Section 19
Go to Chapter 7 – The Indispensibility of Reason and Logic in Biblical Interpretation
Packer defends his doctrines from the charge that they are a real contradiction by arguing that they constitute an “antinomy” which is very different from a “paradox.” But in making the point that antinomy is not the same as paradox, Packer affirms that his antinomy is really self-contradictory and therefore really meaningless. Packer states that in a paradox,
“…what creates the appearance of contradiction is not the facts, but the words. The contradiction is verbal, but not real, and a little thought shows how it can be eliminated and the same idea expressed in non-paradoxical form.”[122]
Note that the paradox is a linguistic or verbal puzzle, and “a little thought shows how it can be eliminated.” It is not “the facts” that “create the appearance of contradiction,” implying that if it were the facts, then there would be a real contradiction, for Packer goes on to say that,
“…it should be noted that a paradox is always comprehensible…the person at the receiving end must be able, on reflection, to see how to unravel the paradox, otherwise it will seem to him to be really self-contradictory, and therefore really meaningless.”[123]
Note first that Packer accepts the “fact” that real self-contradiction is real meaninglessness. But also note that Packer has just given us the ‘definition’ of real contradiction, and that definition coincides with his notion of ‘antinomy.’ Packer’s own assessment of a paradox accords with the very essence of how to detect real contradiction, and this applies to the theological proposition that creates Packer’s “antinomy.” Just as in a biblical paradox, “the person at the receiving end must be able, on reflection, to see how to unravel the paradox, otherwise it will seem to him to be really self-contradictory, and therefore really meaningless,” so it is with theological propositions.[124] Those of us reading Scripture, that is, we who are on “the receiving end,” must be able, upon reflection, to see how to make sense of the words of the texts, their proposed interpretation and doctrinal conclusions, otherwise they will seem to us to be “really self-contradictory, and therefore really meaningless.” The fact is that we do not “see how to unravel” the Calvinists’ doctrines of determinism and human freedom. Therefore, the Calvinist’s interpretation here is “really self-contradictory, and therefore really meaningless.”
Whereas “an incomprehensible paradox could not be distinguished from a mere contradiction in terms,” and a “sheer paradox would have to be written off as sheer nonsense,” Packer states,
“…an antinomy is neither dispensable nor comprehensible…it is insoluble…we cannot explain it. Nor is there any way to get rid of it, save by falsifying the very facts that led us to it.”[125] (Italics mine)
Note first that Packer is admitting that his ‘antinomy’ has the characteristic of the “incomprehensible.” This is a characteristic of a “mere contradiction in terms” or a “sheer paradox which would have to be written off as sheer nonsense.” Not only that, but Packer’s “antinomy” is incomprehensible, insoluble, and inexplicable. Yet regarding a paradox, he states, “…the person at the receiving end must be able, on reflection, to see how to unravel the paradox, otherwise it will seem to him to be really self-contradictory, and therefore really meaningless.” So words that we are not able, on reflection, to see how to unravel, are to us “really self-contradictory, and therefore really meaningless.” And yet, there is this same inability, on reflection, to see how to unravel Packer’s “antinomy,” that is, his Calvinist doctrinal propositions. Hence, they certainly seem to us to be “really self-contradictory, and therefore really meaningless.” Packer’s “antinomy” is incomprehensible, insoluble, and inexplicable. So what’s the difference between this “antinomy” and a real contradiction besides Packer’s question-begging pronouncement that his doctrine of universal divine causal determinism is a “fact” of Scripture that cannot be gotten rid of and that, to avoid the conclusion of contradiction, we ought to place it into Packer’s creatively altered and tailor-made category of an “antinomy.” As C. A. Campbell has pointed out in the previous section (18), what Packer is describing here is just the case with a real contradiction.
Secondly, if Packer is going to introduce incomprehensibility, insolubility, and inexplicability as characteristics of the nature of his interpretations and the theology built upon them, then the logical and rational criteria we need to discern whether or not his interpretations are valid have been put out of court by Packer. Upon what grounds should we accept the presumption that “the very facts” of his interpretations of Scripture are correct? Suppose Packer’s interpretations are incorrect and, therefore, the source of a real contradiction? Even if they are of the nature of an “antinomy” as Packer redefines it, if we change “the fact” of universal divine causal determinism, wouldn’t the “antinomy” disappear? Upon what grounds does Packer demonstrate that his “antinomy” is not a “mere contradiction in terms” and a “sheer paradox” that is to be written off as “nonsense?” In presupposing the truth of his theistic determinism, which is the cause of Packer’s difficulties here, he can provide no grounds for convincing us that his position is not nonsense. As such, he is creating his own definition of “antinomy” to justify his doctrine of universal divine causal determinism, which he considers true a priori, while also begging the question.
“…the law of noncontradiction is a tool that must be used to identify Biblical truth in the first place.”
