More False Dilemmas

Yesterday, on James White's blog, he described the content of his radio program in light of the recent Chan video controversy:

"I contrasted exhorting men and women, boys and girls, to plead for mercy from God with presenting God as if He is pleading for mercy from men!"

We have two views "contrasted":

A) exhorting men and women, boys and girls, to plead for mercy from God

and

B) presenting God as if He is pleading for mercy from men!

Is this a fair either/or dilemma? Is Chan describing God as if his view is that "God is pleading for mercy from men?" Or is Chan just claiming that God pleads with men to come to him for mercy? I would say that those who differ with White are just claiming the later view and not the former. Disagree with it if you will, but at least represent the perspective of others accurately.

Chan would agree with this proposition:

1) We need to exhort men and women, boys and girls, to plead for mercy from God

It's just the case that he's also affirming this:

2) God also pleads with men to come to him for mercy/forgiveness.

Chan well knows that God is not pleading mercy from man. However, if one only wants to affirm proposition #1 to the exclusion of proposition #2, then it looks much better to set proposition #1 in contrast with the manifestly absurd view that "God is pleading for mercy from man". It's an example of a false either/or dilemma. We do not have to choose between #1 and #2. Affirming them both is faithful to the scriptural picture of God.

Let no one misconstrue my responses to the Chan video situation as a complete endorsement of everything in it. It's just the case that many of the responses to it are significantly imbalanced. Whoever complains that our culture is filled with Arminians needs to take another look at the following words:

"Neither is there hope that the Arminians will be drawn to acknowledge the error of their position, as long as they are persuaded the contrary opinion cannot be maintained without admitting that an untruth must be believed, even by the commandment of him that is God of truth, and by the direction of that word, which is the word of truth." James Ussher

In this case, the untruth would be to think that proposition #2 is false:

2) God also pleads with men to come to him for mercy/forgiveness.

NKJ 2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

NKJ Romans 10:21 But to Israel he says: "All day long I have stretched out My hands To a disobedient and contrary people."

D. A. Carson on False Dilemmas

I've just seen the following quote in a number of places now (2) and thought it was excellent. A friend of mine recently told me that all false theological systems are ultimately built on some false either/or dilemma. Not only can that be the case with respect to a system that's not Christian at all, but it can also be the case with respect to some particular doctrines that Christians themselves believe.

Damn all false antithesis to hell, for they generate false gods, they perpetuate idols, they twist and distort our souls, they launch the church into violent pendulum swings whose oscillations succeed only in dividing brothers and sisters in Christ.

Apparently it's from D. A. Carson's Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 234.

On Ad Hominems and Insults

In heated debates, one commonly hears one person accuse another of committing an ad hominem fallacy. Whenever something insulting or disrepectful is said, it is assumed that this constitutes an ad hominem. This is not necessarily the case.

An ad hominem is, by definition, an argument. Specifically, it is a kind of argument that seeks to discredit another person's viewpoint by pointing out some character flaw in the person arguing the view. Wikipedia puts it this way:

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

1) A makes claim B;

2) there is something objectionable about A,

3) therefore claim B is false.

Since emotions tend to rise in heated discussions, one frequently senses impatience and frustration in the parties involved. This is frequently the case in theological debates when our most deeply cherished beliefs are challenged. It's very easy to get upset with those who seem to be undermining important truth and influencing others. Zeal for one's viewpoint can easily cause uncharitable, disrespectful and ungracious speech to occur in an argument. An inappropriate character comment is the inevitable result.

I wish to point out that these inappropriate character comments do not always constitute ad hominems. This does not mean that the one making character comments is behaving virtuously. It only means that it is inaccurate to call all insults or character comments made in a polemical discourse ad hominems. In fact, I believe it's more likely that a person is just venting their frustrations. Doing this in argumentation may cause the other person to retaliate. Such behavior serves to distract the issue at hand and understanding is usually not achieved.

With that said, I think the entry at Wikipedia is correct. They make a distinction between mere insults and ad hominem insults. Here's what they say:

"An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. But this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are widely agreed that this use is incorrect."

