What do you think?
Rate this book
Paradox in Christian Theology
Does traditional Christianity involve paradoxical doctrines doctrines that present the appearance (at least) of logical inconsistency? what is the nature of these paradoxes and why do they arise? What is the relationship between "paradox" and "mystery" in theological theorizing? And what are the implications for the rationality, or otherwise, of orthodox Christian beliefs? In Paradox in Christian Theology, James Anderson argues that the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation, as derived from Scripture and formulated in the ecumenical creeds, are indeed paradoxical. But this conclusion, he contends, need not imply that Christians who believe these doctrines are irrational in doing so. In support of this claim, 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 cannot be considered as a serious intellectual obstacle to belief in Christianity.
362 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2007
4 people are currently reading
64 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
April 3, 2008
I loved this book. Fine piece of philosophical theology. I review this book in depth here:
My review of Paradox In Christian Theology
I will post the introduction of my review:
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.)
. . .
Read the rest if that whetts your appetite.
My review of Paradox In Christian Theology
I will post the introduction of my review:
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.)
. . .
Read the rest if that whetts your appetite.
December 20, 2017
The best apologetic book on the subject of paradox and mysteries. Anderson argues that a christian is perfectly warranted in believing christian paradoxes, which are only apparent (which he is calling MACRUE : Merely Apparent Contradictions Resulting from Unalterated Equivocation). He build his thought extensively on Platinga's but bringing up some corrections and developments. On the other hand, he also refutes competing view on paradox (in this case the Trinity and the Incarnation in order to deal with doctrines related to all Christians wathever their denominational background.). We can rightly affirm that Anderson has written at least until now the only one and best articulation of "mystery" defense of many internal problems of christianity including the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Problem of Evil, the compatibility between free-will/human moral responsability wth God's sovereignty (= divine determinism).
December 2, 2012
Anderson’s overall conclusion is that “Christians who hold paradoxical views of the Trinity and the Incarnation (whether knowingly or unknowingly) can be epistemically warranted in their doctrinal beliefs” (p. 308). I think he argues his case well, and even in my limited knowledge of philosophical knowledge I think he makes a compelling case for his model. The book itself, as I said before, is a very clear read. For what it could be, Anderson does a superb job of navigating potentially confusing waters in a way that a good majority of readers can appreciate. Principally, this book will be beneficial to pastors and teachers, but will also find a good home on the shelf of more advanced lay readers who are interested in the logic of Christian doctrines in generally, or the Incarnation and the Trinity in particular.
Read the full review on my blog
Read the full review on my blog
August 27, 2022
An excellent defense in the belief of Christian paradox. This work is heavily philosophical, but Anderson argues on the basis of God’s incomprehensibility and our own epistemic limitations that it would make sense for some doctrines (particularly the Trinity and Incarnation) to be paradoxical. I think this was a dissertation so it is very academic, but worth the read.
May 5, 2013
A freeing book for any theologian or philosopher.
March 15, 2025
This monograph is a publication of James Anderson’s PhD thesis in philosophy at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. This book is a truly enjoyable read and a fruitful extension of Alvin Plantinga’s ‘Reformed Epistemology.’
In particular, the crux of Anderson’s argument is that a faithful reading of conciliar/credal statements on the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation result in paradox. As Anderson defines it, a theological paradox contains at least two claims that while standalone are uncontroversial yet when held alongside other claims to knowledge result in ‘apparent contradiction.’
It is crucial to understand that Anderson is not making the claim that contradiction actually exists in these respective Biblical doctrines, but that such contradiction presents itself due to our having lack of epistemic access to metaphysical distinctions that would resolve such paradoxes in the first place. Also important to understand is the fact that according to Anderson this should not nullify the project of continuing to faithfully understand and expound such doctrines to the degree that we’re able. Such a practice is the exercise of ‘fides quorum intellectum.’
Paradox or no paradox, Anderson’s extension of Reformed Epistemology aims to provide an epistemological model that explains how Christians can have warrant, i.e., that property sufficient to confer knowledge, of such cases that present themselves as theological paradoxes.
Rather then ramble on, I thought I’d provide a link to Paul Helm’s review of the book on his blog: https://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/20...
