Tasting the smell of soft colored sounds

I am currently reading a book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, which, though highly recommended, within the first couple of chapters I found myself in sharp disagreement with the author. Some may find that arrogant considering the author is J.I. Packer, a widely known and highly regarded theologian. But withhold your judgment for a moment and hear me out. While the book is primarily concerned with reconciling the Christian duty to evangelize with the sovereignty of God, before he tackles this he attempts to tackle reconciling the more general and age-old conundrum of man's responsibility and God's sovereignty. Prior to this he very ably demonstrates how concerning one's own salvation and prayer, every Christian knows God is sovereign. We do not believe we saved ourselves, nor do we pray as if God cannot do whatever He wills. Rather we are thankful to God because he, rather than we ourselves, has saved us; and we pray to God with petitions precisely because we believe He is able to fulfill them. This is for the most part very good, though not necessarily profound. But then he gets to the issue at hand, man's responsibility and God's sovereignty. He begins by introducing the terms antinomy and paradox. He defines these terms, which is helpful, and I will do so momentarily, but he does not define the more basic term, contradiction, which he uses to define these term. I assume he assumes everyone, including himself, knows what the term means, and it is therefore unnecessary to define it. In this, certainly regarding most people I know, and perhaps himself as well, I believe he is in error.

So before I give his definitions, let me define a contradiction. A contradiction exists when a proposition (or propositions) asserts that A is A and 'A (read “not A”) in the same way at the same time. A proposition is simply the meaning of declarative sentence: a subject doing something. By A I mean anything, and by 'A, I mean the exact opposite of A or everything besides A (Whether Packer means this I am not quite sure. Logically it seems he must, but he does not appear to. But if he does not, I do not know what he could mean.). But to the terms he does define, paradox and antinomy. He defines paradox as a play on words or a literal or apparent contradiction, but one that, upon deeper contemplation, can be satisfactorily reconciled. An example is Paul's statement “when I am weak, then I am strong.” While this may be a literal contradiction, when we understand that Paul is using weak in one sense (his own strength) and strong in another sense (God's strength) we see that Paul is not contradicting himself because he is not saying A is A and A is 'A in the same way at the same time. He is saying A is A (I am weak) and A is 'A (I am strong, i.e., I am not weak) at the same time, but not in the same way. Therefore it is not a contradiction. It is in fact a profound truth that is more arresting to our attention because of the paradoxical way in which it was stated (Whether this is a common or technical use of the term paradox is questionable, but since he has defined it as such we will use it as such.). An antinomy, however, he says is different. He quotes The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which defines antinomy as “a contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary.” This is a satisfactory definition, but he then qualifies it by saying it should be prefaced with “an appearance of contradiction.” Ultimately he defines it as two principles (more appropriately two propositions), both of which one holds true but which cannot, in any way, be logically reconciled. There is an irreconcilable appearance of real contradiction here. He is clear in stating that this is not like a paradox in which there is no real contradiction. Here there is real contradiction. God has them reconciled and perhaps we will in heaven, but it would take more than mere “human logic” to resolve this contradiction. This is the real issue for discussion. Paradoxes seem to have been brought up merely for illustrative contrast. Antinomies are the real concept of importance. But before we go on to his explanation of the antinomy of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, let us consider some necessary implications of antinomies.

If there is an irreconcilable appearance of contradiction in antinomies, how do we determine what is an antinomy and what is an actual contradiction? To all appearances they are identical. But not just to appearances, but since antinomies are irreconcilable, to the deepest and greatest amount of study, antinomies and contradictions will remain completely indistinguishable. The quick reply that antinomies are reconciled in the mind of God but contradictions remain contradictory even in His mind is unhelpful, since either we have the mind of God, in which case we, too, can reconcile antinomies, or we do not have the mind of God, in which case we still cannot tell which is an antinomy and which is a contradiction. In either case antinomies no longer remain, but only either reconciled, known truth or contradictions. This idea of irreconcilability also seems to reek of pride. Now, asserting that someone cannot reconcile a contradiction is not necessarily prideful, since by definition a contradiction cannot be reconciled by anyone. However, asserting that an antinomy exists, that is, two propositions are both true and cannot be reconciled, is, from the understanding of someone who is very prideful, very prideful. It is one thing to admit that two propositions appear as antinomies, and that I cannot reconcile them because of my own limited intelligence. That may in fact be very humble. But it is another thing entirely to declare two propositions as antinomies and that therefore no one can reconcile them. The only valid reason for doing so would be if in fact I am the smartest man in the world and anything I do not understand, no one can understand. There is no other justification for such an assertion. So while perhaps Solomon, Christ, and/or the Spirit inspired writers of the Bible could have said, “That truly is an antinomy.”, you and I, along with J.I. Packer, cannot.