David Basinger
Thirdly, Packer presumes that his interpretations that create the antinomy are correct, making the antinomy “neither dispensable nor comprehensible.” But again, this begs the question of whether his interpretation is correct. Are “the very facts” that led us to the antinomy really valid biblical interpretations? Can the “very facts” that we would have to falsify be falsifiable on any other grounds than a logical assessment of the propositions in question? The answer is they cannot. So what “facts” would we have to falsify to get rid of the contradiction? If we get rid of “the fact” of a deterministic sovereignty, the “antinomy” goes away. Non-Calvinists have presented sound exegesis and interpretations of the disputed texts that do falsify “the very facts,” that is, the Calvinist interpretations that have forced Packer to create his version of an “antinomy.” Packer is simply presupposing the validity of his biblical interpretations on this matter and explaining away the contradiction they generate as an “antinomy.” But the “antimony” has the same characteristics of a real contradiction. The presumption of the validity of his interpretations and their indispensability required Packer to create this category of “antinomy,” which enables him to avoid what is otherwise a real contradiction in his theology.
Packer claims that “the Bible teaches both” God’s deterministic sovereignty and human freedom and responsibility. But in presupposing the truth of his interpretations, he is therefore begging the question. And Packer’s move here, a move which all Calvinists make as the full and final answer to their incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions, is to quarantine within an “antinomy” or “mystery” the logical and moral reasoning necessary to decide the validity of those interpretations. They assert that the problems their interpretations create are incomprehensible, insoluble, and inexplicable, and by calling this an “antinomy,” they avoid acknowledging that this is precisely the nature of a contradiction. But this logical and moral reasoning, along with the assessments and conclusions it may offer, is put aside. By employing “antinomy,” Packer dismisses the capacity and function of logical reasoning for discerning the validity of interpretive claims. “Antimony” sequesters the law of non-contradiction from participating in the deliberations on the validity of the Calvinist’s interpretations of divine sovereignty, defined deterministically. Packer’s “antinomy” is a convenient device for putting out of commission the intellectual tools we need to comprehend, explain, and determine the truth or falsity of Packer’s interpretations. The problem is not as Packer presents it. It is not as he says – incomprehensible, inexplicable, and insoluble. Rather, we can comprehend the Calvinists’ problem here all too well, and that is what Packer is refusing to acknowledge. The problem is comprehensible, explicable, and soluble. The problem resides in Calvinism’s definition of God’s sovereignty as a universal divine causal determinism.[126] We can identify the source of the problems plaguing Calvinism. The source lies in its theistic determinism. We can explain, both intellectually and interpretively, the types of problems entailed by this theistic determinism. We can see how it is antithetical to the biblical worldview, and we can solve these problems by the application of logical and moral reasoning (i.e., clear thinking) to the interpretation of the text, that is, by adopting a hermeneutic of coherence.
Applying this discussion to the Calvinists’ theology of deterministic sovereignty and human freedom and responsibility, Campbell observed that, “The crucial point is that thought cannot, qua thought, accept their union unless it conceives some actual or possible ground for their union.” Packer’s “antinomy” diverts our thinking from reflecting on and facing the fact that we cannot conceive of “some actual or possible ground for their union.” Thus, lacking such grounds, we cannot accept the Calvinist doctrine of God’s deterministic sovereignty, not because the non-Calvinist is seeking human autonomy from God, but simply because it places Scripture in contradiction with itself. And that’s just an indication of bad interpretation. This is not a matter of mystery, but misinterpretation. This is not a matter of antinomy, but misinterpretation. Thus, theistic determinism cannot be a viable interpretation of Scripture because it is antithetical to the overwhelming testimony to genuine contingency that is integral to the biblical worldview. Incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory interpretations of Scripture cannot be true reflections of what the disputed texts mean to convey, given their immediate contexts and when interpreted within the broader canonical context.
