How can Jesus be fully human and fully divine? How can God be Three-in-One? James Anderson develops and defends a model of understanding paradoxical Christian doctrines according to which the presence of such doctrines is unsurprising and adherence to paradoxical doctrines can be entirely reasonable. As such, the phenomenon of theological paradox cannot be considered as a serious intellectual obstacle to belief in Christianity. The case presented in this book has significant implications for the practice of systematic theology, biblical exegesis, Christian apologetics and philosophy.
FREE Two-Day Shipping for Students. Learn more |
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
James Anderson is a research fellow at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent Piece of Philosophical Theology,
By
This review is from: Paradox in Christian Theology (Paternoster Theological Monographs) (Paperback)
I reviewed this book more fully here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/04/paradox-in-christian-theology.html Here's the intro of my review linked above: ********************* Introduction To A Mystery Novel What would you say of a book that makes it part of its aim to establish that certain essential Christian doctrines (say, the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Incarnation) present the appearance of logical contradiction? What would you think of a book that argues that no theologian in history has been able to present a statement of those doctrines that do not avoid logical tension via (some kind of) inconsistency, while simultaneously remaining faithful to Christian orthodoxy as presented in the culture-identifying creeds of the early church, or to the explicit (and implicit) statements of Scripture (from which those creeds derive their authority)? In other words, Christians can have their logical consistency, or they can have their orthodoxy, but they cannot have both. What if the author of this book believes that he established those points? In addition, what if he looked at some of the best contemporary Christian philosophers and their attempts to put forward fully consistent models (ones which do not lead to any logical headaches) and showed that they all fail as well (in the sense described above)? Indeed, what if this book argued that the Christian was without theological and philosophical defenses that save both orthodoxy and logical consistency (of the implicit kind)? You might think I am describing the latest atheological work to hit the market. What if I also added that the author not only demonstrates the above, agrees that some of our most precious doctrines of the Christian faith resist full logical consistency in our formulations of those doctrines, but that he is also a Christian? He is an orthodox Christian who operates out of the venerable Reformed tradition. Not only that, what if I told you that the author not only believes these doctrines to appear logically inconsistent (making them paradoxical), that we also have not resolved the paradoxes, but he also believes that the Christian (almost any kind of Christian, from scholar to layman) is warranted in believing the conjunction of claims that lead to the paradox? That it is a perfectly rational thing to believe? That the presence of paradox cannot be seriously considered as an intellectual obstacle to belief in Christianity? What if I included that information? You might very well scratch your head and call it a mystery! Don't we all love a good mystery novel? . . . The book I am about to describe is just that. It is a mystery novel. One in which the mystery is left unsolved, at that! In his bold book, Paradox In Christian Theology: An Analysis of Its Presence, Character, and Epistemic Status,1 James Anderson sets out to show that certain doctrines of the Christian faith are paradoxical, but may be reasonably believed in spite of this feature (if not because of it). Anderson also argues that these doctrines are not actually contradictory, but merely apparent.2 However, believing this appearance could be cause for the charge of irrationality to stick. Thus, Anderson provides a model by which the Christian cannot only show that the doctrines are not actual contradictions, but how he can also be rational in affirming these apparently contradictory sets of propositions. With the rigorous mind of a philosophical theologian operating within the analytic tradition (and I believe with the heart of a pastor), Anderson successfully presents and defends this model. In so doing, he offers one of the most intriguing and ingenious responses to one of the most difficult challenges to the Christian faith. If that were not enough, PCT will lift the Christian reader to profound new heights of reverence and awe as they contemplate a God whose ways are not our ways and whose thoughts are not our thoughts (Isa. 55:8).3 And so, if I can offer a seemingly paradoxical observation of my own: PCT will provide new insights about God and how he has structured things in our world and in our cognitive equipment, yet we will stand in more awe of God with this increased information. This is seemingly paradoxical because usually the more you learn about someone, the more the gap between the two of you decreases, but it is just the opposite with God. The more we learn about him, the more we realize how far the distance is between creature and Creator. It appears that the more we know, the less we know. (This is not paradoxical in the sense used in the book, though; but in keeping with the theme of the book under review, I figured my hyperbole might be forgiven.) I am sure it is obvious that I think highly of this book. It is a work of