Contradiction and Paradox

When we say that God is one in essence and three in person first time we hear it may sound contradictory, but if we examine it subjective to the actual rules of logic, we will see it passes the test with flying colors. Welcome to Renewing Your Mind on this Thursday we will take you for being with us. You may have had a conversation with someone who rejects Christianity because they claim there are contradictions in the Bible. Believe it or not there are websites dedicated to exposing these supposedly inconsistencies is important though that we define are terms we do will see that there are no contradictions in Scripture. As we continue now with our study of apologetics in the art of defending our faith with in looking at those principles of knowledge or of epistemology that are so important that we ought never to negotiate them as we are defending the faith, because these are the principles that are negotiated frequently by atheists and those who are cynical or skeptical about Christian theism. Now as we proceed beyond those for that I mentioned before, the law of non-contradiction.

The law of causality.

The basic reliability of sense perception and lastly the analogical use of language we now enter into an area that is concerned with these principles of knowledge where there is a vast sea of confusion because there are three terms in the English language that are used many times as if they were synonyms when in fact they are not, and needs to be distinguished from one another clearly and those three concepts are these the concept of contradiction paradox, and mystery. These ideas are so closely related to each other that it is easy for us to get them confused and when we get them confused when you get into a whole lot of trouble not too long ago I read an article written by a professor of philosophy who is not only rejecting Christian theism, but ridiculing it saying that at the heart of historic Christianity, we find the doctrine of the Trinity and he was saying in his essay that he couldn't understand how any rational person could embrace Christianity precisely because of its doctrine of Trinity and then he went on to say that the idea of the Trinity is absurd is ridiculous because it violates the law of contradiction, that was the charge that the doctrine of the Trinity violates logic and the law of non-contradiction. I was really surprised to see that in that particular essay.

Not that people would make fun of Christianity or cues of his being irrational when you hear that all the time nor was it a surprise to me that somebody would say that the doctrine of the Trinity is contradictory.

What surprised me was that the charge that the doctrine of the Trinity is a contradiction was leveled by a professor of philosophy. I realize that people can be educated in America and indeed achieve their PhD's in various subjects in America without ever having a single course in logic fact, most institutions of higher learning, no longer require logic as a necessary course, but I can imagine getting a graduate degree in the field of philosophy without having at least an introductory course in logic and be at least basically familiar with the law of non-contradiction and if this professor of philosophy had had an elementary course in logic. He should have understood, at least, that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction. It does not violate the law of non-contradiction, because the doctrine of the Trinity says this, that God is one in essence and three in person. That's the classical formula for the Trinity, God is one in essence were one in substance and three in person and so if we break that down.

We would say that God is one in a and three in B were saying that with respect to one qualification. He has unity, but with respect to a different predicate.

He has diversity or plurality. Now if we said for example that God were one in essence and three in essence, then, indeed, we would be violating the law of non-contradiction, or if we said that God was one in person and three in person.

Likewise, we would be violating the law of non-contradiction but to say that he is one in one thing and three and another thing is not to violate that particular law of reason.

Now maybe ought to refresh our memories with respect to the definition of the law of non-contradiction so that we can be at least more careful than this particular professor philosophy was in our dealing with these questions, the law of non-contradiction.

Simply stated, says that a cannot be a and non-a, at the same time and in the same way or the same relationship that is something cannot be what it is and not be what it is. At the same time and in the same sense now I can be a father and a son.

At the very same time without violating any law of reason, but I cannot be a father and son at the same time and in the same relationship I cannot be my own father I can be the father of my son, nor cannot be the son of my son.

