Sermon, May, 1985

NON-CONSISTENT NON-CONTRADICTION May 1985 by Pastor Charles J. Arnett 111 Worman Dr. Union OH 45322 513-836-3272
of
Union Baptist Church 528 N. Main St. Englewood OH 45322
NON-CONSISTENT NON-CONTRADICTION
In Acts 2:23 we read, "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:." This verse poses a problem to the serious reader of scripture. If God predestinated the crucifixion of Christ, how could the agents of God's predestined purpose be said to be wicked? It is the old question of divine sovereignty versus human responsibility.
Many Christians are not willing to follow the arguments authors such as David Nettleton put forth in his recent book, Chosen to Salvation, and simply acknowledge that the bible does emphatically teach both these truths. The scripture, however, tells us that the believer should "... be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." Therefore, I offer this brief article as a reason for believing in divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
First, let us start with a primer in deductive reasoning. A friend of mine gave a defense of covenant hermeneutics and was charged with being inconsistent. He jokingly responded with the quote, "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Then a short time later I heard Don Carson, from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, remind his hearers that non-consistency could be non-contradictory. These two statements drove me back to my freshman text book on logic.
"........... if a person is consistent in his reasoning, he will take care that each step in a given line of argument will follow naturally from the one that preceded it and that the whole process itself will be in accordance with the basic rules of correct thinking. Inconsistency, on the other hand, betrays itself when, for instance, someone unexpectedly draws a conclusion that is either completely unwarranted or is in some way or another beside the point. Any number of strange twists and turns characterize the thinking of persons who habitually take an a argumentative "leap.".(1) (Italics mine)

An example of an 'argumentative leap' would be when one denies divine choice by asserting human choice. The book on logic states, "Contradictory propositions cannot both be true."(2) In other words, for two statements to be consistent and non-contra dictory, they must be capable of a logical deduction without denying the truth of either statement.
Let us consider non-consistent non-contradiction in general revelation. A popular textbook in physics states,
Light was shown by Maxwell to be a component of the electromagnetic spectrum. All these (light) waves are electromagnetic in nature and have the same speed c in free space.(3) Einstein succeeded in explaining the photoelectric effect by making a remarkable assumption, namely, that the energy in a light beam travels through space in concentrated bundles, called photons. Millikan, whose experiments verified Einstein's ideas in every detail, spoke of Einstein's 'bold, not to say reckless, hypothesis.' (4)

Now it seems to me that the above two statements are not consistent. What conclusion naturally follows from them? None. Yet that doesn't deter men of science, who are known for their powers of logic and reasoning. Why are men of science willing to work with two truths that are non-consistent and still believe they are non-contradictory? Why? They can prove both of them with valid scientific experiments. Consequently, those who are entrusted with general revelation are very happy to deal with the facts before them and not let what they don't understand deter them. For instance, at the moment this writer is using items that are based on both of those truths. I am wearing eyeglasses that are based on the laws of refraction for electromagnetic waves, and I am typing this under a fluorescent light which is based on the theory that light is the emission of photons. I really do not care if one contends that those two statements are contradictory, I am still going to use items based on both of those theories.
Let us now look at non-consistent non-contradiction in an historic Baptist statement concerning the contingency of second causes. The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, (1742) article III paragraph 1. reads,
God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchange ably, all things whatsoever come to pass; yet so as there by is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears His wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithful ness in accomplishing His decree.