philosophical theology, and Anderson writes in a clear, precise, and detailed fashion. (However, this does not stop him from slipping in a few humorous quips from time to time.) His command of the literature, the history, the intricacies of the historical debates, and the arguments on all sides is nothing short of impressive. He interacts with contemporary theologians as well as contemporary philosophers. He discusses a multitude of topics and brings them all to his reader in a clear, accessible way. The reader may have to work hard in parts, but that hard work definitely pays off in spades. In PCT, Anderson thus establishes himself as one of the brightest, rising stars in Christian philosophy and apologetics today. The rest of this review will consist of looking at the three aspects Anderson seeks to analyze regarding paradoxes in Christian theology: (i) its presence, (ii) its character, and (iii) its epistemic status, and provide his answers. Anderson presents and defends his thesis in two parts. I will follow the structure of his book for this review. I do include some criticisms of his book throughout the review; but be careful, if you blink you may miss these comments (especially since most of them are filed away in the endnotes), as I agree substantially with Anderson and really have no major gripes or criticisms. (I do recommend that the reader read the endnotes as they contain what I take to be some valuable resource material, as well as (I hope) some valuable comments above and beyond any remarks critical of PCT.) The Introduction (Ch.1) Before Anderson looks at his paradigmatic doctrines, which begin in part one of the book, he lays some foundations, defines some terms, and offers in a broad-brushed way the approach he takes in the book. This is all very helpful, and is indicative of the patient way Anderson approaches his subject, always remaining careful to make sure his reader is given the necessary framework to follow Anderson's building project. Chapter 1 lays some groundwork. As stated above, Anderson's goal in the book is to show that certain doctrines of the Christian faith are paradoxical, but may be reasonably believed in spite of this feature (if not because of it). But why even write a book on this issue? Is it even significant? The significance of paradox in Christian theology "lies in the potential implications for the epistemic status of Christian beliefs." Atheists and agnostics have appealed to their presence in support of their non- or disbelief. Within the Christian camp, however, some have been disposed to laud their presence, while others loathe their presence. The various attitudes towards paradox can be expressed thusly: [P1] It is always irrational to affirm a paradoxical doctrine; some central Christian doctrines are paradoxical; therefore, adherence to Christian faith is always irrational (because of paradox). [P2] It is always irrational to affirm paradoxical doctrine; no central Christian doctrines are paradoxical; therefore, adherence to Christian faith is not always irrational (because of paradox). [P3] It is not always irrational to affirm paradoxical doctrine; some central Christian doctrines are paradoxical; therefore, adherence to Christian faith is not always irrational (because of paradox).4 Each position has problems, notes Anderson. [P1] is problematic for those Christians who believe they have good epistemic grounds for their faith; [P2] is out of touch with the widespread notion (of both Christian and non) that there are unresolved paradoxes in the Christian faith; and [P3] has failed to offer a satisfactory account of the circumstances under which said paradoxical doctrines might rationally be believed. Anderson says that some advocates of [P3] have offered sketchy defenses of the intellectual propriety of paradox; none of them address the prior question of what constitutes rationality; i.e., (i) what is required for a belief to have that honorific title `rational' bestowed upon it, and (ii) whether adherence to paradoxical doctrines can ever meet these requirements. Anderson sets out to fill this gap. However, you cannot get very far in discussions of this nature without people asking you how `paradox' is being defined. Anderson is sensitive to this, and so immediately offers his definition.5 Anderson defines `paradox' thusly: X is paradoxical = df X amounts to a set of claims which taken in conjunction appear to be logically inconsistent. Note well the qualifier `apparent.' Thus, a paradox does not entail a logical inconsistency per se, just the appearance of logical inconsistency. This definition "presupposes that a meaningful distinction can be made between apparent and real contradiction." Anderson defends this distinction in 6.2.1 and 7.4.1. Lastly, Anderson gives the reader a preview of what to expect in the coming pages, whetting the appetite of the reader... Read more ›
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Apparent Paradox in Christian Theology,
This review is from: Paradox in Christian Theology (Paternoster Theological Monographs) (Paperback)
Logician Frege was felled by it (Mathematics erected upon pure logic). Russell's Magnus Opus was made obsolete almost before it was printed (set theory). Modern Quantum Mechanics was struck by it (light simultaneously as wave and particle). Theologians have tried to rationally circumvent it (two natures one person). By what? Paradox! And in "Paradox In Christian Theology: An Analysis of Its Presence, Character, and Epistemic Status," James Anderson elegantly discusses essential doctrines of Christianity that are paradoxical, but retain epistemic warrant (resembling Plantinga's application of the term warrant).
