Tags
bible, bible study, biblical, C.H. Spurgeon, Charles Spurgeon, compatibilism, logic, paradox, philosophy, Randy Alcorn, reformed theology, scripture, Spurgeon, systematic theology, theology
Speaking of Charles Spurgeon…
…he’s one of those guys who continues to speak long after his death. Many Christian leaders (and laymen) readily acknowledge their indebtedness to Spurgeon. Take Randy Alcorn, for instance.
If you don’t already know who Alcorn is, I’d like to introduce him to you. In fact, when you finish with this post, you might want to check out C.J. Mahaney’s recent four-part interview with Alcorn: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Before you run off, though, I’d like to ask you to spend a couple of minutes with me here looking at one particular aspect of Alcorn’s theology that has a distinct Spurgeon-esqe flavor.
In a brief but excellent article on his website, Alcorn has compiled some of Spurgeon’s thoughts on our need as believers to embrace biblical paradox. The article’s a gold mine of Spurgeon quotes on the subject. Here’s an example:
Men who are morbidly anxious to possess a self-consistent creed, a creed which will put together and form a square like a Chinese puzzle, are very apt to narrow their souls. Those who will only believe what they can reconcile will necessarily disbelieve much of divine revelation. Those who receive by faith anything which they find in the Bible will receive two things, twenty things, ay, or twenty thousand things, though they cannot construct a theory which harmonizes them all. (“Faith,” Sword and Trowel, 1872)
That’s a good warning. If you will only believe what you can reconcile, you have no choice but to disbelieve much of Scripture. If you want everything neatly systematized, you’re likely to narrow your own soul. I think the opposite is also true. Believing everything the Bible says, even though we can’t reconcile it all, will enlarge our souls.
On a side note, it seems that Spurgeon doesn’t mean that there are some things that you or I may not be able to reconcile, but someone else may. That’s certainly a possibility, but it doesn’t seem to be Spurgeon’s point. He says, for instance, on the subject of human responsibility and divine sovereignty:
These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil.
There are some things in Scripture, according to Spurgeon, that no one can reconcile. Alcorn comes to the conclusion that…
…Our desire for logical consistency, as we understand it, can become our God. Then we, not Scripture and not God, become our own ultimate authority. We end up ignoring, rejecting, or twisting Scripture that doesn’t fit our chosen theology. On the contrary, our theology should be a reflection of Scripture itself, and wherever Scripture teaches apparently contradictory ideas, our theology should embrace those same ideas, rather than resort to a consistency which rejects part of God’s revealed Word.
You can read the whole article here; I highly recommend it. (Derek, I think Randy Alcorn deserves one of your trademark THEOparadox t-shirts.)
In closing, perhaps some caution is in order. We have to walk a fine line. We should never abandon logic and reason. We should always think hard about the paradoxes found in Scripture, and we should never stop asking hard questions about them. At the same time, we need to heed the warnings of Spurgeon and Alcorn and others, and beware of making a god out of logical consistency. Comprehendible gods are nothing more than intellectually sophisticated idols.
…to be continued
who am i? 
Great thoughts! This is something I’ve had on my mind a lot lately. You may or may not have noticed, but I’m a logical minded person, perhaps to the extreme. Everything I hear instantly flows into the logic filter straight to it’s logical conclusion (Not to imply here that I’m incapable of faulty logic. Like everyone else, if I knew I was wrong I’d start being right.) – not a very feminine trait it seems, but it’s part of my nature. Anyway, I’ve occasions where I cant’ make Scripture line up with Scripture in ways that are neat and tidy. I’ve had to learn to accept that and live with it, as well as with people who don’t think in a neat and tidy way about the Word of God. That can be a challenge. My urge is to organize their thinking for them, as if I were tidying up their kitchen! Sometimes it is helpful for them. Sometimes it’s not. (Sometimes it’s just rude.) Sometimes there are reasons things don’t line up nicely. Maybe it’s so they will always stand out. Maybe it’s just because God used human authors, and it’s just a testament to the unique transmission of God’s word through frail instruments. I don’t know. But we need to show grace to others, and be humble in our own self-estimation.