Because the Calvinists’ theistic determinism creates the logical and moral incoherence in their theology, Calvinists will always reject the incoherence as interpretively insignificant. They must always ultimately dismiss the use of human reason and logic from their hermeneutic. Packer makes this clear. Listing the reasons fellow Christians reject his deterministic definition of God’s sovereignty, he states,
“The root cause is the same as in most cases of error in the Church – the intruding of rationalistic speculations, the passion for systematic consistency, a reluctance to recognize the existence of mystery and to let God be wiser than men, and a consequent subjecting of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic.”[127]
Packer would have our hermeneutic untethered from reason and logic so he can declare his incoherent, inconsistent, and contradictory doctrines an “antinomy” and a “mystery.” He hopes that the above list of “cases of error in the Church” will convince most people that his doctrines are biblical. But this list, topped off by “subjecting Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic,” amounts to the suppression of reason in exegesis and interpretation. Packer has to take this course of action because he knows what happens when his theology is subjected to the deliberations and deliverances of logical reasoning and moral intuition. His theology falls to pieces. Suffice it to say here that we cannot accept Packer’s suppression of reason if we are to discern whether there is a real contradiction here. He is requiring us to put aside our critical thinking to accept his theological propositions that, as “brute facts” and “bare conjunctions of differents” find no intellectual resting place. They cannot be accepted as true because they cannot be adequately grounded and unified, which is what it means to be a contradiction. Campbell explains,
“…critical thinking often finds itself obliged to reject what uncritical thinking accepts ‘without a qualm’…thought’s intrinsic demand for a ground is surely plain enough in those activities of thought, such as science and philosophy, in which the theoretic interest dominates; in which truth, not practical convenience, is our goal, and in which, therefore, if anywhere, we might expect to discover the authentic nature of the intellect’s demands. In science and philosophy ‘brute facts’, ‘bare conjunctions of differents’, are not just ‘accepted’. On the contrary, intellectual unrest persists so long as we see no way to deliver them from so ‘irrational’ a status. ‘Brute facts’ are for science and philosophy problems: problems not solved to our satisfaction until we have mediated the ‘bare conjunction’ through what appears to us an adequate ‘ground.’ Just as ‘Nature abhors a vacuum’, so ‘the intellect abhors a bare conjunction’”.[128]
In addition, Isaac Watts has said,
“It was a saying of the ancients, that ‘truth lies in a well’; and to carry on the metaphor, we may justly say, that logic supplies us with steps whereby we may go down to reach the water.”[129]
We must reject Packer’s advice and keep our minds in gear. We must keep our intellectual wits about us. If we do so, I submit that it becomes evident that there is a real contradiction in the Calvinists’ theology. Packer states that there is no way to get rid of an antimony “save by falsifying the very facts that led us to it.” Well, non-Calvinists have compellingly falsified “the very facts” of Calvinist theology by their alternative coherent exegeses of the relevant texts in both their immediate and broader contexts. But it is equally important to see that we can “get rid of” this “antinomy” by showing it up for what it truly is, that is, camouflage for a contradiction. If it can be shown that the Calvinist doctrines hidden by an “antinomy” are truly contradictory, then both the “antinomy” as an “explanation and the doctrines fail.
Theistic determinism and unconditional election can never be unified intellectually, or in any other way, with contingency, free will, and human responsibility. These conflicting doctrines fit Campbell’s description of a contradiction as a bare conjunction of differents, unmediated by any ground. Thought rejects this as alien to its nature. It deems such as ‘irrational.’[130] In other words, these Calvinist doctrinal propositions just don’t fit together in our thoughts, according to the nature and laws of thought itself. As the Calvinists propose them, these doctrines remain restlessly swirling back and forth, to and fro in our minds and in our discussions and debates without ground or union in logic or reason. That’s what contradictions do. That’s the way they behave. That’s how we know a real contradiction when we “see” one with our God-given eyes of reason. And there is a real one here in Packer’s Calvinist theology. Hence, Calvinism is to be rejected.
Read the next section – Concluding Thoughts on J. I. Packer’s “Antinomy” and Suppression of Reason
Footnotes
[122] J. I. Packer, Evangelism & The Sovereignty of God, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1961), 19-20.
[123] Ibid. 20.
[124] Ibid.
[125] Ibid. 21.
[126] This is the phrase William Lane Craig uses to describe Calvinism. See William Lane Craig, Defenders 2 Class, Doctrine of Creation: Part 10. Oct. 21, 2012. You can read the transcript or listen to the lecture at this link: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-2/s2-doctrine-of-creation/doctrine-of-creation-part-10/ Last accessed Dec. 16, 2025.
[127] J. I. Packer, Evangelism & The Sovereignty of God, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1961), 16.
[128] C. A. Campbell, On Selfhood and Godhood, (New York: Macmillan Co., 1957), 391-392.
[129] Isaac Watts (1674-1748), English divine and hymn writer.
[130] C. A. Campbell, On Selfhood and Godhood, (New York: Macmillan Co., 1957), 389.
The Truth of the Gospel 
What you (and too many theologians) are struggling on this topic of Human Free Will and God’s Sovereignty, appear to be simply a known logical paradox. An atheist might have insisted that the God of the bible cannot exist, because if He is all-powerful, He must be able to create a rock He cannot carry. Or if He is all-knowing, He must know something He doesn’t know. Since it is a logical paradox, such a God cannot exist.
Likewise, the issue you have with Reformed understanding of Human Free Will and God’s Sovereignty can be rephrased (to make it clear that it is a logical paradox) to: How can a fully sovereign God still allow any true free will beyond His sovereign decision?