"I confess that I can make neither head nor tail of it. Don't you think that you have kept up your mystery long enough, Mr. Holmes?" "Certainly, colonel, you shall know everything." Arthur Conan Doyle Anderson cogently establishes that the doctrine of the Trinity, Incarnation, and the crucifixion of God's Son are not essentially contradictory, but apparently appear epistemically incongruent. Among the many exceptional chapters are: - The problem of paradox (in Christian theology) - The paradox of the Trinity (Nicea, Modalism, Post-Nicene Fathers, and more) - The paradox in the Incarnation (Chalcedon, Post-Chalcedonian) - Responding to Paradox - Warranted Christian Doctrines - A Model for the rational affirmation of paradoxical theology - The model defended - And other outstanding apologetic, epistemological, and theological material. Luke 8:10 And He said, "To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that` Seeing they may not see, And hearing they may not understand.'" Anderson seems to draw upon Cornelius Van Til's notion of Paradox (p. 4), nonetheless Van Til is noted only one lone occasion in the Index (3 X in the Bibliography) as John Frame (1 x in the Bibliography) and Greg Bahnsen are entirely absent in the Index. However there is an abundant use of Alston, Plantinga, and Aquinas (this is not a criticism, just pertinent information to assist the reader). Anderson makes the important point that many of those who advocate the possibility of paradox in Christian theology do not address "in any depth the prior question of what constitutes rationality: what is required for belief to be judged `rational' and whether adherence to paradoxical doctrines can ever meet the relevant epistemic requirements" (p. 5). This historical deficiency is of utmost importance if one aspires to present an epistemic ground to affirm or reject the notion of paradox in theology. Professor Anderson takes great care to define his employment of the term paradox as "synonymous with apparent contradiction. A `paradox' thus amounts to a set of claims which taken in conjunction appear to be logically inconsistent. Note that according to this definition, paradoxicality does not entail logical inconsistency (p. 6). He adds "we are not positing an exception to the laws of logic, but merely acknowledging an element of imprecision in our systematic comprehension of data" (p. 276). The author strives to answer two key questions relating paradox to theology: 1. "Are any essential Christian doctrines genuinely paradoxical?" 2. "Can a person rationally believe a paradoxical doctrine?" (p. 6). Professor Anderson answers in the affirmative on both questions with the caveat that this does not necessitate logical inconsistency. Anderson presses "what is usually deemed problematic about paradoxical claims is that the overall phenomenon--a combination of individual credibility and mutual incompatibility--runs up against certain epistemic norms, certain standards of `acceptable' or `respectable' belief. Having thus narrowed the field to epistemic virtues, the question becomes this: precisely which epistemic property should we focus our attention on?" (p. 156). Anderson avers:"For several reasons, I propose to focus primarily on ... warrant" (p. 156). The good professor adds: "Only divine revelation has the epistemic authority to `trump' our natural intuitions about what is metaphysically possible and what is not" (p. 266). This work has an exceedingly technical aspect suffused within, yet the author writes in a style that makes this work accessible to the budding apologist and many who lack training in epistemology or theology. It covers weighty concepts that most philosophers deliver solely to academicians, but herein Anderson's exposition is precise and well delineated forasmuch as he defines numerous complex terms as the pages are unfurled (great for upper high school and college). This is an excellent work on a crucial topic that most theologians avoid or sweep under their epistemic shag carpet (John Frame and Van Til endowed the church with fine work on the reality of Paradox in theology). Ephesians 3:4 By which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ. "Paradox in Christian Theology" is commanding, wide-ranging, accurate, and encumbered with powerful apologetic and theological argumentation; an indispensable addition to the library of all apologists, ministers, philosophers, informed students, and epistemologists. [["One Way to God: Christian Philosophy and Presuppositional Apologetics Examine World Religions"]]ASIN# :1432722956 ---------------- Clarkian W. Gary Crampton wrote an unfavorable review of Anderson's book, however his charges do not take into account that which Anderson has clearly written. There are a couple of problems with Crampton's objection of