Therefore, it seems to me that we should be careful when we assert that someone is committing an ad hominem fallacy. They may just be insulting the other person. Christians should be watchful against this sort of behavior, especially when the bible gives so many warnings about the use of the tongue. Also, as James points out, the wrath of man does not accomplish the righteousness of God.

NIV James 1:20 for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.

The Difference Between “P is Q” and “P entails Q”

In polemical writings, a straw man accusation is often made. One person, let’s call him Bilbo, holds some position (P). His opponent, Frodo, attempts to use a reductio ad absurdum argument and says that “Bilbo's position P entails position Q” (some absurd conclusion). It’s possible for Bilbo to misrepresent (to straw man) Frodo's claim, as if Frodo is claiming “Bilbo says P is Q.” That’s actually a straw man fallacy on Bilbo’s part. Frodo is actually claiming that Bilbo’s position P logically entails Q, not that Bilbo actually holds to position Q. Bilbo is actually committing a straw man fallacy when he says that Frodo is committing a straw man fallacy. It’s possible for people to straw man a reductio ad absurdum argument. Beware.

Bilbo should respond by showing how P does not entail Q, rather than claiming that “Frodo says Bilbo believes Q.”

Rick Grush's Logic Lectures

I just saw a link at the Reformata blog to free logic lectures by Rick Grush.

Grush's lectures can be found here (click on Podcasts):

Rick Grush's Home Page

On Essential Doctrines and the Difference Between Affirmation and Denial

Christianity is a religion of truth, and truth is not less (though it is more) than propositional. There are certain doctrines or teachings (true propositions) in Christianity that are essential and some that are non-essential. As with any worldview, Christianity has certain features without which it would not be what it is. To illustrate the ideas of essential and non-essential, we might consider a square.

A square has four sides, and an object that does not have four sides is not a square. In other words, having four sides is essential to squareness. A square's color may change, but the color is a non-essential quality.

Christians debate about what doctrines are essential and what doctrines are not, but we should all agree that there are essential doctrines because scripture says so. John, speaking by the authority of the Holy Spirit, says:

NKJ 1 John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

The real humanity of Christ is an example of an essential doctrine of Christianity.

NKJ Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Belief that the God of the bible exists is an obvious essential as well.

NKJ 1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.

That Jesus is the person identified as Christ is another essential. One might argue that the Trinity is a kind of essential doctrine as well (we see personal distinction in this passage, and the identification of the Son as God in other passages).

I don't wish to make a check list of essentials in this post. I really want to make a distinction between affirmation and denial. A person may be said to not believe something in at least two different senses. 1) Person A may not believe something because he or she is ignorant of the particular subject. The lack of belief here is due to ignorance, not studied disbelief. Or, 2) person B may not believe something because they do not think it is true. This person is not ignorant. They lack belief in a particular subject because they do not think it is true after some reflection. After thinking about it (to whatever extent), they are in denial that the subject or object to be believed corresponds to the facts.

With regard to some essential Christian doctrines, I would say that they may not be believed (i.e. there's room for ignorance), but they must not be denied (in the sense that there's no room for continued rebellion). In effect, I think there is room for ignorance, but not for rebellion on some of these kinds of doctrines. Some who are mentally handicapped may not grasp some essential doctrine, but it does not follow that they are in rebellious denial of it. A new believer in some distant country may not have heard of the doctrine of the Trinity carefully articulated, but they are not denying it in the sense of repudiating it. One might mention the complicated situation of infants as another example to distinguish between mere non-belief and rebellious denial.

A Christian may further argue that there are some essentials that must be believed (God's existence, Jesus' deity etc.) but I would say that all of them, at least, must not be rebelliously denied. As we discuss the differences between essential and non-essential doctrines, let us be careful to distinguish between affirmation and denial. When I was in bible college, I was fond of saying with respect to some essentials that "it may not be believed (or affirmed), but it must not be denied" in conversation. May the readers of this post consider that maxim as well, as we consider different sorts of essential doctrines. Some of them must be believed in order to be saved (first class essentials), but a truly saved person may be ignorant of other essential doctrine (second class essentials), but not to the point of repudiating them as false.

