Some simple definitions:

 

Contradiction: Two propositions/statements that cannot both be true at the same time. Neither can they both be false at the same time. One must be true, the other false, one false, and the other true. Example: All dogs are cats - AND - some dogs are not cats. The statements must be categorical, i.e. the statement must begin with All, No, Some, the main verb is usually transformed into a verb of being, the subj. and predicate should be a noun or noun clause.
 

Paradox: Two propositions/statements that at first appear to be contradictory but upon further investigation can be logically or rationally resolved. A paradox is an enigma like, "He that loses his life shall find it, and he that would save his life shall lose it" (Mark 8:35). This at first seems contradictory but once you understand Jesus' teaching about picking up your cross and dying to yourself now in order to follow Him and gain the resurrection of the body later it makes sense.
 

Antinomy: Two propositions/statements that appear to be contradictory and which further investigation cannot rationally or logically resolve - and yet both are held to be true. From two Greek words: anti (against) and nomos (law). In the strictest sense of the definition - a contradiction between two laws - or between two parts of the same law. My own personal concept of this word also involves the idea that one of the laws that an antinomy is against is the law of reason. An antinomy is defined by the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as a "contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary".
 

Question: How do you know that something is an antinomy and not a contradiction? How do you know that what seems contradictory is actually an antinomy? How do you know that what you think is an antinomy is not simply a paradox that you haven't figured out yet? Well, from a rational viewpoint, you can't. From a rational viewpoint, an antinomy is either a contradiction-in-disguise or a paradox-in-disguise. If we were to ever resolve it, it would be a paradox. If we are never able to resolve it, it's a contradiction.
 

But relative to our Christian context, most people would say that if the Bible teaches both things, then both things are true, even though we can't rationally or logically resolve them. J.I. Packer suggests that we need to rephrase the Oxford definition of antinomy by adding the words: "the appearance of a contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary". In doing this Packer is saying that antinomy by the Oxford's definition doesn't objectively exist. He is affirming the notion that it is impossible that two contradictory things can both be true at the same time. According to Packer it only APPEARS that way. I basically agree with this. In my opinion, antinomy is a word/concept that we've created that allows us to believe contradictory things under the guise of being "rational."

 

For instance, Numbers 23:19 states, "God is not man…” Malachi 3:6 says, “For I the Lord do not change…” Jesus is explicitly called a man in Acts 2:22, Acts 13:38, Acts 17:31, 1 Timothy 2:5, and many others. Yet it is maintained that Jesus is God. So, because the Bible (allegedly) teaches that God is not man, Jesus is a man, and yet Jesus is God, what we have here – Jesus is a man / Jesus is God - is not a contradiction but an antinomy. (For more on this particular “antinomy" see God and Man are Mutually Exclusive Categories.) A typical argument would be, “There is an apparent incompatibility between two Biblical truths. Both principles to our mind are undeniable from many passages in scripture, yet to our mind they seem irreconcilable.”

 

I would say that if the Bible is taken to be inerrant then one of these things HAS to be denied, no matter how clear it appears to be. It seems much more reasonable to question an interpretation that results in a CONTRADICTION, than it does to accept a contradiction (by calling it an antinomy) on the basis of one's interpretation. Believing in antinomy is similar to the idea that I entertained for many years, which was that my western rationalism was getting in the way of me being able to believe that two irresolvable things were both true. Of course, one possibility is that the Bible contains contradiction and therefore error. More on that below. But notice that, eventually, my conclusion was NOT, "these two apparently contradictory things are both true because the Bible says so" but was, "I must not understand the Bible." 

 

This position, that if the Bible says both things then both things are true, is typical of most evangelicals today, as well as other stripes of conservative Christians, i.e., those who hold to the inerrancy of scripture.

 

It is my contention that this position - two (seemingly) contradictory statements/doctrines/concepts are both true because the Bible teaches both things and therefore what we have here is an antinomy - very much begs the question. Those who hold to this "antinomy" presuppose that they understand what the Bible is saying on the subject. Their conclusion is their presupposition in disguise. 

 

Furthermore, these same good and sincere Christian people would suggest in all seriousness that there are 3 interrelated reasons that antinomies exist:

 

 1) The falleness of human logic. Ultimately God and everything He says will prove logical. But humans are sub-logical.
 2) Our finite human nature. God's knowledge and wisdom are infinite. Some things may simply go beyond our ability to            understand.
 3) The propositions/statements themselves may not actually contradict but our "logical" extensions of them may.

