Packer, Piper, and so-called antinomy

I’ve recently preached through Romans 9-11.  One of the big issues that comes up in these chapters is the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. 

Source: www.wau.org

In Romans 9, for example, Paul paints a very clear picture of God’s sovereignty in choosing who will be saved (e.g., 9:10-13), in having mercy on some and hardening others (e.g., 9:14-18).  While this teaching raises all sorts of questions about God’s fairness (9:14, 19), part of Paul’s answer is to assert God’s sovereign right as a potter to do with the clay whatever he wants to (9:20-21).  It’s simply a result of the God-ness of God.

On the other hand, in Romans 10, Paul paints a very clear picture of human responsibility, arguing that Israel’s failure to attain righteousness is because she pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works (9:30-32), because she sought to establish her own righteousness and did not submit to God's righteousness that is known in Christ (10:2-4), because she pursued righteousness by the law rather than by faith (10:5-8), and because although she heard the gospel, she did not respond in faith, by calling on the name of the Lord (10:9-18).
Therefore, Paul's argument says that God is both totally sovereign in salvation - over those who are saved and those who are not, and Israel is genuinely responsible for failing to respond to the gospel in faith.  Which brings us to Packer, Piper, and so-called antinomy.
In his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1961) – a book I was schooled in as a young adult Christian first beginning to think these issues through, J I Packer suggests that the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility is an antinomy – ‘an appearance of contradiction between conclusions that seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary’ (p18).

Yet having recently preached on Romans 9-11 I was alerted to an old post by John Piper that disputes Packer’s explanation.  Piper explains two chief concerns with what Packer has written on this issue: first, he rejects the idea that the so-called antinomy between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility is truly inexplicable to our finite minds; second, he disputes Packer’s assertion that anyone who is discontent with antinomy and tries to probe into the consistency of its two halves is guilty of suspicious speculation.  Put positively, he argues first, that some have explained the apparent contradiction between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility – he cites Jonathan Edwards as one example; and second, that it is not improper to probe into the mind of God if done in the right spirit.

There is a lot to be said for the way that Piper boldly encourages us to think deeply about God, and to humbly enquire after what God has done.  I agree with some of the criticisms he raises against what Packer has written about Romans 9.  For example, I agree that Paul attempts to demonstrate the propriety of God’s actions.  9:22-24 are a case in point.

But I don’t agree with Piper’s statement that, ‘There is not one sentence I know of in the New Testament which tells us the limits of what we can know of God and his ways,’, or, ‘I might just say in response to much silly talk about the dangers of exhausting the mysteries of God, that my conception of God makes such a thought ludicrous.’  After all, isn’t the whole point of the doxology at the end of Romans 11 to remind us that there is an unsearchable-ness to God’s judgments, an untraceable-ness to his paths, an unknowable-ness to God’s mind, a rich depth to his wisdom and knowledge?  The God-ness of God and the creaturely-ness of humanity, which after all is exactly what Paul points out in 9:19-21, mean that there is always a gap between our knowledge of things and his.  For if even God’s foolishness is greater than man’s wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:25), how much greater his wisdom!

One of the most useful explanations of all this that I’ve read comes from two chapters towards the end of in D A Carson’s How Long, O Lord? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006). The chapters are titled ‘The Mystery of Providence’ and ‘The Comfort of Providence’.  Carson shows that ultimately, our questions about the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are ultimately tied up in questions about how God relates to us:

·       how can God be both sovereign and inter-personal? 

·       how can God be both transcendent and imminent? 

·       how can the God who is outside of time, and who created time, also relate to us in time? 

·       how can the God who exists apart from the creation and who in Gen 1 speaks the whole creation into existence, also in Gen 2 act within the creation, forming the man from the dirt of the ground?

·       if even the highest heavens cannot contain God, how will God dwell on earth in the temple in Jerusalem? (1 Kings 8:27)

·       how can the eternal Word of God become flesh and make his dwelling among us (John 1:14)?

It’s the same question in different forms, and it comes to us again and again all over the Bible.  But what it means is that in the end, the answer to the questions lies in God himself, and in his capacity to relate to us in the first place. 

In some ways, this itself doesn’t answer the questions we have about how God’s sovereignty and human responsibility relate to each other.  But by locating the mystery of this relationship in God himself, it makes the fact that such mystery actually exists that much more plausible.  For as creatures, we will never have the Creator’s knowledge of how the Creator relates to the creatures!  The God-ness of God and the creaturely-ness of humanity prevent it.

So should we use the language of antinomy to describe the relationship between God's sovereignty and human responsibility?  I don't.  But I'm not worried if people do, because at least on the surface of things, this is how it seems to appear to most people.  What we do need to do, though, is show where the real problem lies - in the God-ness of God.  Because once we do that, it's much easier to trust that both are true and there is no contradiction, even if we can't explain how.