But at last, to the point of this article, Packer's assertion that God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are antinomies. As defined above, basic to being antinomies, a contradiction must exist. Here, at the most basic level, the assertion fails. This I believe goes back to Packer's failure to define a contradiction. Had he defined the term we would have already known whether he actually knew what he was talking about. Since he did not, we were left to wonder. However, by asserting that God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are antinomies, i.e., there is a real irreconcilable appearance of contradiction, we see that he does not really know what a contradiction is. In the first place, contradictory statements must have a common subject. The A in, “A is A and A is 'A”, must be common. The two propositions “God is sovereign” and “man is responsible” have two subjects, God and man. In the second place, contradictory statements must have either opposite or mutually exclusive predicates. The two propositions in question have two predicates not at all opposite or mutually exclusive, sovereign and responsible. Therefore, these propositions are not, in any sense, contradictory. It is even less contradictory than if I asserted that the propositions Jack is a boy and Jill is a girl are contradictory. They at least have opposite predicates. The supposed dilemma at hand has nothing contradictory about it at all. So then, if there is no appearance or real contradiction, there can be no antinomy. That is it. The problem is solved. I may not understand how and/or why Jack is a boy and/or how and/or why Jill is a girl, but that does not mean they are contradictory or antinomies. This is not to say that we can never understand how and/or why some proposition is true (as I will momentarily assert how and why “man is responsible” is true), but simply because one does not know the how and/or why is not a justification for labeling them contradictory or antinomies.

But because a clear and simple logical explanation is insufficient for many people, and as an exercise to help the reader better understand what a contradiction is, I will elucidate further. Since I have asserted that the above propositions are not contradictory and therefore not antinomies, what is an actual contradiction regarding “God is sovereignty”? Since our initial proposition is “God is sovereign”, then “God is not sovereign” would in fact be contradictory. And with this, unlike the weak and strong Paul paradox above, there can be no time or sense qualifications to reconcile the two propositions. Because of the nature of God, His sovereignty is universal, i.e., it applies to all time and in all senses. Any and every statement at all in opposition to this is necessarily contradictory. To continue, what then is an actual contraction regarding, “man is responsible”? Very simply “man is not responsible” would indeed be literally contradictory. But here we must be careful. Even this seemingly very clear contradiction “man is responsible” and “man is not responsible” is only contradictory if we maintain that the two propositions refer to the same time and same sense. But the two propositions may very well both be true and non-contradictory if we qualify each statement with time or sense parameters. For example, that “man is responsible before God for the knowledge He has given him” but “man is not responsible before God for the knowledge He has not given him” are both true and non-contradictory. Likewise, that “man is responsible for what he has said” but “man is not responsible for what he has not said” may both be true and non-contradictory. Or temporally, that “man is responsible to pay back a debt when the debt is due” but “man is not responsible to pay back a debt before the debt is due” are both true and non-contradictory.

These examples are intended to impress upon one the strict nature of what a contradiction is. One cannot simply pick two statements that are incongruous (Not in harmony or keeping with the surroundings or other aspects of something) and say that they are contradictory. “That man is a murdering, stealing, wife-beating, rapist” and “that man gave his life to save mine” are certainly not congruous propositions, but neither are they contradictory. You may not think it is congruous of God to be sovereign and hold man responsible, but that is not contradictory. Nor, since God's ways are not our ways, is it inconsistent. But even this initial assumption of non-contradictory incongruity or inconsistency is a very superficial understanding of the matter.  Upon deeper contemplation I believe one will not only cease to find them incongruous or inconsistent, but perfectly logical and congruous and consistent with the nature of God. Because “God is sovereign” is true and He can do whatever He wills, “man is responsible” is not only not contradictory, but true precisely because God, being sovereign, has a right to hold man responsible despite man's inability to choose or live up to the standards God holds him responsible to. So rather than merely asserting that “God is sovereign” and “man is responsible” are two incongruous, but non-contradictory propositions, I am asserting that the latter is a necessary conclusion from the former. If you believe that “God is sovereign” is true, then you ought to, at the least, believe that “man is responsible” is a consistent and plausible proposition as well.

