Theological flaws and fatal flaws

Last updated on: August 18, 2011 at 7:31 pm by Roger E. Olson

Theological flaws and fatal flaws 2011-08-18T19:31:37-05:00 Roger E. Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Recently I argued here that every theological system has flaws that should be acknowledged so that the entire system is held somewhat lightly and open to revision. One problem is when a system, such as Charles Hodge’s “stout and persistent theology” (David Wells’s description) is treated as if it were simply stating divine revelation in other words and therefore not really (as opposed to theoretically) open to correction and revision.

But I see another problem in theological systems. SOME have not only flaws but also what I will call fatal flaws. A fatal flaw is a sheer contradiction–something it is simply impossible to believe because attempting to believe it results in thinking and speaking utter nonsense.

Earlier here one of my former students reported having a picture of me standing in front of an erase-a-board with the words “creech, creech” written on in it as if they were coming out of my mouth (cartoon style). I know what that was. I was explaining to my students way back then that attempting to affirm a sheer contradiction is no different than saying nonsensical syllables such as “creech, creech.” (My apologies to people whose last name is “Creech!”)

A mystery is one thing; a paradox is a closely related thing; a logical contradiction is something else entirely. Here I agree entirely with Reformed theologian R. C. Sproul (Chosen by God, pp. 46-47). God is transcendent and therefore will always be mysterious to us. Mystery results in paradox because God is transcendent and we are finite and fallen. But contradiction is something even God cannot embrace because to embrace it is to fall into complete incoherence and unintelligibility.

It is not as easy as some believe to identify a logical contradiction. For example, when people say that the doctrines of the Trinity and deity/humanity of Christ are contradictions I have to laugh. The whole point of the doctrines (as worked out by the early church) is to show they are not contradictions. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is NOT that God is one and three–left at that. It is that God is one substance and three persons who share that substance equally. We have no exact experience of that in human life or in nature (although there are analogies) so it is a mystery. But it is not a contradiction. Nor is the doctrine of the hypostatic union a contradiction.

A contradiction is always in the form “A is not A” when “A” is meant both times as exactly the same. For example, it would be a contradiction to say “Jesus Christ is exclusively human and exclusively divine.” But nobody says that–unless they are completely ignorant of both the Bible and doctrine and care nothing about logic.

Now, to the point. Do some theological systems include contradictions? I believe so. They are almost always unrecognized and/or unadmitted. Sometimes they have to be ferreted out by careful examination and argumentation. When it can be shown conclusively that two elements of a system actually do contradict each other the system must change to accommodate that. And I cannot embrace a system that contains unresolved and unresolvable logical contradictions. (I may agree with parts of such a system, but I cannot swallow it whole.)

If even one logical contradiction can be identified at the heart of a theological system that is a fatal flaw for the system itself. At that point the system must be radically revised or given up and replaced with a different system.

I have identified here and elsewhere what I believe to be a fatal flaw in SOME Calvinist systems of belief. That is, insofar as a person believes that God foreordains and renders certain everything without exception FOR HIS GLORY and also believes that heresy (for example) diminishes or reduces God’s glory by robbing God of some of his glory he falls into contradiction. Both beliefs cannot be held at the same time. It is not a case of ordinary paradox–apparent contradiction. It is a case of sheer, unresolved and probably unresolvable logical contradiction. That is why, I believe, no Calvinist has ever risen to my challenge to explain it.

Every Calvinist that I know (and I don’t know them all) says that some beliefs (e.g., panentheism) detract from God’s glory and that is why we must oppose them with all our (persuasive) might. They diminish and detract from God’s glory. They dishonor God. They rob him of glory. Every Calvinist I know also says (usually elsewhere in his or her book or article or sermon or whatever) that God foreordains everything without exception FOR HIS GLORY.

Now some Calvinists might take the approach that panentheism (for example) does not really, ontically rob God of glory as that is impossible for any creature to do, but it diminishes recognition and acknowledgement of God’s glory in the minds of its believers. But, so what? God foreordained that also-for his glory. That a panentheist is a panentheist was foreordained and rendered certain by God for his glory (according to the Calvinists I know).

It also won’t work to say that God foreordained panentheism so that he could overcome it and by revealing it as false glorify himself. Even then, the existence of panentheism, if determined by God to redound to his glory when he overcomes it, in the meantime glorifies God insofar as it is decided by God as the means to that end.

For the life of me I cannot figure out why Calvinists of my acquaintance do not see this as a sheer logical contradiction and move to resolve it. I have asked many about this issue and they have always just looked at me as if they never thought of it or they rely on some version of an answer I just mentioned above which are no answers at all.

All that is to say, one reason I am not a Calvinist is that to be one I would have to sacrifice my intellect IN THE STRONG SENSE of embrace sheer logical incoherence and unintelligibility. NOT IN THE SENSE of embrace mystery with which I have no absolute problem. I believe this is a fatal flaw in so-called “consistent Calvinism” (which, in light of this flaw, is really “inconsistent, consistent Calvinism!).

Many contemporary Reformed theologians have moved away from decretal theology, divine determinism, and I think that has something to do with this issue. Certainly it has also to do with another possibly fatal flaw in traditional Calvinism about which I’ll write more later.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

September 27, 2010

Why can't we all just admit our theologies are flawed?

Next Post

October 2, 2010 The first fatal flaw in the Calvinist system revisited

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Against Liberal Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

In Revelation, what is the correct sequence of events in the End Times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, false prophet rises from earth, mark of the beast given False prophet rises, dragon cast to earth, beast rises from sea, mark of the beast given Mark of the beast given, dragon cast to earth, beast rises, false prophet rises Beast rises from sea, dragon cast to earth, mark of the beast given, false prophet rises