Anderson's use of the concept of Paradox. Anderson responds to Crampton's spurious assault: "Since my book defines a paradox as "an apparent contradiction" it certainly follows that there is a subjective element to paradox. Appearances, in the nature of the case, are always appearances to someone (i.e., a conscious subject). Does it follow that the issue of whether there are theological paradoxes is "totally subjective"? Not at all. One might as well argue that the issue of whether the sky appears blue is "totally subjective". Subjectivity does not entail subjectivism. Furthermore, I don't claim that the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation have not been "reconciled before the bar of someone's human reason." What I do claim is that no Christian theologian or philosopher to date (Gordon Clark included) has offered precise and intelligible formulations of those doctrines that are both biblically orthodox and free from any apparent logical difficulties. I don't rule out that some bright mind will one day come up with such formulations--and I'd be among the first to celebrate that accomplishment--but our track record thus far suggests that we ought to temper our expectations" (A Response to W. Gary Crampton's Review, p. 11). Anderson adjoins: "I believe it's clear from Dr. Crampton's review that his presuppositions are not well supported by the Bible. (If they were, it wouldn't be so difficult for him to find biblical support for them without having to press-gang verses into doing philosophical work that goes far beyond their contextual meaning.) The fact is that the Bible doesn't directly address the question of whether or not biblical doctrines could present to us as paradoxical. It seems the only way to answer that question is to consider the biblical doctrines themselves, to see whether they really are susceptible to formulations that avoid paradox without distorting what the Bible actually says (e.g., about God's triunity or Christ's divinity and humanity)" [Response p. 16]. In contrast to Crampton's unfounded critical review, the always bright and erudite scholar Paul Helm wrote in his review of Anderson's book(Helm's Deep: Paradox and Mystery): "Anderson has written is a book of great importance to those concerned both with the relation of Christian theology to reason, and with the question of the reasonableness of Christian belief. In the first half of the book he raises questions about doctrinal coherence, and in the second half he raises how deep our understanding of the mysteries of the faith can hope to be, and whether it is reasonable to believe what we cannot understand. Anderson has admirable contributions to each of these areas. His treatments of the questions are thorough and clear, with a good theological grasp and a philosophical mind" (Helm's Deep, Paradox and Mystery, p. 1). "Anderson is chiefly concerned with what are usually called the mysteries of our faith, with what he calls paradoxes. He understands paradoxes to be sets of statements that are apparently contradictory. (The way that the author ties 'mystery' to the test of logic, and does not treat it as a hold-all for any theological difficulty, is excellent)" [Paradox and Mystery, p. 2). "There is much to learn and to ponder from Anderson's book" (P & M, p. 3). There Are Moral Absolutes: How to Be Absolutely Sure That Christianity Alone Supplies [["The Necessary Existence of God: The Proof of Christianity Through Presuppositional Apologetics"]] ASIN# :1419620355
3 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Another Van Tilian Attack on Scripture,
By Magma2 (USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Paradox in Christian Theology (Paternoster Theological Monographs) (Paperback)
James Anderson is the Assistant Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary and his book, Paradox in Christian Theology, is his ode to biblical paradox, not in the sense that such paradoxes present us with theological puzzles or problems to be solved, but rather are tokens the ineffable God and creator has given us in order to induce religious passion and worship as we leap headfirst into the absurd. Fittingly, Paradox in Christian Philosophy opens and closes with a favorable quote and a final reverential bow to Søren Kierkegaard. That's because according to Anderson:
