An antinomy is "the bringing together of two principles, statements or laws that, even though appearing to be contradictory to or in tension with one another, are both believed to be true". Antinomies are resorted to when one single model of reality does not do justice to all the data. Since the idea that contradictions can possess ultimacy is repugnant, it is usually assumed that acceptance of antinomies is a temporary expedient occasioned by human ignorance and other limitations.

The best known antinomy in science is the two models of the nature of light, the wave theory and the particle theory. Physicists rely on one and then the other of them, depending upon which set of data needs to be explained. This is done in spite of the fact that common sense is boggled by the idea that both models are true. It is like saying that a certain stone is simultaneously both square and round. But pragmatic results seem to justify the strategy of embracing both models of light.

In Christian theology the central doctrines of the faith all involve antinomies. One of the most obvious is the doctrine of the Trinity, which affirms simultaneously that God is one and that He is three. More about this will be said below.

There are many other examples. Christology accepts that Jesus Christ is totally God and totally human. Soteriology acknowledges God's absolute sovereignty and His initiative in man's salvation, but at the same time assumes human free will and responsibility and the importance of personal decision. Pneumatology has to reckon with the fact that Scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit being "poured out" and of certain persons being "filled" with the Spirit, and yet see other places in Scripture speaking of the Spirit as a person. Can the Spirit, then, be both an "It" and a "He"? Finally, the Scriptures are both the Word of the Lord and the words of human writers. One could multiply such examples almost ad infinitum.

Rabbinic theology is comfortable with "both/and" logic, as contrasted with "either/or" logic, but such a posture is easier to maintain in metaphysical questions (haggadah) than in matters of behavior (halakah), for while one might be able to think that two contrasting propositions are both true, he cannot do two opposite things at the same time. The paradigmatic incident recorded in the Talmud which illustrates the dilemma occurred during a debate between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai about a disputed halakic issue. When a deadlock could not be surpassed a Bath Qol was heard saying, "The words of Beth Hillel and the words of Beth Shammai are both the words of the living God, but the halakah shall be according to Beth Hillel".2

The development of the doctrine of the Trinity is particularly instructive. There can be hardly any doctrine of Scripture that is more basic than monotheism. The Shema (Deut 6:4) is reaffirmed in the New Testament (Mk 12:29-32; Jas 2:19; 1 Tim 2:5). But at the same time, the New Testament is comfortably able to speak not only of the Father as God, but also of the Son and of the Spirit. This seeming contradiction did not seem to create excessive tension until the Gospel was firmly planted among the Greeks, who were more closely wedded to either/or logic. It took the Church several tumultuous centuries to work the problem through.

To make a very long and complicated story short and too simple, the Eastern Church started with the Threeness of God and gradually worked toward the Oneness. The Eastern Fathers, such as Justin and Origen, were basically tritheists. The Western Fathers, on the other hand, began with the Oneness of God and gradually worked toward the Threeness, passing through such stages as monarchian modalism. Tertullian invented the term Trinity, but the term did not for him carry the full meaning that it did later.3 The term Trinity does not in fact resolve the paradox; it merely gives a name to it.

The doctrine of the Trinity as we know it would never have developed if either East or West had prematurely vanquished the other. Similarly, Christology as we know it would never have developed if either Antioch or Alexandria had always prevailed. A case can be made for saying that no valid theological synthesis can ever be achieved if the dialogue between two parts of an antinomy is not allowed to play out its natural course.

I propose that we now stand before a great antinomy, the two sides of which are special creation and theistic evolution. Both models can legitimately appeal to supporting sets of data, both scriptural and scientific, neither of which can be lightly dismissed. Both models have serious problems, both scriptural and scientific, which cannot be ignored. Confronted with such cognitive dissonance, there is a better way than denial. As a procedural strategy we must embrace both models. Both must be given a chance to converge. Unnatural and premature suppression of either by political means would be a tragic mistake and result in too much human debris. Searching study and civil discussion must continue as long as necessary without strident sloganeering or institutional manipulation. Spiritual division must be avoided or overcome. Gentleness all around must be exhibited. We are dealing with our scientifically oriented children. Bear in mind the fearful warning in Matthew 18:6: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea". 

Dr. Johnston is Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Mich.

NOTES

1. Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999). 'Paradox' has a similar meaning but is usually used in somewhat different contexts.

2. Babylonian Talmud Erubin 13b.

3. A detailed account of the early history of the doctrine of the Trinity is provided by J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition (San Francisco: Harper, 1978), 83-137, 253-79.