Surely, a “fully sovereign God cannot allow any true free will beyond His sovereign decision” cannot exist, just as “an all-knowing God cannot know something He doesn’t” cannot exist! It would be a logical paradox! So, unless you deny the existence of an all-knowing God, and also deny the existence of an omnipotent God, otherwise, you must agree that you are insisting that the Calvinistic God cannot exist only because there exists a logical paradox!
Well, I will demonstrate that this is false, logically. Let’s take this sentence: “This sentence is absolutely false.” If the sentence is true, then it must be false. But if it is false, then it is telling the truth, which means it is true. Human logic spirals into an endless loop and completely fails to resolve the statement. It is a pure, undeniable logical paradox. And yet—the sentence clearly exists. You just read it! Just as this sentence can exist, the omnipotent and all-knowing God could also exist. The Calvinistic God that is fully sovereign yet grants free will, can also exist! Just because a concept creates a paradox and breaks our framework of human logic, it does not mean that the concept cannot exist.
Hence, JI Packer’s “antinomy” makes great sense, because logic is inherently limited in trying to understand this issue — it exist as the paradox: How can a fully sovereign God still allow any true free will beyond His sovereign decision? We must accept the bible at face value and hold that what appears contradictory in logic does hold true — antimony, because logic itself is flawed.
When we say that human logic is limited, it isn’t just a philosophical dodge; it is a proven mathematical reality.
In the 1930s, a brilliant mathematician named Kurt Gödel published his “Incompleteness Theorems.” Applying his work to formal axiomatic systems, Gödel provided a perfect mathematical proof of a profound philosophical principle: the human mind cannot create a closed, complete, and perfectly provable system. He demonstrated that in any sufficiently complex logical system, there will always be true statements that simply cannot be proven using the rules of that system itself.
If human logic and mathematical axioms are provably incomplete when dealing with something as measurable as numbers, how much more incomplete is our logic when trying to dissect the eternal decrees of an infinite Creator? When a finite mind tries to perfectly map an infinite God, the system inevitably breaks down.
I hope this, at least, gives you some food for thought…
I will not disagree: Theistic determinism and unconditional election can never be unified intellectually, or in any other way, with contingency, free will, and human responsibility. Likewise our intellect will never be able to reconcile an all-knowing God or an all-powerful God. If you think so greatly of human intellect, and logic, please have a chat with any decent AI about Godel’s incompleteness theorem (unless you understand it mathematically) to understand how completely it destroys any human pride in what is a very well-defined, human constructed field of mathematical logic, just to be sure I have not made any of these up! The theorem in itself has never been disproven, but cannot be proven either as it would be a paradox!
Yet, we are discussing this with logic. What is broken or imperfect is also not useless. But it does mean there are limitations. But I have wrote too long. God bless!
LikeLike
Hi Tien Lee,
Thanks for reading on my site and for your thoughtful comments.
I am glad you state that, “I will not disagree: Theistic determinism and unconditional election can never be unified intellectually, or in any other way, with contingency, free will, and human responsibility.” Yet, from what you also write, I do not think you have confidence in your reasoning ability, that is, using the cannons of reason and rules of logic to conclude these are in real contradiction. I would say that we can know this is the case. And why it is that the theistic determinism and unconditional election are the problem here is a matter of biblical hermeneutics, exegesis, interpretation and philosophical and moral reflection. These tell us that we have a real contradiction here.
Just a word about your first argument about “This sentence is absolutely false.” Perhaps this fits one of several definitions of a paradox. But I see it as a self-defeating statment and therefore fallacious, that is, nonsense or absurd. So, yes, we can speak nonsense, but we should not speak nonsense about God.
Even though you say that “Theistic determinism and unconditional election can never be unified intellectually, or in any other way, with contingency, free will, and human responsibility,” I think you have conlcuded, therefore, that the Bible can testify to both the Calvinist deterministic definition of God’s sovereignty and genuine human free will, but it’s just that we don’t know how to show or ‘prove’ these are not actually contradictory. I think that is the point of your first argument about paradox and bringing in Godel’s ‘Incompletness Theorems.’ As far as human free will goes, I think the Bible is overwhelmingly clear on this matter, despite the Calvinist attempt to redefine it by what they call compatibilism. Which, by the way, is a tacit admission that even Calvinsts can identify and acknowledge that a real contradiction in their theology would render it unbiblical and false. Again, this presupposes that they know a real contradiction when they see one. So they have developed compatibilism to get around the real contradiction in their deterministic definition of God’s soverignty. So our human logic is not as flawed as I think you present it. I critique the Calvinists’ compatibilism in Chapter 8.