Good thoughts from you too, Laurie. I never noticed that you were logical minded (just kidding 🙂 ). Your last sentence is an excellent summary of the humility of mind that we should strive for in our attitude toward ourselves and others.
Barry,
Great post.
Sooner or later I’m going to read Randy Alcorn’s book, “The Grace and Truth Paradox,” then I’ll cite some quotes and give him the coveted award. Randy’s been on my list for awhile, he’s a true advocate for balance and good theology, just as Spurgeon was (and you are too, for that matter.) 🙂
Incidentally, the article you cite here is where I first saw the Spurgeon quotes when I gave him the t-shirt.
It’s REALLY COOL that CJ Mahaney interviewed Randy Alcorn. I’ll enjoy hearing that.
Blessings,
Derek
I look forward to that book review, Derek. I really appreciate the thinking you’ve done on this subject, brother.
To anyone else who happens to come along and read this post: for a much more comprehensive treatment of this issue, I highly recommend spending some time on Derek’s blog.
Barry-
Very good stuff here!
I haven’t read much of Spurgeon (or Alcorn), but I am beginning to feel that I should. I think there is a great mystery in the seeming paradoxes of scripture and I also have found that my ability to enjoy these mysteries often depend upon my willingness to let go of the right to judge them for myself. I must open myself to God’s wisdom and stop demanding that God limit Himself to what I can understand.
Thanks for this post!
D-Monk.
I think you would enjoy Spurgeon, D-monk. There was another good Spurgeon quote on the subject on the Pyromaniacs blog back in February. Here it is.
Pingback: Don’t tell the Bible what it can’t say « who am i?
I’m a huge fan of TGATP – great little book. Also a fan of Spurgeon, who enjoyed a good cigar once in a while. 🙂
Hi, Don. Thanks for visiting and taking the time to comment. I haven’t read TGATP yet, but since you and Derek have both recommended it, I’ll have to add it to the growing mountain of books I need to read. Thanks again!
I have been thinking about this subject alot lately. I think the Lord is trying to break us from putting Him into a nice neat container. For me it is freeing and more proof that God is real. Who wants to believe in a God that can be perfectly understood by humankind. His ways are not our ways.
On my blog this week I am giving away a book called Sailing between the Stars. This book addresses the paradoxes of God, from a regular guy’s perspective instead of a theologians.
Thanks for visiting and commenting, and thanks for the heads up on your giveaway. I’ll check it out!
Or could biblical paradoxes be the result of different men writing down different accounts at different times which are then translated by different men at different times.
Quote:
…Our desire for logical consistency, as we understand it, can become our God. Then we, not Scripture and not God, become our own ultimate authority. We end up ignoring, rejecting, or twisting Scripture that doesn’t fit our chosen theology.
This seems to be saying to me, if it doesn’t fit into our idea of Christian faith, then lets just twist it until it does! – It works both ways!
E,
This is an interesting point. The discussion of Biblical paradox in this post is working from the assumption that one believes in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and also in the Holy Spirit’s guardianship over the transmission of the text. In essence, we’re assuming that the Bible is reliable (in fact, we’re assuming even more – that it’s the infallible Word of God).
There are myriads of issues related to textual criticism, and apparent contradictions created by different viewpoints (especially in the synoptic Gospels, and in the Samuel/Kings/Chronicles books of the Old Testament). Most of these have been resolved by astute scholars, archeologists, and linguists. Volumes have been written on this.
Here, we are pointing to something a little different. We’re talking about the larger, over-arching themes of Scripture, such as human responsibility (it’s clearly taught in the Bible) and God’s sovereignty (it’s also clearly taught in the Bible). This paradox rises above any textual issues, it’s laced throughout the entire text of the Bible. Other examples would be the Trinity, the incarnation, etc.
Ultimately, since we believe the Bible is both accurate and reliable, we are trying to conform our thinking to it as much as possible. This means our thinking gets changed by it, even if we can’t fully understand all the nuances. Ideally, our “idea of Christian faith” is continuously being nuanced by what we find in our study of Scripture – not the other way around.
You’re right that there is a danger of trying to twist Scripture to fit our own ideas. The paradox concept is designed to help avoid that, as much as possible, by submitting fully to the authority of the Word – even above our own logic, sometimes.
Thanks for commenting.
Derek