I can only be the son of my father so I with respect to one relationship with respect to my father. I am a son, and with respect to another relationship. I am the father to my son so I am both a father and a son at the same time, but the KCC is the second part of the descriptive clause not in the same sense or in the same relationship I like to tell the story of a German theologian that we had in seminary who was the grandson of a world-famous theologian from the 19th century and we were in our class one day and this German professor of theology made this remark he said gentlemen God is absolutely mutable in his essence and God is absolutely mutable in his essence and there was a holy hush come across the class and you could hear guys grown heavy. That's deep stuff and the students walked out of the classroom in all of the brilliance of the professor because they made this assumption may sit, we can't understand what he said but he obviously must be able to understand so he must be for more brilliant than we are now sitting on the whole laughing. This we left nothing less than what he just said there's a nonsense statement is absurd. What he said in the Oaxacan oxen you get people believe anything if you strike the proper pose in a furlough here a highbrow and speak in hushed terms say God is absolutely mutable and his essence. He is absolutely mutable and his essence said as I might as well just stood there and said bleeding because I have made an unintelligible state.

If God is absolutely mutable or changeable, essentially changeable. He cannot at the same time in the same way the unchangeable Rashi. Also when Paul Tillich was lecturing in Chicago and he had developed his concept of God as the ground of being. And in his lecture about God's being the ground of being. He said we cannot attribute human terms like personality to God because God is neither personal nor impersonal, but he is the ground of personality and one the students raise their hand.

Dr. Tillich said what he said is the ground of personality. Personal or impersonal and Tillich became enraged I told you that it was neither.

But the point is, it has to be one of the other because the term impersonal means, by definition, everything outside of the category of the person. So in that case something must be either personal or impersonal could be both at the same time in the same relationship. No, that's why we have the law of non-contradiction now what we have with the doctrine of the Trinity is not a violation of the law of contradiction, but what we have here is a paradox. So let's look at that second concept. There that we have on the board. The paradox now. If we break this were done while the scope. Welcome back to contradiction a moment, but we look at the paradox and we examine the word linguistically, we see that what we have here is a prefix and a root and the prefix para or par means from the Greek language that which is alongside something else we take the word par below which means literally to throw something alongside and we get the word parable. When Jesus told stories to illustrate his point. He would give his message and then he would throw the story alongside to illustrate this were a parable is you heard of paramedics or para legal's or para-ministries. These are agencies or persons who work alongside somebody or some other institution. So that's what we see in the prefix par means beside her alongside another route that is paradox comes from the verb in Greek cocaine, which means to seem to think or to appear. Now this word has a very important significance in early church history. One of the most virulent heresies to threaten first century Christianity was the heresy growing out of Gnosticism called also to summer dose up to some some people call it which taught from a Greek perspective that Jesus didn't really have a physical body or a real human nature because the great scandal to the Greek, was not the resurrection, but the incarnation because in Greek categories that which is spiritual.

If ever it is brought in contact with the physical would be contaminated because that which is physical is by its very physicality, imperfect, and so the Greeks couldn't understand this Jewish idea of God's spiritual being taking upon himself a human nature and uniting with the human nature that included a body and so these people were saying in the early church that Jesus didn't really have a human body. He only seen to have a human body. He appeared outwardly as if he had a human body but really that was an illusion because he did not have a human body not remember how John responds that in his epistle when he talks about the Antichrist and what is it that the antichrist denies that Christ has come caught the circuit in the flesh. This he says is the spirit of the antichrist, so this theory of DOS autism that denied the reality of the human body of Jesus was considered by the New Testament writers to be not just heretical but of the Antichrist himself. So the works the same word here, which means to seem to think or appear and so what we get for a definition is that a paradox is that which at first glance or first hearing seems to be contradictory. It appears as a contradiction, but if you afforded the benefit of the second glance and examine it more closely, you realize that in fact is not a contradiction. Jesus says you have to lose your life in order to find it. Well if he means you have to lose it at the same time and the same way that you find it, he would be speaking nonsense. But what our Lord was saying is that in one sense or in one way, you have to lose your life in order to find it in another sense there many such paradoxes in the teaching of the New Testament is particularly in the teaching of Jesus, we have to die in order to live.

But that means that we die. In one sense in order to live in another sense, and so these statements can be jarring the first time we hear them.