Jay Adams on Discernment: Continuum Versus Antithesis

Jay E. Adams, in his book A Call to Discernment: Distinguishing Truth from Error in Today's Church, has an interesting section on the need to think antithetically. There's a need to think in contrasts. I heard John MacArthur quote from this book in a sermon a long time ago, so I ended up buying the book. Here is an excerpt from the section on Continuum Versus Antithesis:

With church discipline in ruins, the line between the church and the world smudged, and the church's shift of concern toward friendship with the world well established, the biblical concept of antithesis all but vanished. People who study the Bible in depth develop antithetical mindsets: They think in terms of contrasts or opposites. From Genesis to Revelation God's thoughts and ways are set over against all others. The Bible does not teach that there are numerous ways to please God, each of which is as good as the next. Nor does it teach that various opinions are more or less God's ways. What it teaches—everywhere—is that any thought or way that is not wholly God's is altogether wrong and must be rejected. According to the Bible, a miss is as good as a mile. There is only one God, and there is only one way of life—His! 

People today don't like to hear such things—even people within the church. Why? Because they have a different mindset. Many of them have not known the Bible from childhood or ever made an intensive study of it later on, so their mindset is unbiblical. Modern mentality, even in the church (too often taught by the church and Christian schools), is a continuum mentality: Truth and values are not absolute but relative. Such thinking predominates in our culture. Stop and reflect for a moment: What kind of mindset do you have? Do you think in terms of absolutes? Or is life a series of value judgments that vary according to the situation? 

According to continuum thinking, the mode of thinking taught outside the church (and largely within), every idea is a shade of gray. There is no right and wrong or true and false, but only shades of right and wrong or true and false spread along a continuum. The poles of this continuum are extended so far out toward the wings that for all practical purposes they are unattainable and therefore worthless. Nothing, then, is wholly right or wrong. All is relative; most of it is subjective.

That is one reason why biblical preaching, with its sharp antithesis, rubs many people the wrong way: It is hard for modern minds to accept. For a long time now educational institutions, newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, etc. have inculcated continuum thinking. Antithetical thinking is dismissed as fanatical or worse. Consequently, when Christians (all of whom have been affected by their environment) hear antithetical views expressed, they sound discordant. And indeed they are! Because anything goes, discernment is not placed at a premium. The word selected to describe racism was discrimination. Prior to that it was a compliment to call a person discriminating. If the true cannot be distinguished from the false, the right from the wrong, the good from the bad, then discernment is not only unattainable but it is unnecessary, and its pursuit is foolishness. Discernment thrives in an atmosphere of absolutes, among people whose minds have been molded to think antithetically.

In the Bible, where antithesis is so important, discernment—the ability to distinguish God's thoughts and God's ways from all others—is essential. Indeed, God says that "the wise in heart will be called discerning" (Proverbs 16:21). 

From the Garden of Eden with its two trees (one allowed, one forbidden) to the eternal destiny of the human being in heaven or in hell, the Bible sets forth two, and only two, ways: God's way, and all others. Accordingly, people are said to be saved or lost. They belong to God's people or the world. There was Gerizim, the mount of blessing, and Ebal, the mount of cursing. There is the narrow way and the wide way, leading either to eternal life or to destruction. There are those who are against and those who are with us, those within and those without. There is life and death, truth and falsehood, good and bad, light and darkness, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan, love and hatred, spiritual wisdom and the wisdom of the world. Christ is said to be the way, the truth, and the life, and no one may come to the Father but by Him. His is the only name under the sky by which one may be saved.

Not only will you find such antithetical teaching, and much more, on nearly every page of the Bible, but even the construction of the Hebrew language itself seems designed to teach antithesis. Much scriptural poetry, many proverbs, and even some narrative is antithetical in structure.

Perhaps you have wondered about the principle underlying the clean/unclean distinctions of the Old Testament. Various rationales have been given for some of these distinctions, yet many seem to be purely arbitrary. May I suggest that all problems of arbitrariness are resolved when you see the clean/unclean system as a means of alerting the Jew to the fact that all day long, every day, in whatever he does, he must consciously choose God's way. Choices about food, clothing, farming techniques, justice, health care, holidays, and methods of worship were made either God's way or some other way. In other words, the clean/unclean system was designed to develop in God's people an antithetical mentality. Forbidding the mixing of materials in clothing, for example, doesn't seem so arbitrary after all when considered in the light of the biblical concern to create an antithetical posture toward life.

But with pastors and people alike growing up in an environment that stresses continuum thinking, antithesis is dulled as more and more people attempt to integrate sociology, psychology, and business management principles with Scripture. Teachers in Christian colleges now consider it "one of the key tasks of Christian higher education" to "seek to integrate his [the professor's] faith with his learning." The key task, you see, no longer is to distinguish God's ways from others but to find places of agreement "to the extent to which it is possible." There is a great difference between the two mentalities. According to the one, the task is to find out how one's faith integrates with what he has learned from the world. According to the one, the task is to find out how one's faith integrates with what he has learned from the world. According to the other, the key task is to determine in what ways a Christian may keep himself unspotted from the world (James 1:27) in both thought and life. He is to remember in all he does that friendship with the world is enmity with God (James 4:4).

In those disciplines for which God did not give us special revelation (while always being careful to discern good from evil at all levels, including the presuppositional) the Christian may learn from the world. But his task is not to integrate. Rather, his task is to discover God's truth in what he is doing. His task is to discover how to properly draw the antithesis in reference to his work. He must refine and remold all "learning" according to his fundamental Christian presuppositions and biblical beliefs. He may not merely integrate "learning" as it stands. This is true even of methods, because methods are means committed to the ends of a system. Methods, therefore, must always be considered in the context of the systems they serve. But, in all of this, the important thing to see is that the Christian's task—in whatever he does—is to be sure he is going God's way, a way that is always in antithesis to the world's way ("My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways"—Isaiah 55:8); he must recognize God's stake in all of life. 

That is why the psalmist in Psalm 1:1,2 was concerned, at the very beginning of the psalter, to set forth the two ways: God's and all others, distinguishing them sharply as he knew how. (He did not try to integrate them!)

The book of Proverbs, at the outset and throughout, does the same thing. The modern educational emphasis on integration is at odds with the educational thrust found in these two biblical textbooks. The biblical axiom is that "the fear of the Lord [belief in and submission to Him] is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7). But this way of thinking is contrary to modern thought, even in the church. In the Bible, Christ and the apostles warn against wolves who attack the flock and urge alertness on the part of elders and pastors who are to protect God's flock (Matthew 7:15). Paul warned the Ephesian elders, "I know that after my departure savage wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock, and from among yourselves men will arise speaking distorted things to drag away disciples to follow them" (Acts 20:29,30). The note of antithesis and the need for discrimination is struck in that warning. Christ and the apostles were not constantly involved in controversy and beaten and stoned and killed because they sought agreement with the world and attempted integration wherever possible. They suffered because of the firm, antithetical stand they took for truth over against the world's deceptions. In contrast, today the shift against antithetical thinking and toward humanistic thinking has contributed much to the softness of the church and her frightful lack of discernment.

Jay Adams, A Call to Discernment: Distinguishing Truth from Error in Today’s Church (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1987), 29–34.

On Paradox and Mystery

"It is a sacred duty for any thinking person to try to eliminate paradox."—C. F. D. Moule, quoted in The Logic of God Incarnate by Thomas Morris

"I do not explain—I only state it; and this is all we can do with a large proportion of all the facts and truths that we know. There is a point, easily reached, where the simplest facts end in mystery, even as they begin in it; just as each day lies between two nights."—R. Turnbull, quoted in The New Dictionary of Thoughts

God hides himself for many reasons, but I cannot help but think that God hides himself behind seeming contradictions so that some will stumble in their arrogance. Those who love God are willing to wait on him in order to gain coherence and understanding. They walk slowly with him, and watch closely how the lamp of his word lights their feet and path. They may not be able to see ahead how a particular issue is resolved conceptually, but they see enough to walk ahead on revealed principles of scripture. They accept mysteries and pass through experiences of paradox as they walk with God.

I think there is a difference or distinction between paradox and mystery, however, that needs to be clarified. Let me start by saying that all paradoxes are mysteries, but not all mysteries are paradoxes. A paradox is a seeming contradiction. A mystery is a hidden truth of some sort, or some truth unable to be grasped by a finite mind. I think paradoxes are person relative (while mysteries are not), and that the person experiencing paradox does not yet know if the tension is due to an actual contradiction or merely a seeming contradiction.

I am inclined to think that we should not be content with paradoxes in the long term, but we can be content with mystery. Let me explain what I mean. I think that one must pass through the experience of paradox in order to come to God, or to draw near to him so to speak. There will be things that seem to contradict, but really do not. For example, one might think the Trinity doctrine seems contradictory, but believe it anyway because the bible teaches it. They should believe it because the bible teaches it. However, they should progress in the pursuit of intellectual virtue to resolve the tension for themselves, and then for others eventually. They can come to see the distinction of senses between oneness and threeness in the terms (God is one in terms of essence, but three in terms of persons). Once the distinction is understood, there is no more logical tension, even though the Trinity doctrine remains incomprehensible. It remains a mystery, but no longer a paradox for one who comes to understand the careful biblical distinctions.

Bad theology is the inability to make these careful distinctions, and pride tends to carry the person into a lopsided view. Bad theologians cling desperately to false dilemmas and bad logic to sustain their cherished system. They may even appeal to context when they are only imposing their system onto the text of scripture. We ought to loosely hold our system in comparison to our allegiance to scripture. We ought to let the word of God thoroughly insult, rebuke, correct, instruct, encourage, and tweak our understanding. A constant bowing to the God of the word is the heart of true discipleship. I will work to know what the bible says, and then wait on God to give me the discernment to get coherence according to his own good timing. We ought to strive for coherence and consistency, but only in complete submission to the totality of the word of God.

For example, the idea of complex motives in God may bother us, but God through R. L. Dabney can give us a rational massage to understand the coherence of it, and thus soothe the Charlie Horse between our ears. The concept of the Trinity is still a mystery to me (i.e. it is incomprehensible), but it is no longer the paradox that it once was to me. The concept of complex motives or volitions in God is no longer a paradox to me, but it is still a mystery.

I have used the analogy of train tracks before. We may be truly submitting to scripture and holding two parallel truths as a result. We look down at our feet and see that we are on track. When we look ahead we experience paradox. The tracks appear to clash like this /\ and we cannot see how the tracks resolve. However, when we faithfully and humbly wait on God to take us further down the tracks, the tensions disappear gradually . Other people may be in difference places on the track, and hence they are experiencing different paradoxes. The tracks, at different points, seem to be in tension depending on where one is at in their journey with God. With the above careful qualifications in mind, I think I would agree with C. F. D. Moule when he said, "It is a sacred duty for any thinking person to try to eliminate paradox." The goal is to keep moving along the tracks. It is not that we are trying to eliminate mystery, for that would be to deny God's incomprehensibility and his right to keep secrets. Rather, we strive for intellectual virtue and coherence as we continually submit to the sacred word. In making careful distinctions, we can fulfill the biblical mandate to silence the ignorance of foolish men, and bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ by rational thinking.

I hope that is clear and I hope you all can see the difference. Bad theology is rash theology because it is unwilling to wait on God to illuminate the totality of what he has revealed. Bad theology clings to one truth at the expense of another, and thus warps the biblical picture of God in the name of "logic" that is really unsound logic. Arminianism, Neo-Socinianism (Open Theism) and Hyper-Calvinism are all examples of this. This perverse use of "logic" is what should be associated with rationalism, but not what it means to be rational. There is an inability to distinguish between senses in their case. They seem at times to think that the Law of Noncontradiction is that A cannot be non-A at the same time. That is NOT the law. The law says that A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same sense. That is a crucial qualification.

While on the tracks of God's word, we can say "Here I stand, so help me God. Unless I am persuaded by sacred scripture and by evident reason, I can do no other." This may sound too rationalistic to some, but not to me. The pursuit of the above view of coherence and virtue seems to be an aspect of loving God with all of our minds. Revelation properly understood will never conflict with reason rightly applied. Faith preceeds understanding, but faith is not antithetical to reason.

Consider the illustration again:

Tracks of Truth === Person A === Person B === Sanctification

Person A may be a genuine believer, and yet fear that the Trinity is contradictory. They are experiencing paradox, but they still cling to the doctrine(s). Being humble, Person A studies what the bible says, what church history has taught, seeks wise counsel, waits on God and prays. Person A comes to learn careful biblical and historical distinctions, and thus learns that the doctrine is not a contradiction, even though they have not comprehended the Trinity. Apprehension (partial knowledge) is gained, but not comprehension (a full knowledge or understanding). The paradox is removed, but the mystery remains. Person A progresses virtuously to the state of Person B in the train track illustration above, and thus draws near to God, achieving sanctification.

Paul, as he drew near to God, wrote this:

NKJ 2Co 6:8 by honor and dishonor, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; 9 as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold we live; as chastened, and yet not killed; 10 as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

Prima facie it seems contradictory, but once you enter into it existentially and understand the distinction of senses, it is not contradictory at all. It is coherent and full of wonder!

Augustine, in prayer and in the contemplation of his Confessions, says things like this that truly reflect the wonder of good theology:

CHAPTER IV 4. What, therefore, is my God? What, I ask, but the Lord God? "For who is Lord but the Lord himself, or who is God besides our God?" Most high, most excellent, most potent, most omnipotent; most merciful and most just; most secret and most truly present; most beautiful and most strong; stable, yet not supported; unchangeable, yet changing all things; never new, never old; making all things new, yet bringing old age upon the proud, and they know it not; always working, ever at rest; gathering, yet needing nothing; sustaining, pervading, and protecting; creating, nourishing, and developing; seeking, and yet possessing all things. Thou dost love, but without passion; art jealous, yet free from care; dost repent without remorse; art angry, yet remainest serene. Thou changest thy ways, leaving thy plans unchanged; thou recoverest what thou hast never really lost. Thou art never in need but still thou dost rejoice at thy gains; art never greedy, yet demandest dividends. Men pay more than is required so that thou dost become a debtor; yet who can possess anything at all which is not already thine? Thou owest men nothing, yet payest out to them as if in debt to thy creature, and when thou dost cancel debts thou losest nothing thereby. Yet, O my God, my life, my holy Joy, what is this that I have said? What can any man say when he speaks of thee? But woe to them that keep silence--since even those who say most are dumb.

CHAPTER XXXVII 52. For then also thou shalt so rest in us as now thou workest in us; and, thus, that will be thy rest through us, as these are thy works through us. But thou, O Lord, workest evermore and art always at rest. Thou seest not in time, thou movest not in time, thou restest not in time. And yet thou makest all those things which are seen in time--indeed, the very times themselves--and everything that proceeds in and from time. 

CHAPTER XXXVIII 53. We can see all those things which thou hast made because they are--but they are because thou seest them. And we see with our eyes that they are, and we see with our minds that they are good. But thou sawest them as made when thou sawest that they would be made. And now, in this present time, we have been moved to do well, now that our heart has been quickened by thy Spirit; but in the former time, having forsaken thee, we were moved to do evil. But thou, O the one good God, hast never ceased to do good! And we have accomplished certain good works by thy good gifts, and even though they are not eternal, still we hope, after these things here, to find our rest in thy great sanctification. But thou art the Good, and needest no rest, and art always at rest, because thou thyself art thy own rest. What man will teach men to understand this? And what angel will teach the angels? Or what angels will teach men? We must ask it of thee; we must seek it in thee; we must knock for it at thy door. Only thus shall we receive; only thus shall we find; only thus shall thy door be opened.

Also, see here: More Wonderful Paradoxes in Augustine

It seems to me that such language is produced from a healthy theological mind that has existentially passed through paradox, to marvel at the remaining mysteries in order to worship God. This is our goal in seeking intellectual virtue.