I have argued that our logic is not flawed or ‘ultimately limited’ when it comes to discerning that a person has misinterprted the biblical text, that is, that they are proposing incoherent, inconsistent, or contradictory interpretations of the text. Our logic is not so flawed as to put us in the dark regarding the contradiction between the Calvinists’ interpretation of God’s sovereignty defined as a universal divine causal determinism and human free will and moral responsibility. I explain the Calvinist doctrines in Chapter 3 by citing Calvinists themselves. The Calvinists’ deterministic definiton of sovereignty is perfectly understandable in relation to human free will. The result is a real contradiction. At the end of Chapter 7 I also cite the work of C. A. Campbell on how we can detect a real contradiction. Also I hope you have read the previous section 18 – “C. A. Campbell: Defining a Contradiction and Packer’s Bad Advice.” I also offer William Lane Craig’s critique of the Calvinists’ uiniversal divine causal determinism in chapter 4. Here again, it is perfectly understandable what we are dealing with. It is not a paradox or an antinomy but a real contradiction between the Calvinists’ theistic determinism and the biblical witness to genuine human freedom and moral responsibility.
My final conlcusion in the section in Chapter 7 that provoked your comments is that we are not dealing with a paradox or an antinomy but a real contradiction here. As such, it is not a biblical postion because the Bible does not contradict itself. The problem, therefore, is with the intepreter. And our reasoning capabilities must be reliable to even perform the task or talk sensibly about it.
Finally, I have only heard of Godels ‘incompletness theorems’ but I know nothing about them to comment intelligently on what you have said above. I refer you to the following question posed to Dr. Craig which may offer some response. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/god-and-goedel. Maybe it will address some of what you wrote about above. I don’t want to speak out of my ignorance, but from what you have said, perhaps mathematics is is not directly appliacble to biblically interpretation and the philosophical and moral issues involved here. Just a thought. Perhaps the nature of mathematics is significantly different than what we are dealing with here.
Finally, in my writings I do affirm that our finite minds cannot comprehend everything about God because he is infinte. But that does not mean that in the task of interpreting a divinely inspired text that we can’t detect a contradiction when we come across it. Things that are beyond our reason are one thing. Things that are contrary to reason are another. Logical thinking is part of the nature of God. God has given it to us as made in his image. Yes, it is limited, but not in a way that would render any and perhaps all of our thinking, discussions, and conclusions doubtful, and even worse, meaningless. It was Issac Watts (1674-1748), the great English divine and hymn writer, who said, “It was a saying of the ancients, that ‘truth lies in a well’; and to carry on the metaphor, we may justly say, that logic supplies us with steps whereby we may go down to reach the water.” Sir William Hamilton stated a metaphysical truth when he said, “Logic is the science of thought as thought, that is, the necessary conditions to which thought, in itself considered is subject.”
And I. A. Richards states, “We cannot have it both ways, and no sneers at the limitations of logic…amend the dilemma.”
Thanks again Tien Lee for your thought provoking comments. You gave me and other readers lots to think about.
Sincerely,
Steve
LikeLike
Thanks for the responses. It is helpful. Apologies for AI’s hyperbole (as it likes to do) in the other thread, though it does raise some interesting points overall. I was too tired and decided to send it off with my own understanding to help respond to the article.
Just to point out, the arbitrary claim that this sentence is nonsensical and useless: “This sentence is absolutely false.” That sentence is not nonsense, as it clearly establishes that a logically contradictory sentence can still exist. I.e. that sentence serves a very valuable point that logical paradoxes/or what seems “contradictory” does not prove existence or non-existence. That sentence clearly exists. Much as an all-knowing God can exist despite our inability to understand why He cannot know something He doesn’t (which logically, should be possible, and yet we might also call that nonsensical… of course!) The reason I state all these is simply: A fully sovereign being cannot by logic grant free will for the same exact reason. Because one cannot be sovereign if the other has freewill! We either have to water down sovereignty, or we have to claim the other has no freewill. This topic is clearly of the same genre and type as all the philosophical questions.
Much of this article is talking of logic. Let’s think philosophically now. Let’s consider this world, it exists as 3D. (God is 3D? Or perhaps more?) But due to our physical limitations, we only produce 2D maps. But we know that Africa even in a map drawn to scale appears 14 times smaller than it actually is in a 3D world! How can that be? And if we say that the 2D maps are flawed, do we then argue that we must say that maps are useless? Of course, not! When we are lost, the map is the best tool we still have (other than a compass perhaps). But we must acknowledge the flaws of it, and recognise it can cause confusion, and even navigation errors! Likewise, logic is of paramount importance, like that 2D map, but when understanding a 3D (or more?) God, we must recognise that logic remains limited, much as you agreed.
If we have that in mind, much of scripture perhaps is better to be read at face value and understood thoroughly using logic. Like the 2D map. So we find our way. But at the same time, we will reach passages of great conflict… we may reach teachings that appears contradictory, which JI Packer does not want to be called contradictions (implying the bible has errors), but antinomials (we are unable to resolve them as yet).
Hence, I continue to think that JI Packer antinomial can be useful. P.S. I might not like all the terms… paradox, contradictions, etc… I think of them simply as ideas that seem to conflict. But I am not a theologian and not strict on my word usage.