 

All this sounds reasonable, but these same three reasons could also be given to support the idea that these same people don't understand the Biblical texts on the subject in question and therefore actually create the necessity for antinomy. One could argue that these 3 reasons themselves are the product of fallen human sub-logic. Especially #1. Such a vicious circle! 

 

Concerning the possibility that there are things in the Bible that are not true, that are contradictory in the true sense of that term:

 

Since one cannot be absolutely sure that this alleged antinomy is NOT in fact a contradiction, then the possibility that there is contradiction in the Bible, and therefore error, should occur to any intellectually honest thinker. THAT is another subject, one that I don't want to get into here. I'm assuming most people who are interested enough to read what I've written on this site accept the presupposition that the Bible is inerrant and what I've posted on this site presupposes that. All I will say on the subject is that the issue I'm dealing with is: What does the Bible say? The issue is NOT: Is what the Bible says true?

 

Now one may say that I'm judging everything by my fallible human reason as opposed to judging everything by the inerrant, infallible "Word of God." My response would be that as long as one holds to the idea of fallen/finite human reason then one's understanding of a supposed inerrant text must always be questionable. How can you be sure that your understanding is correct when you believe your reason is fallen? When you believe that "humans are sub-logical"? 

 

My position on #1 is that human reason is not "sub-logical." Reason is not "fallen." It can be, but not necessarily, not by default. However, it IS finite (#2) in - and only in - the sense that we don't have all the facts. How many times has it happened that you have come to a conclusion that is completely logical given what you know and then a previously unknown fact is discovered that changes everything? The possibility that there exists unknown data that would affect our conclusions should qualify EVERY position we come to, and should inhibit any kind of dogmatism. This should also stoke our appetite for discovery and integration of new data into our conclusions. It also opens up the possibility of REVEALED (by God) data - thus the interest in the Bible. (Thus the interest in EVERYTHING!) The limitation/finiteness of our reason has to do with unknown data, not some inherent dysfunction or limitation to reason itself. My position acknowledges the good of reason, even "human" reason, without elevating it to some kind of infallible methodology for arriving at truth. 

 

Another limitation of reason is that, while we try to base it on and reason from established facts, it more often than not is based on one or more presuppositions that are not logically provable. For instance,

 

"Anyone who would receive anything from God must first believe that He exists and that He rewards those who diligently seek Him."

 

No proof is given for these two presuppositions. If you accept different presuppositions, e.g. God doesn't exist or God exists but He doesn't reward those who seek Him, all your subsequent reasoning will have a decidedly different cast. In this whole arena, there is no such thing as epistemological certainty. The only solution for this that I can see is trust in God. Trust that He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Christ. Reason is one of the tools we use in pursuit of this goal. God also uses reason in relating to us. "Come let us reason together,' says the Lord."

 

Jesus never appealed to the argument that something was not understandable. He always endeavored to explain himself, and what he was saying. The Pharisees were constantly trying to catch Jesus in a contradiction and when they thought they had him, he explained himself every time. He never said, "This is beyond human understanding." Many times in what appears to be exasperation he says, "Why do you not understand what I am saying?" Jesus' default was that everything he was saying was understandable.

 

• But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3)

 

Notice that the "simplicity that is in Christ" is intellectual: "...so your MINDS should be corrupted..."

 

• Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have missed the mark as regards the faith. (I Tim 6:20)

 

One of the hallmarks of false knowledge is that it contains "contradictions". AVOID contradictions - so says the apostle Paul.

 

With this respect for the law of contradiction in mind consider:

 

• But prove all things: hold fast that which is good. (I Thess 5:21)

 

• Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. (Prov. 4:7)

 

It's true that we have limited understanding, however, we are commanded to "get understanding" in Proverbs 4:7. Also, our understanding is expandable:

 

• I will run in the way of thy commandments when thou enlargest my understanding! (Psalm 119:32)

 

​So with all this in mind, namely, multiple indications that reason and understanding are an important component in seeking after God, shouldn't we be very suspicious of a doctrine that necessitates a suspension of the law of contradiction and forces us to abandon reason by accepting the notion of "antinomy" because God's supposed triune nature as well as Jesus' alledged dual nature is beyond human understanding? 

 

If we have simply misinterpreted the relevant texts, if we have misunderstood the scriptures that seem to indicate that Jesus was a man and God BOTH, doesn't accepting the concept that there is such a thing as "antinomy" - i.e. two contradictory, mutually exclusive things that are both true - actually result in reinforcing our misunderstanding? I contend that it does.

While I acknowledge limitations to reason (see above) I do not accept the reality of "antinomy". As long as a "contradiction" is unresolved it is a contradiction, plain and simple, and as such is to be avoided (1 Timothy 6:20).