Dave, I’m sorry but you have misunderstood me. I do not believe that logic should be abandoned or curbed – ever. After all John tells us in the prologue to his gospel that Logic is God (see Gordon Clark’s “God and Logic” or his monograph, The Johannine Logos now included in the volume What Is Saving Faith?). However, there is a fairly long and sad tradition within Reformed communities that insists that there are points in our study of Scripture where logic must be abandoned and apparent contradictions embraced. Further, any attempt to harmonize these apparent contradictions at the bar of human reason are viciously attacked as sinful expressions of “rationalism” (see for example the complaint C. Van Til and the faculty of Westminister Theological Seminary filed against Gordon Clark in the 1940′s or H. Hoeksema’s editorials written at the time in The Clark/Van Til Controversy). James Anderson is very much a representative of this tradition.

FWIW, men like Anderson have built their entire careers on maintaining and promoting contradictory theories even when logically harmonious and non-contradictory alternatives exist. Anderson’s maxim, and what frames all the arguments he presents in his book, Paradox in Christian Theology, is that “the trinitarian who wishes to remain orthodox will inevitably face paradox, while the trinitarian who aims to banish paradox will end up heterodox” (also see his discussion of Morris’ two-mind theory of the Incarnation). I don’t want to pick on Anderson, but he does represent what is arguably, if not tragically, the mainstream of Reformed thinking.

Anyway, I have enjoyed reading Dale’s series on apparent contradictions and I especially enjoy his sharp sense of humor.

To put it another way, if you disagree with these other theologians and believe logic should not be curbed in either exegesis or in the formation of doctrines you’re a “rationalist.”

Are you saying that theology necessarily requires us to abandon logic? At what point should logic be “curbed”? What is the rationale behind “curbing” logic? What is the necessity for “curbing” logic?

Does that sound OK to you?

Thanks for the comment. Everyone thinks that all things being equal, we should avoid apparently contradictory theories. Some theories get so familiar, though, so beloved, that we can start to see their apparent inconsistencies as a good thing.

A couple of fallacies lurk nearby in the weeds. One is that our argument may be ad hoc – for no reason we make an exception for our own views. Another is poisoning the well – a kind of ad hominem. “Don’t listen to this guy – he doesn’t like my theory because he’s a fanatical rationalist.”

I think this is an area where theologians can benefit from recent analytic epistemology and logic…