Perhaps, some day, we will see God in the 3D (or more) and we will understand better… including the imageries John left in Revelations!
God bless! And thanks!
LikeLike
Para 1: I agree we cannot unify them with intellect. It appears to be as much a paradox or contradictions as many of the logic riddles. Think about it. Theistic determinism allows a fully sovereign God. Free will requires a will that can undermine the sovereignty of God. But a biblical understanding would agree that both are scriptural. I might have to read through all your other chapters, perhaps, to understand why you think only freewill is biblical, but thestic determinism isn’t, despite clear passages, whether in Romans 9 or elsewhere.
Para 2: I have already answered why “this sentence is absolutely false” mattered. It was not the content of the sentence that was meaningful, but the existence of the sentence that mattered to demonstrate a flaw in logic. Logic cannot comprehend absolutes. What is the true meaning of all-knowing (which I believe you agree with? Or do you not?) Logically, it necessitates that God has the full knowledge and foreknowledge of everything at the same time, concurrently. What is the implication of such a knowledge? If the knowledge is definite, it also requires determinism, because God already knew it immediately at the same instance as everything else, and in that sense, He must know exactly what He would be doing, who will be there, what each person will respond, etc.. Again, perhaps, you explain a different foreknowledge? Eg Jeremiah 1:5, Isaiah 46:10, Psalm 139:16, all speak of His knowledge before time, and even implies an election of sorts. Anyway, the content of the sentence has nothing to do with our understanding of God, it is the existence of the sentence that is there to demonstrate logically, that logical tensions/paradoxes do not preclude the existence of anything.
Para 3: I did not read chapter 8, admittedly. I guess you do stress on the different words: paradox, contradictions and JI Packer’s antimony. To me, largely, as a group, they all convey the same idea that there are two apparently opposing ideas. We do not like “contradictions” because they necessarily mean that the two cannot both be true. I suspect a Calvinist will have to beg to differ as they see both ideas in the bible, take them at face value, and as such, refuse to call them contradictions because “contradictions” imply the bible must be wrong as it is inconsistent. You used similar ways to strike at Carson in Chapter 4 it appears when he used “apparent” contradiction, when he speaks of things that are clearly taught in scripture yet seemingly opposing. JI Packer used a word “antimony” to describe it. I consider “antimony” in the category “we do not understand as yet”, instead of “provably wrong” (contradiction). It is a tacit acknowledgment of God’s greatness, that we rather be wrong than to assume He is wrong. Rather than we claim that the bible is wrong. Despite that, we will not budge from understanding each verse as it appears in the bible regardless of the struggles — something you seem to imply indicates logical inconsistencies. Yet, I find the Reformed Theology to be very well reasoned in and of itself, despite the problems that must exist. Any other views, including an Arminian view (which I suspect you hold), will equally be flawed and require all kinds of other explanations to try to overcome the issues — Human Free Will/Responsibility and God’s Sovereignty are at the two ends. You have to water one or the other down to coax them to agree. The same sword that would cut Calvinism’s logic can probably be applied to Arminian views: Both Calvinism and Arminian thoughts are full of additional terms not found in the bible, to come to terms with the bible: “Universal Prevenient Grace” (so can God still choose a person who rejects Him? No? Is He sovereign then? No?), “Prescient Election” (what about Romans 9:16?), or “decretive will” and “preceptive will” (Calvinist ideas). The danger there (if we go to the extreme) is we can reach a point where we just get over with the bible, because without the bible, there can be no biblical exegetical difficulties and “contradictions”.
Para 4: We all agree logic is important. Calvinism has argued against many false teachings, that even you would agree about. Logic is important. But I have already given an example of the 2D maps. Logic remains flawed, and the only question then is our determination of where and when logic is flawed/ultimately limited. I have proposed that this question on Free Will/Responsibility versus Sovereignty falls squarely in the area that we will have a logical flaw and explained it. I might again, have to read your Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 it appears.
With no offence actually meant, it does appear that your arguments in the end from Chapter 4 and Chapter 7 might be biased from the onset in your understanding of the Calvinist theologians, not too far off from the hyperbole of AI? I sincerely do not think you considered Carson’s writings with an honest desire to understand him and his stress on logical thinking, and then how we have “apparent contradictions”. It is obvious we run into them… just from my own bible reading of Genesis this week: It led me to James 2:20-24 versus Romans 4:1-4, which goes with Gen 15’s unilateral treaty God made with Abram versus Gen 26:5 where God claims it was Abraham’s great faith/deeds. We have to address all these “apparent contradictions”, and sometimes we cannot comprehend them as yet, until someone cleverer does resolve them, or perhaps, they cannot be understood by logic, and we await the day!