" . . . theological paradox reminds us of our creaturely limitations and of the transcendence of God. It confronts us with divine incomprehensibility and fosters reverent awe and epistemic humility. Furthermore, in keeping with a central thread in the Christian narrative, paradox (with its attendant notion of divine mystery) invites *faith,* requiring us to trust God's self-revelation despite the fact that it disaccords at points with our rational intuitions (about identity, unity, personhood, etc.) . . . Just as Abraham trusted God's self-revelation in the face of seeming absurdity -- the pregnancy of a pensioner and the sacrifice of a son -- and was commended for his faith, so it is possible that God means us to trust the self-revelation of this triunity and his incarnation in the face of seeming illogicality, as opposed to leaning on our own understanding. (282 - 283)" Of course there is nothing illogical about God telling Abraham that his ninety year old wife will bear him a son or that he should sacrifice this same child. Some things may be hard to believe perhaps, which is why Abraham laughed when God told him that Sarah would bear him a son (see Genesis 17:17), but miracles and difficult commands are hardly the equivalent of square circles. Unlike the late Christian philosopher Gordon Clark (who gets only a passing if not deprecating mention in the book), Anderson does not believe that logical paradox in Scripture function, as Clark famously said, as "a charley-horse between the ears that can be eliminated by rational massage." For Anderson the presence of logical paradoxes in Scripture act as intellectual fetishes or spiritual markers designed to invoke a sense of awe and devotion that call us to submit our minds to absurdity and incoherence. That's not to say that Anderson believes that any and all claim to "biblical paradox" is justified, rather it is the recognition that at certain points in our theology logic needs to be curbed, which is a nice way to say abandoned. For example, when explaining why he believes Christians are rational for believing apparent contradictions in Scripture, what he calls his "RAPT model" or the "Rational Affirmation of Paradoxical Theology," Anderson remarks: "It is crucial to recognise that the RAPT model does not rule out the use of deduction and inference in theology, but merely implies certain constraints on the application of logical principles . . . But if we grant that some elements of divine revelation *could* strike us as paradoxical on account of limitations in our noetic apparatus, then we can permit any valid inference from revelational data *provided its conclusion does not explicitly negate other revelational data.*(276)" Of course, the problem here is one in which all Van Tilians fall into and which is why Van Tilianism is positively un-Reformed, is the failure to recognize that truth is, by definition, non-contradictory and biblical teaching is therefore similarly non contradictory. Valid inference from true premises cannot contradict any other true proposition. Reformed believers hold that the Christian faith is a rigorously deductive system (see Westminster Confession 1.6) and that the Scriptures presents to the mind a system of logically harmonious propositions. This is, after all, one of the central evidences that the Scriptures are indeed the Word of God (see Westminster Confession 1.5). If Van Tilians like Anderson actually believed the Westminster Confession they would know that in Scripture there is a logical harmony or "consent of all" and not just some of the parts, and that the meaning of Scripture is "not manifold, but one." Consequently, if an inference from revelational data were to "negate other revelational data" then we would know that the inference was invalid. Yet, Anderson maintains that valid inferences from Scripture can and will, at certain points, "negate other revelational data." This is a complete departure from Reformed orthodoxy. For Van Tilians like Anderson the true mark of the Reformed faith is the recognition and embrace of impenetrable and hopelessly irreconcilable paradoxes or "apparent contradictions." There was a time when those following in Calvin's footsteps were accused of being too logical, if such a thing were possible. Now we have entire so-called "Reformed seminaries" polluting the minds of countless men teaching them that at various points in their study of Scripture logic must be curbed and that they're even "rational" for believing contradictions. Not only that, these poor souls are instructed that both sides of any seeming contradiction may both be true and that to fail to properly genuflect before irreconcilable paradoxes, i.e., contradictions that men like Anderson simply assert are not "real," is to be guilty of the unpardonable sin of "rationalism." Can there be any wonder why Calvinism remains in the backwaters of broader evangelicalism? According to Anderson reason is the enemy and heterodoxy is rooted in attempts to harmonize any number of paradoxical doctrines (specifically but not limited to the doctrines of Trinity and the Incarnation). *For the rest of my review of Anderson's ode to biblical paradox and the irrationality of the Christian faith see: [...] [...] [...]
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
