to claim that we have the most pure, superior, and authoritative system of ethics possible. In fact, we affirm that our ethical principles come from divine revelation.

And imagine if the Lord Jesus had practiced this principle when he was on the earth. Did anyone really had the right to demand the truth from him? In principle, he could have deceived people left and right, over and over again, hundreds and even thousands of times. But according to double graded absolutism, no matter how many times he did it, these could not be classified as lies. The person thinks that I would call this sophism, but it is blasphemy by implication.

When we insist on simple obedience to God's commands, we are not proposing a solution to a problem in or produced by God's revealed system of ethics — this is something that graded absolutism claims to do. Rather, our insistence on simple obedience is first a denial that there is a problem in God's system to begin with, and second, it is a solution to the problem that graded absolutism has created by its creative rebellion. That is, graded absolutism is not a solution to a problem — it is the problem.

Graded absolutism is just one of several such ethical theories produced by rebellion. At the root of this rebellion is the insistence that God's revelation often contradicts itself, and all ethical systems that attempt to resolve this non-existent problem is also founded on this abominable assumption. It makes no difference whether the idea is that Scripture contradicts itself in itself or whether it contradicts itself when applied to a fallen world, as if God did not know that this world was fallen when he gave the commandments. Both lines of thinking undermine the wisdom of God. The bare suggestion that there is a problem of such a nature makes him out to be an idiot, only that because he is our master, we must still figure out how to make sense of his commands and obey them, or at least construct an artificial and unbiblical theory by which we can say we obey him even when we do not. Now, if it takes Charles Hodge to figure out how to resolve a problem that God has supposedly created for us, then the uneducated believer is pretty much doomed to either indecision or immorality. But God's commands are clear and simple.

The widespread belief among professing Christians that God constantly contradicts himself relates to the problem that I discuss in "Blasphemy and Mystery in Theology." There it is said that one set of biblical passages appears to contradict another, thus indicating "polarities" — or opposites — in the very nature of God. With great zeal and eagerness, professing Christians insist that such contradictions pervade the Bible, so that it has become a test of orthodoxy to say that God contradicts himself, and some of them go to great lengths to persecute those who show otherwise, that God's revelation is not only self-consistent, but that it is apparently and obviously so. Those who refuse to blaspheme are treated as heretics.

Of course, the matter is not often stated so explicitly. The alleged contradictions in Scripture are said to be only apparent, and alternate terms such as "tension," "paradox," and "mystery" are used to cover up the blasphemy. That is, there are only apparent contradictions in Scripture, not actual contradictions. No matter how contradictory they appear to us, all biblical doctrines are in fact perfectly consistent in the mind of God. Our responsibility is to affirm both sides of the contradiction.

But this is nonsense. If one proposition contradicts another, whether or not the contradiction is only "apparent," then for a person to affirm one proposition is to deny the other — this is what a contradiction necessarily entails. Therefore, when a person attempts to affirm two contradictory propositions, he is in fact denying both of them in reverse order. That is, if X contradicts Y, then to affirm X is to deny Y, and vice versa. To affirm both X and Y, then, would be to affirm not-Y and not-X. But because to deny one is to affirm the other, to deny the two propositions is to affirm both of them in reverse order again, and so on. That is, to affirm not-Y is to affirm X, and vice versa. So to affirm not-Y and not-X is to affirm X and Y. But to affirm both X and Y is to deny Y and X yet again. The result is that it is impossible and meaningless to affirm two contradictory propositions. Logically speaking, we must say that a person who affirms two allegedly contradictory propositions in the Bible does not affirm or deny anything in the Bible at all.

The truth is that apparent contradictions are subjective. Assuming that there is no actual contradiction between two propositions, then the fact that a person perceives a contradiction only tells us something about him instead of the two propositions. Perhaps he possesses an inferior intellect, or he lacks the needed background information. Then, often two propositions appear to contradict each other only because the person is assuming a third proposition through which he processes these two. For example, in "Blasphemy and Mystery in Theology," Carson writes that one set of biblical passages gives the impression that God is a sovereign thug, while another set of biblical passages indicate that God is unfailingly good. But nowhere does the Bible itself say that God is a sovereign thug, or even appears to be one, when he exercises his right and power to control evil. A premise foreign to the Bible has been smuggled into the discussion, one which the Bible has no responsibility to adopt, integrate, or harmonize with its actual teachings. Thus the fact that professing Christians perceive such a contradiction tells us something about them — their incompetence, prejudice, and rebellion.

