background image
42
J.I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1967); D.A. Carson, Divine
Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical perspectives in tension (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981).
However, it would be misleading not to acknowledge that some twentieth century evangelicals have argued
against paradox. Carl F.H. Henry, for example, is deeply opposed to such language, feeling that to use it in
reference to Christian truth compromises its essential intelligibility. God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 3, (Waco,
TX: Word, 1979), 232-236. Coming from a similar standpoint, Ronald H. Nash rejects the views of Kierkegaard,
Bloesch, and Van Til as pious nonsense. cf. The Word of God and the Mind of Man, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1983), 91-112. Even the evangelicals cited above differ significantly in how they approach paradox, from Grudem
who is much closer to Henry and Nash in how he explains paradox than to Bloesch who uses paradoxical language
without proper qualification.
66. There have, of course, been numerous defenders of paradox who are no friends of classical Christianity. Tillich
and Bultmann, as well as many post-modern theologues, have defended dialectical/paradoxical, and (in the latter
case) relativistic thinking, while departing significantly from Christian notions of God. The fact is both orthdox and
non-orthodox have appealed to paradox.
67. The Reality of God and other essays, (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 17.
68. Ibid.
69. p. 18.
70. p.47.
71. Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age, (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1987).
72. p. 77.
73. p. 54.
74.ibid.
75. p. 65.
76. p.68.
77. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p.213. He goes
on: "How can God be grieved if precisely what God wanted to happen did happen? If specific sovereighty is true,
then it is incorrect to speak of God's getting upset with human sin because any sin is specifically what God wanted
to come about. It is inconsistent to affirm exhaustive sovereignty and also claim that God wants to give us
something but does not give it because we fail to ask him in prayer. ...this does not comport with my reading of
Scripture or my understanding of prayer." (italics mine)
78. p. 212.
79. p. 215. Sanders criticizes how Packer (and others) have used the notion of an "apparent" contradiction to refer to
a problem that is intrinsically logically irresolvable to us. First, ignoring philosophical work on paradox, he says that
something either is or is not contradictory; there is no in-between status. Second, Sanders believes that to say some
truths are contradictory to us, but not to God, is irrational, because it is unknowable and no one can possibly confirm
its truth-value. Similarly, Sanders asks how we could possibly be sure that something that is contradictory to us is
not also to God? But both these points suppose we are not within our epistemic rights to affirm something is true by
faith. Lastly, Sanders argues that we cannot appeal to apparent contradiction since to affirm a contradiction to us