If we look at them carefully. We see that they are not paradoxical not grant that our formula for the Trinity. When we say that God is one in essence and three in person first time we hear it may sound contradictory, but if we examine it subjective to the actual rules of logic, we will see it passes the test with flying colors, as it were. Now this distinction between contradiction and paradox historically is a clean distinction that if we understand the difference between the two words we shouldn't stumble into the difficulties that many people do. Unfortunately, there is another term that I haven't put up there on the board that tends to muddy the waters particularly for Christians.

And that's the word antinomy, many Christians have never heard the word antinomy which may be an indictment because it may reveal that they've never read much of JI Packer's works, particularly his evangelism and the word of God and our sovereignty in the word of God and is more even more famous work knowing God because in both of these. He has used the term antinomy in a way that has really shaken up his American readers because he uses the term antinomy in a way that British people will tend to use it. That is different from how it is classically used in the United States, giving credence to the old adage that we, the British and the people of America are two people separated by a common language, but in classic philosophy. The term antinomy means the exact equivalents to the word contradiction that is in classic philosophy and antinomy is a contradiction and Dr. Parker frequently speaks in his books about the presence of antinomies in the Christian faith, how many times I've run into that with my students in seminary who was safe, but Dr. Spruill, Dr. Packer says that the Bible has antinomies in the Christian faith is antinomies in it first time I heard that I thought I just can't imagine that he would say that inside the opportunity to ask him about it and lasted are you using the term antinomy as a synonym for contradiction or are you using it as a synonym for paradox that he hastened to respond by saying he meant by that term paradox, not contradiction. So with that having been said, we can continue historically antinomy and contradiction are equals they just are derived from two different language contradiction. Again, it comes from the Latin contra is the prefix which means against the Kyoto to speak or to say so, literally, a contradiction is speaking against something becomes even more clear when we analyze the word antinomy because this comes from the Greek on TV is the prefix which means against your part of the antichrist who works against Christ and the root here is the Greek word no moss, which is the Greek word for law so antinomy literally is against the law.

What law do you suppose is in view in the origin of this work, the law of non-contradiction so that an antinomy is a violation of the law of non-contradiction and therefore is a contradiction so that both of these terms historically and classically contradiction antinomy mean the same thing. Unfortunately in our day because of the confusion that persists out there.

They are used differently and so often antinomy will be used as a substitute or an equivalent for paradox. Now we will continue this examination in our next lesson to see how these relate to this concept of mystery, because that's extremely important for us as Christians to understand if we were to be able to defend the truth claims of Christianity against the critics of our how often have we heard that accusation that there are contradictions in the Bible, we can be thankful for Dr. RC scrolls clear teaching today here on Renewing Your Mind.

The series were airing this week equips to refute these common objections to the Bible and Christianity is called defending your faith.

It's an in-depth study of classical apologetics. There are 32 messages in the series covering everything from the laws of logic to the important philosophical concepts that shape our thinking would like to send you the special edition set of the series. When you give a gift of any amount to leader ministries. You can do that by going to our website@renewingyourmind.org or you can call us at 800-435-4343 and if you're planning to offer the series in a group setting at your church or in your home were including the 12 bonus disc that has the MP3 audio files of the series along with a PDF of the study guide.

It has additional reading suggestions study questions and an outline of each message so again with your donation of any amount to leader ministries request the series defending your faith or web address again is Renewing Your Mind.org in our phone number 800-435-4343 our desires to come alongside believers just like you to help in your study of God's word.

A great resource for you to explore is our app it's available for Apple, android, and Kindle fire devices. Not only will you find articles on apologetics you'll have access to a library of past Renewing Your Mind programs to search for linear in your app store will just assume falsely claim there are contradictions in the Bible other seat mystery is a stumbling block. I hope you'll join us tomorrow as Dr. Spruill helps us find the balance between holy all and holy. Certainly that's Friday here on Renewing Your Mind