Since apparent contradictions are private and subjective, professing Christians who think that they perceive a contradiction in Scripture should never immediately disbelieve or persecute someone who claims to have the solution, or better yet (since in fact no solution is necessary), who rebukes the people that perceive a contradiction where there is none. For these people to say that Scripture only contains apparent contradictions and not actual contradictions is an admission that they are perceiving something that is not there — it is a blunder and an illusion. Those who see apparent contradictions in Scripture are in hermeneutic fantasyland. It is wicked for them to then turn around to attack those who can perceive truth and reality, that is, the perfect coherence of Scripture.

The usual explanation for perceiving contradictions in Scripture even though there are no actual contradictions is that our "finite" human minds cannot fully understand and thus harmonize all that God has revealed. Now, the teaching that human minds are finite is true, and I gladly confess that these people are superior examples of this. These masters of intellectual finitude live what they preach, often more than they realize. They are living epistles of mental retardation. However, their finite minds permit them to entertain at least two false assumptions. First, they assume that all human minds are as finite as theirs, on the level with bumbling idiots, and so they rule out the possibility that some people's minds are less finite, and are able to perceive the perfect wisdom and coherence of God in Scripture. Second, they seem to think that God's mind is almost as finite as theirs, so that they rule out the idea that God knew he was giving his words and his commands to a fallen world, and that he was communicating to minds even as finite as theirs. It is as if they assume that God's mind is retarded as well, so that he could not speak with clarity and coherence, or establish moral commands that remain consistent with one another even when applied to this fallen world by very finite minds.

If we are God's witnesses before the world, then the least that we can do is to show the world that we respect him. But when Christians talk about God's majesty and man's finite mind in the usual manner, what the world hears is, "Yes, our whole system of belief is self-contradictory, but it only appears that way because we are stupid." And then we expect them to become like us. But if we are to think correctly, and speak of God reverently, we should tell the world, "No, Scripture is perfectly coherent, and obviously so. If anything in it appears contradictory to you, it is because you are stupid. There is something wrong with you, the unbelievers, and not with God or with those of us who believe in him." This biblical stance enrages our "Christian" opponents, who take the attitude that says, "Our minds are finite, and somehow this results in seeing contradictions where there is perfect harmony. And if we cannot see this perfect harmony, then neither can you." Then they have the gall to call us arrogant for affirming the apparent and actual coherence of God. What is it then? All this "finite mind" nonsense is nothing other than dishonest self-abasement. If they are so humble, let them remain silent and learn.

There is a culture of irreverence among professing Christians. This is a culture that has become proficient at embedding insult in praise and blasphemy in worship. And this is all covered up with a cloak of self-abasement: "Because we are finite, God appears to us as a thug and a fool." This deep-seated contempt for God cripples their ability to process truth. Even when it is clear and simple, these people refuse to acknowledge it, and gather to devour those who affirm the obvious perfect coherence of God. While claiming to be guardians of the truth, they have become servants of the devil.

Irreverence and irrationality thus reinforce one another. "Blinded by Atheism" and "In God We Trust" offer examples on how implicit atheism and intellectual incompetence bind together to produce the most inexplicable and idiotic objections against biblical doctrines. Then, "Double Graded Absolutism" and "Blasphemy and Mystery in Theology" offer examples on such scathing sacrilege against God covered with false humility that one wonders if it is much better than atheism itself. Therefore, because people are this way, it is both insufficient and inefficient to provide only narrow and fragmentary correctives. Even though these are legitimate in themselves, they can treat only the symptoms of a much greater problem. 

The true solution is the consistent articulation and application of the biblical system. But even this is just one of the necessary steps. Those who are accustomed to irreverence and blasphemy possess a character that is incompatible with such a system, and thus cannot sustain it. Those who seem to agree with the biblical system but at times have trouble defending it suffer under the same problem. The system is perfect and invincible, but their character falls too far short of it. For this reason, in promoting our biblical system of theology, we must also aim to produce a people whose character corresponds to it, so that they can process it and practice it. This approach is alone able to help extricate professing Christians from the double abomination of irreverence and irrationality. In the end, of course, how each person turns out depends on the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit, for even reverence and rationality are gifts from God.

Posted in Theology, Philosophy, Apologetics, Spirituality, Ministry | Permanent Link