You concluded that you affirm that our finite minds cannot comprehend everything about God. Prove that you mean what you wrote! Name one thing that you cannot comprehend in the bible — which would obviously be usable against your stance… You have found all the difficulties that Calvinists admit to struggle with are due to their wrong theology, rather than antimony or their “apparent” difficulties to provide a good enough response. Or is it possible that in practice, you actually do not believe there is anything above and beyond logic? Even if so, I have explained that logic is flawed in more than one way, despite being our best tool.
(P.S. This might be the last I write, and thank you for the kind answers. As mentioned, I am only a thinker as I read and think. I’m also a father, so I do have to teach and lead my children, hence I like this challenge to understand and check on various views. I do believe I am logical, being trained in the sciences, having acquired multiple degrees in the sciences and having practised in 2 very different areas of the sciences and published multiple papers in scientific journals with hundreds of citations… but I am clearly not a theologian and sloppy in my terminology!)
God bless!
LikeLike
I stumbled on this page when writing about this exact topic for my children’s understanding — and searching on “antimony”. I shared with Gemini (AI) my own thoughts and writing and asked it to use my arguments to rebut the points made in this page, and hopefully this helps to show how a Reformed (I am a non-theologian, just a previously Arminian-leaning and relatively new Reformed thinker) would rebut the points on this page:
The author’s entire premise rests on one massive assumption: Human logic is the ultimate, infallible judge of all truth, and if a theological concept cannot be resolved by human logic, that concept must be false.
Objection 1: “If it is insoluble, it is meaningless nonsense.”
The Argument: The author argues that Packer defines a “paradox” as something that can eventually be unraveled with a little thought. But because Packer admits an “antinomy” is insoluble and incomprehensible to the human mind, the author concludes it must be “really self-contradictory, and therefore really meaningless.”
The Rebuttal: The author is committing a massive philosophical error here: he equates insolubility with falsity.
This is exactly where the Liar’s Paradox (“This sentence is absolutely false”) proves him wrong. The Liar’s Paradox is entirely insoluble. No amount of human logic can unravel it without spiraling into a contradiction. Yet, the sentence is not meaningless nonsense; it clearly exists, and we can read it.
Furthermore, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem mathematically destroys the author’s premise. Gödel proved that in any complex system, there are true statements that are mathematically insoluble and unprovable within that system. The fact that we cannot logically resolve the tension between God’s absolute sovereignty and human responsibility does not mean the doctrines are false or meaningless. It simply proves that our logical system is too small to contain them. The author demands that God fit inside the box of human comprehension; we recognize that God transcends the box.
Objection 2: “Calvinism suppresses reason and quarantines logic.”
The Argument: The author accuses Packer (and Calvinists in general) of demanding that we “put aside our critical thinking” and untether our theology from reason. He claims that by calling this an antinomy, Calvinists put the law of non-contradiction “out of commission” to protect their bad theology.
The Rebuttal: Acknowledging the limits of a tool is not the same as throwing the tool away.
If a sailor acknowledges that a flat 2-D map distorts the size of Greenland, he is not “suppressing reason” or abandoning geography. He is actually demonstrating superior reasoning by recognizing the inherent limitations of his navigational tool.
We do not suppress reason; we use logic as rigorously as possible to read, translate, and synthesize the Bible. However, true rationality requires the humility to admit when a tool has reached its maximum capacity. It is the height of human pride to believe that the infinite, eternal mind of the Creator must perfectly conform to the binary logical framework of a creature. Accepting an antinomy is not the death of logic; it is the rightful submission of human logic to divine revelation.
Objection 3: “The contradiction is just caused by bad interpretation.”
The Argument: The author states that we can easily get rid of this “meaningless contradiction” simply by dropping the Calvinist interpretation of determinism. He argues that Packer is begging the question by assuming his view of sovereignty is a biblical “fact.” If we just adopt the Arminian interpretation, the antinomy goes away.
The Rebuttal: Of course the tension goes away if you erase one side of the equation! The author is offering a false cure.
The antinomy is not generated because Calvinists are forcing a foreign philosophy onto the text. The antinomy is generated precisely because we refuse to water down any of the text. We read Ephesians 1:11 (God works all things according to the counsel of His will) and Romans 9 at face value. We also read Acts 17:30 (God commands all people to repent) at face value.
The Arminian “solves” the logical tension by diluting God’s sovereignty, claiming He merely looks down the corridor of time to react to human choices. They “fix” the logic by shrinking God. We refuse to compromise the clear teachings of Scripture just to make the math neatly add up in our finite minds.
Objection 4: “The intellect abhors this.”
The Argument: Quoting C.A. Campbell, the author states that the human intellect “abhors a bare conjunction.” In other words, the human mind is restless and rejects things that cannot be logically unified or grounded. Because our minds violently reject this paradox, it must be false.
The Rebuttal: This is perhaps the most revealing objection of all. Yes, the fallen human intellect absolutely abhors a mystery it cannot master. Our pride demands that we be the ultimate arbiters of truth, capable of dissecting God as if He were a subject in a laboratory.
But Scripture warns us against trusting this intellectual unrest. In Isaiah 55:8-9, God explicitly declares, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” If our theology contains no mysteries, no antinomies, and nothing that makes our finite intellects uncomfortable, then we have likely created a God in our own image—a God small enough to be fully comprehended.
Summary
The author of that article believes he is defending the truth, but he is actually defending the supremacy of human logic. By applying the mathematical reality of Gödel, the undeniable existence of logical paradoxes, and a high view of Scripture, we can clearly see that Packer’s “antinomy” is not a cop-out. It is the only position that fully honors both the absolute sovereignty of God and the genuine responsibility of man without mutilating the Bible to appease human philosophy.
LikeLike
Hi Tien Lee,
Thanks for sharing this assessment by an artifical intelligence of my section in Chapter 7 on J.I. Packer. I must say this is a first, and quite a novel approach!
There are several things that your AI claims that I think or believe which I do not. The most important one is the initial assertion that, “The author’s entire premise rests on one massive assumption: Human logic is the ultimate, infallible judge of all truth, and if a theological concept cannot be resolved by human logic, that concept must be false.” I do not believe this. As such, the AI’s rebuttals, with its hyperble and misrepresentations ( “…diluting God’s sovereignty, claiming He merely looks down the corridor of time to react to human choices” and “…he equates insolubility with falsity”), proceed on a wrong assumption. They do not relevantly or correctly address the subject matter in my essay. Your AI’s assertion is not what this issue about.
The issue is about identifying sound, responsible prinicples of interpretation. The issue is one of the identification and practice of a proper hermeneutic. I contend that interpretations of Scripture that are incoherent, inconsistent, and/or in contradiction with other texts, the meanings of which are clearly established, are flawed interpretations. When these interpretations are identified, and I believe they can be, it is my contention that such interpretations are incorrect. Interpretions that are incoherent, inconsistent, or contradictory with other intepretations indicate that the Scripture has been misinterpreted somewhere, that is, the author’s intent has not been rightly represented.
My thesis is that Calvinists, including Packer, do not take coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction on board in their hermeneutic, that is, they do not consider these to be essential principles of interpretation. They are willing to ignore these in their interpretations of the biblical text regarding their definition of God’s sovereignty as a universal divine causal determinism to the biblical testimony to human freedom and responsibilty. They can claim that these two mutually exclusive or incompatible interpretations are both the teaching of Scripture. In doing so, that is by adopting a hermeneutic of incoherence, they have insulated their interpretations from rational and moral critique. The AI response, which seems to have a Calvinist bias, also seems to support this approach. When their interpretations are shown to generate incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions with other biblical texts, the meanings of which both Calvinist and non-Calvinist are in agreement, the incoherence that they Calvinists’ deterministic doctrines create does not cause them to question the accracy of their textual interpretations (i.e., Jn. 6, Eph. 1, Rom. 9, et al.). As such, Packer, and the Calvinists’ pronoucement that their determinitic doctrines are a “fact” of Scripture that cannot be gotten rid of, which is also the presupposition in several of the AI responses above (e.g., the assumtion that Isa. 55:8-9, Rom. 9, Eph. 1:11, “We refuse to compromise the clear teaching of Scripture…”, all support Calvinism), amounts to question-begging. Do these passages really support the universal divine causal determinism of Calvinism if they create incoherence, inconsistency or contradictions with other passages and the non-deterministic worldview of the Bible? Are there other sound, biblical defintions of God’s sovereignty or election that are not deterministic? Packer’s category of ‘antinomy’ is tailor-made to protect his question-begging assumption that his contradictory interpretation of Scripture is what the Scripture really means to say. Calvinists do not think the contradiction produced by their interpretations are interpretively significant. They does not think they speak to the validity of their intepretations. I am just asking how we would know whether the Calvinist, non-Calvinist, or any other biblical interpreter has correctly intepreted the Bible if we forfeit coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction in our interpretive principles, that is, in our heremeneutic. What is left for us by which to evaluate the validity of a proposed interpretation?
So it is not the case that I am “mutilating the Bible to appease human philosophy.” I am laying out sound prinicples of intepretation to prevent us from misinterpreting the Bible and discern those who are. Nothing in the above AI assessment tells us what it means to correctly interpet the text or how to do so.
So, I do not think this AI response offers a suitable handle on the issues involved in this controversy. Perhaps you can offer your own response to the issues I have raised above and throughout my site.
I hope you will continue to read on my website and take advantage of the fine, scholarly works in the bibliography that present the textual, exegetical, philosophical, and moral case for a non-Calvinist position.
Sincerely,
Steve
LikeLike