In other words, even though God has predestined all things, those things are contingent on the free and voluntary choice of other things. These two propositions are set forth clearly in the confession.
1. God is the first cause of all that comes to pass.
2. Second causes are real causes.
Now, it doesn't seem to me that those two statements are consistent, and yet the authors of that confession did not think them contradictory. The confession seems to be saying that every action of man was predestinated by God and was certain to come to pass and yet, that action was contingent on a voluntary act of that person. It seems to me the above two statements cannot be harmonized in a logically consistent manner.
Two popular approaches to this problem have always appeared, but both are contrary to historic orthodoxy. One forces these two truths to be consistent by denying, in teaching or in practice, unconditional election and absolute predestination. The other position forces these two truths to be consistent by denying, in teaching or in practice, free agency and human responsibility.
Let us consider non-consistent non-contradiction in the writings of the Apostle Paul. Paul wrote in Ephesians 1:11 that believers had been predestinated according to the purpose of God, who "Worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." Certainly, the apostle Paul believed in absolute predestination, and furthermore, he believed that every christian should hear and know that truth. Paul states his position concerning man's will in salvation when he says, "So then it is not of him that will eth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (Rom. 9:16). The epistles of Paul show that he expected Christ ians to believe that God is sovereign in salvation, that God elected some to salvation, and that election was not based on any foreseen faith or merit in the elect; and Paul did not hide the truth of divine sovereignty from the unsaved. In Acts 17:26 Paul stated very strongly, to the unsaved, God's providence in the life of the unsaved. He told them in that passage that God determined when and where they lived. On the other hand, Paul urged men to receive the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. In Acts 26:28 we find Agrippa responding to Paul's urging by saying, ".. Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian". Was Agrippa mistaken about Paul's intent? Why didn't Paul respond with, "well I don't want you to feel like I am trying to talk you into something"? Well, the truth is, according to verse 29, that Paul was trying to talk Agrippa into something. As John Gill, a firm believer in divine sovereignty, observed, "Paul had strangely wrought upon him (Agrippa) to incline to the Christian religion". (5) Paul clear ly, believed and preached divine sovereignty, and he believed and preached human responsibility.
It should be helpful to consider one more example of non- consistent non-contradiction in Scripture. A comparison of Matt. 11:21 with Acts 13:48 is instructive. Acts 13:48 declares that those who were predestined to be saved, believed unto salvation. This is the clear meaning of the text. Matt. 11:21 relates that Jesus said Tyre would have repented had its people had the privilege that others had. The Lord Jesus did not cite the cause of their destruction as their not being elect. They were destroyed because they did not have the Word of God in power. If they had, they would have repented. Yet Man is totally depraved and can not and will not repent unless a divine work is preformed in him. Obviously, the truth of Acts 13:48 and the truth of Matt. 11:21 are not consistent. However, the truth of Acts 13:48 does not contradict the truth of Matt. 11:21. It cannot, because God is truth and he cannot contradict himself. Certainly, we believe that the bible can teach something that we must believe even when we cannot 'square' scriptural teaching with human reasoning?
The need to apply the concept of non-consistent non-contradiction in evangelism is clear. We all admit that there are two elements in evangelism. One element is preaching the facts of the gospel, the work of Christ, with a dependence upon the Holy Spirit to work in the heart of the hearers, and the other element is trying to get people to respond to those facts. Or as some would say, there is the divine side and the human side in evangelism. Bible believing evangelists pray for the Holy Spirit to do a super-natural work during their preaching, and those evangelist command people to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Evangelism is at once consistent and non-consistent. The individual elements are consistent with themselves but are not consistent with each other. The preaching of the gospel must be consistent with divine sovereignty, and at the same time, it must be consistent with man's responsibility to repent and to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no need to make the elements of evangelism consistent with each other. Those who preach the gospel may stress that God had, from the beginning, made certain the salvation of believers, II Thess. 2:13, and at the same time declare that God "..will have all men to be saved," (I Tim. 2:4). It is biblical to preach man's inability ("the carnal mind is ... not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" Rom. 8:7) and man's responsibility ("God ... now commandeth all men every where to repent" Acts 17:30). However, we should never contradict divine sovereignty nor contradict human responsibility. Statements such as, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, but you have to make the choice; you have the power to decide; God will not give you faith", clearly contradicts divine sovereignty. On the other hand, to tell a person that God saves the elect apart from any response to the gospel contradicts human responsibility.
If scientists, those entrusted with general revelation, are willing to teach two truths that are non-consistent and non- contradictory, ought not bible believers, who are entrusted with special revelation, be willing to preach two truths that are non- consistent and non-contradictory? Of course we should; if both can be proved with valid exegesis of scripture. Paul made no attempt to be consistent with divine sovereignty when he said to the Phillipian jailer, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved"(Acts 16:31). In Romans 9:17,18, he did not try to be consistent with human responsibility. I do not know of any preacher that tries to make Acts 16:31 consistent with divine sovereignty, but I have heard some try to explain Romans 9:17 in terms of human responsibility by quickly pointing to the scripture that tells of Pharaoh hardening his own heart. Paul was not trying to prove human responsibility in Romans 9; he was setting forth divine sovereignty.
Biblical evangelist recognize that when a person is saved he or she freely and voluntarily receives Christ, makes a decision, confesses the Lord Jesus Christ with his or her mouth, and makes a commitment. At the same time, biblical evangelists preach that Jesus saves, not that he is trying to save, but that he actually does save. To preach that Jesus is trying to save would be to contradict divine sovereignty. The author believes that biblical evangelist preach two truths: both are biblical truths that are non-consistent and non-contradictory.
1. Robert J. Kreyche,Logic for Undergraduates,(N.Y.,N.Y. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1963), 19

2. Ibid, 135

3. David Halliday & Robert Resnick,Physics for Students of Science and Engineering,(N.Y.,N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1962), 901

4. Ibid, 1090, 1091

5. John Gill,Gill's Commentary ,(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House,1980), Volume V,999