Where then does all this discussion and disagreement come from? Is it really as simple as all that? Truly I believe that a basic understanding of logic would resolve many, if not most, of the theological controversies that exist within the church today. And I believe the above should be sufficient for a great many people. It really is that simple. Their idea of a contradiction was incorrect. Now that they have a correct understanding, they can clearly see that there is no contradiction and therefore no antinomy between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. But admittedly even this will not resolve the issue for everyone. They may, more ably than most, construct an argument that goes something like this:

Man is responsible.

Responsibility is based on ability.

Therefore man is able.

Ability presupposes sovereignty.

Therefore man is sovereign.

Therefore God is not sovereign.

Therefore the propositions “God is sovereign” and a validly deduced conclusion from the proposition “man is responsible” are contradictory.

However, since the Bible is true, both contradictory propositions are true, therefore they are antinomies.

I think it interesting that the above argument is made more often by atheists than Christians, but the atheist simply has not rejected the validity or accepted the limitations of logic and does not hold to such an illogical idea as antinomies and so cannot accept the possibility of the last statement being true. But back to the actual argument. It is a correct form of argument very similar to a reductio ad absurdum. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is likewise true, but contradictory to something else that is held true (Of course the goal of a reductio ad absurdum is to force the rejection of the premise rather than to maintain both as true and make a claim for antinomies, but that is beside the point.). But are all of the premises true? If any one is not then the conclusion does not necessarily follow and the argument falls apart. In the sorites given above there are two premises, a conclusion that is taken as a third premise, a fourth premise, another conclusion that is taken as a fifth premise, and the final conclusion

Let us examine the argument somewhat in depth.  The first premise, man is responsible, has been assumed as a biblically based revealed truth. The first conclusion (or third premise), man is able, is validly deduced and therefore true if the first two premises are true. The fourth premise, ability presupposes sovereignty, seems true by definition, e.g., God is sovereign because He has the ability to do whatever He wills. Whatever one has the ability to do independent of anyone or anything else one is sovereign over. The second conclusion (or fifth premise), man is sovereign, likewise is validly deduced and therefore true if the premises are true. And the final conclusion, God is not sovereign, because of the nature of sovereignty, necessarily follows. But the second premise, responsibility is based on ability, is the crux of the argument. And while this is often true in human relationships, it is not necessarily true by definition, nor is there scriptural support for it. In fact the Bible makes the exact opposite claim. In the book Packer quotes the pertinent passage from Paul's letter to the Romans, but apparently misses the meaning of the text. In verse nineteen of chapter nine, it is precisely the assumption of responsibility being based on ability that leads the hypothetical objector to ask, “Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?” Or more apropos for the current discussion, “Why does He still hold us responsible? Who has the ability to go against His will?” To all of this Paul does not backtrack and say that he has been misunderstood. Rather he maintains that he has been perfectly understood: God holds man responsible for what he does not have the ability to do. But Paul goes on and rebukes the objector for questioning God and asking “Why have you made me like this?” or again “Why have you made me, or anyone, unable and yet responsible?” To this illegitimate, but natural, question Paul, not at all shrinking from the weight of the argument, reasserts God's sovereignty over all things, even the right to “make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use” completely without regard to the ability of the vessel. This again shows that not only are the two propositions, “God is sovereign” and “man is responsible” not contradictory or antinomies, but that because God is sovereign, He has the right to hold man responsible.

In conclusion, while there are mysteries in the Bible (why does God's will manifest itself as it does; in loving me, in sending Christ, in forgiving some, in damning others, etc.,?) and in the universe (is there something beyond the universe, what is the fundamental nature of matter, etc.,?), this, the supposed dilemma of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility is not one of them. He has revealed both truths to us through His word. They are not even apparently contradictory. Embrace them. Do not try and pit one against the other: they are not antagonists. You might as well try and taste the smell of soft colored sounds as discuss how to reconcile two non-contradictory statements. They may sound profound or poetic, but they are both nonsensical.