John Frame wrote an official review of this book too.
In particular, the crux of Anderson’s argument is that a faithful reading of conciliar/credal statements on the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation result in paradox. As Anderson defines it, a theological paradox contains at least two claims that while standalone are uncontroversial yet when held alongside other claims to knowledge result in ‘apparent contradiction.’
It is crucial to understand that Anderson is not making the claim that contradiction actually exists in these respective Biblical doctrines, but that such contradiction presents itself due to our having lack of epistemic access to metaphysical distinctions that would resolve such paradoxes in the first place. Also important to understand is the fact that according to Anderson this should not nullify the project of continuing to faithfully understand and expound such doctrines to the degree that we’re able. Such a practice is the exercise of ‘fides quorum intellectum.’
Paradox or no paradox, Anderson’s extension of Reformed Epistemology aims to provide an epistemological model that explains how Christians can have warrant, i.e., that property sufficient to confer knowledge, of such cases that present themselves as theological paradoxes.
Rather then ramble on, I thought I’d provide a link to Paul Helm’s review of the book on his blog: https://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/20...
John Frame wrote an official review of this book too.
July 1, 2020
Excellent defense of paradox in theology, looking at two of the most paradoxical Christian doctrines: the Trinity and the incarnation. The author finds that most strategies that attempt to avoid the the paradoxical nature of these doctrines lapse into either rationalism or heresy. To avoid these two horns, Anderson proposes a model building on Plantinga's argument for warranted belief to support the rationality of paradox in Christian belief. Because paradox (or mystery) is a given in light of God's incomprehensibility, every student of theology will benefit fromt his work.
January 20, 2025
This is one of the most helpful books I've ever read. Anderson thinks deeply and writes clearly (understandably for a reader like me with no formal training in philosophy). It's not a quick read, but it's rich and rewarding. Embracing theological mysteries is not a violation of reason - that's what Anderson's book helped me understand like never before.
May 26, 2024
Needlessly complicated. I read through chapter 1 which describes the logical problem of basing belief in paradox, chapters 2 and 3 about the historical attempt (and eventual failure) of explaining away the paradox in the trinity and incarnation, and chapters 4 and 5 about how we should respond to paradoxical beliefs and which are warranted. I got so aggravated by the intellectual muscle involved in following it all that I glossed through his RAPT theory proposal in chapter 6 and defense in chapter 7. In a nutshell, the paradox can be defended by equivocation of two terms (much like a cone being both triangular and circular simultaneously), but the legitimacy of our faith could only be defended by a theory so complicated only those with advanced logical training can understand it, what really is the point?
Is the trinity and incarnation a paradox? Yes. Does it matter? No. The laws of logic serve us well in the physical world which works ORDINARILY. They do not work as well EXTRAORDINARILY, where the divine excels. If God only works ORDINARILY, is he really divine? Christianity is indeed logical, but there is a limit where faith alone must bridge the dialectical gap. Jesus taught in parables, exposing truth to his disciples and concealing it from many. His word teaches us he makes foolish the wise things of the world and reveals things to little children. If the RAPT theory works to share the gospel with the super intelligent, go for it! Scripture alone is sufficient to convert, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
Hebrews 4:12
(Recommended by Sean)
Is the trinity and incarnation a paradox? Yes. Does it matter? No. The laws of logic serve us well in the physical world which works ORDINARILY. They do not work as well EXTRAORDINARILY, where the divine excels. If God only works ORDINARILY, is he really divine? Christianity is indeed logical, but there is a limit where faith alone must bridge the dialectical gap. Jesus taught in parables, exposing truth to his disciples and concealing it from many. His word teaches us he makes foolish the wise things of the world and reveals things to little children. If the RAPT theory works to share the gospel with the super intelligent, go for it! Scripture alone is sufficient to convert, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”
Hebrews 4:12
(Recommended by Sean)
December 19, 2024
The first Part is remarkable, it is a quite comprehensive account of the needed context. The second Part, however, ends up being underwhelming given the limited implications of a system based on the notion of warrant. I wish the author had taken his nod to Kierkegaard in the very last subsection more seriously.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews