Section 20
Go to Chapter 7 – The Indispensibility of Reason and Logic in Biblical Interpretation
Recall J. I. Packer’s advice to us at the discovery that his theology contains a blatant contradiction. He said we ought to,
“…put down the semblance of contradiction to the deficiency of your own understanding; think of the two principles as, not rival alternatives, but in some way that at present you do not grasp, complimentary to each other…teach yourself to think of reality in a way that provides for their peaceful coexistence, remembering that reality itself has proved actually to contain them both.” (J. I. Packer, Evangelism & The Sovereignty of God, 21.)
One can hardly find a more astonishing exhortation about how to “think” about someone’s theological propositions by not thinking about them at all! Packer does his best to shut down inquiry by baselessly declaring that anything we might perceive as a real contradiction in his theology is only “apparent.” This serves as a diversion from seriously considering the overwhelming amount of troubling evidence that strongly suggests that the contradictions and inconsistencies of Calvinism are actually real. If they are real, and we cannot simply ignore what makes for rational coherence, then there is a flaw in Packer’s exegesis and his doctrinal conclusions are in error. Looking afresh at the Scripture upon the basis of the laws of human logic that obviously cannot be cavalierly dismissed as Packer pressures us to do here, his theology of sovereignty and salvation would have to be revised. But this the Calvinist will not do. The Calvinist believes that anything other than a deterministic definition of sovereignty would strip God of his position as God. For the Calvinist, the fact that God has predetermined “whatsoever comes to pass” is the very essence of what it means for God to be God. This position is held regardless of any other contradictions, inconsistencies, or incoherence it creates. Packer has demonstrated this here and in section 19 of this chapter. The presence of incoherence and contradiction is simply dismissed by Packer under the rubric of “antinomy” or “mystery” and does not play a significant role in his hermeneutic. For Packer, the criteria of coherence, comprehensiveness, and consistency are not indicators that serve to verify and validate his exegesis or move him to reassess his interpretive conclusions, and if necessary, revise his theology in accord with more coherent interpretations of Scripture.
I submit that Packer’s approach and advice compel us to seriously question and re-evaluate the biblical validity of the Reformed Calvinist doctrines. These doctrines are not to be embraced blindly on the Calvinists’ insistence that we cannot subject God and the Bible to the flawed scrutiny of the sinful human mind. Such a statement is overly simplistic. I would suggest that before we take Packer’s advice and “put down the semblance of contradiction to the deficiency of your own understanding,” perhaps we ought to test his claim that the contradictions are only “apparent.” I have done this in the sections of this chapter. What we should ask ourselves is why it is that what we perceive as a contradiction is actually only a “semblance” and not “actual.” The burden of proof is on Packer here. Perhaps this “deficiency of your own understanding” has had its effect, not so much in detecting real contradiction or incoherence when we see it, but in the Calvinists’ interpretations of the text. Perhaps Packer has misinterpreted the more difficult relevant texts and, upon that basis, constructed a theology that continually runs headlong against logical reflection, moral intuitions, the meanings of clearer, more self-evident texts, and sound interpretive principles that include coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction. If this is the case, then Calvinism shows itself to be fundamentally flawed. The Calvinist also has a hermeneutical burden of proof. That is, the Calvinist needs to explain why it is that the acceptance of incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction is a sound interpretive approach.
Packer would never admit that these logical and moral difficulties indicate that he has misinterpreted the text. He would never entertain that coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction are necessary and reliable indications of valid interpretations and essential to a sound hermeneutic. In contrast, these are ultimately dismissed by Packer and all Calvinists as interpretively insignificant. Thus, the hermeneutical divide between the non-Calvinist who takes coherence on board in his hermeneutic and the Calvinist who does not.
What say you?
Read the next and last section – Summary Remarks
The Truth of the Gospel 