Tension in Scripture or In Me?

[Jason]

From this discussion.

First of all, let's define tension. What do we mean when we speak of tension and Scripture?

Does tension exist in Scripture?

Does it exist in me?

[Jason]

First of all, ScottL, I think Damian did a great job of demonstrating that it is possible to address issues that appear to be areas of tension.

The question is, ScottL, does the Scripture contain the tension between (for your benefit, I guess I'll use this one :-)  ) cessationism and continuationism, or does the tension actually occur in me because I'm unable to wrap my head around the issues of 1Cor 12-14, et al? I approach Scripture with the idea that, if I don't get something that is there, I'll learn it later when I've gained sufficient understanding in other areas. I don't look and say, "Well, this is tension in Scripture; I guess I'll never know." ( I realize that's a simplistic way of putting it. I also think that you would probably not deal with Scripture that way either. Of course, if you don't deal with Scripture that way, I wonder if you truly hold as  tightly to inherent tension as you think you hold to it.)

I honestly think that you, Damian, and Alex say some similar things, but just in a different manner. You all seem to think that there are things in the text that are sometimes hard for us to grasp. Alex and Damian seem to think that the issue is more one of our understanding instead of the Scripture having the tension as an inherent property. I tend to agree with them.

There's one thing that perhaps we could deal with that would bring us closer to one another on the issue. It's contained in a statement that you made about Scripture not being a full revelation, but a sufficient revelation. I agree. We find all that we need to know about God in Scripture, but not everything there is to know about God is contained in Scripture. That being said, is this because Scripture leaves us hanging on some things due to the fact that we don't need to know them now? Is this tension, or does this create tension in us? 

What is your answer? What are the implications of your answer? Does this lead to any idea of insufficiency in Scripture? Does it uphold the authority and sufficiency of Scripture? How does this influence your view of Scripture? Or how does your view of Scripture influence your view of tension?

Thanks for discussing. It's interesting, for sure.

ScottL said:

Damian

I really appreciate what you, and others, have stated. I don't disagree at the core.

What I am trying to do is somoly answer the OP. I have no problem recognising who our God is. But recognising who God is and what the God-breathed Scripture communicates, at least for me, are two distinct questions, though connected.

You confess yourself that Scripture creates tension, or stretches and strains. And it does that not a few times without ever answering some questions that it presents itself. It's just not a how-to instruction manual giving detailed insight on every issue. I very much appreciate the discipline of theological development from starting in Scripture, but then theo-philosophically reflecting on what that means. But much of what we formulate theologically is done outside of Scripture's direct assertions. Baptism saves, baptism does not save. God does not change his mind, God has regret, God is one, there are 3 divine persons.

Again, I start in the text, but do not end there in my 'reconciling' of the data. I read the Scripture and see it tell me that Jesus is eternal and divine, all things were created through him, and that he is an actual human being that thirsts and bleeds and suffers and dies. That is what Scripture tells me. Our terminology of hypostaic union and incarnation and three persons as one divine God are all theo-philosophical constructs to reconcile the data. Again, it is all good and helpful. But, at least as I can tell, we didn't find that in Scripture. We find statements of tension which we then 'reconcile' in helpful and reasonable formulations outside the text. We read about Jesus in the text, we then conclude hypostaic union. But I guarantee Scripture is not written to teach us about hypostaic union.

I am no biblicist that says one must only use Bible words in theological description (as if our English Bibles are THE determinative factor in theological development). We back up our theology in Scripture, yes. But it isn't so simple as saying - Scripture is clear on that issue and it's resolved right there in Scripture. I cannot see that on all issues. Otherwise we might just play a proof-texting game. Amd that's what many positions do - Calvinist-Arminian, cessationist-continuationist, covenant-dispensational, etc. God elects and foreordains, humans are absolutely responsible for their lives. I don't find Scripture easing that tension very well. I find myself grappling with both A and B to reconcile the data for myself, and I still can't fully. But my reconciling wasn't much done because I pieced 13 Bible passages together that answered all the questions. The reconciling, or a little of it, happened as I reasonably pieced things together in theological formulations outside the text.

[Alex Guggenheim]

Jason

Traveling right now but plan to interact more fully later.

[Alex Guggenheim]

A limited but essential entry.

So far what I have seen is one proposed example which was addressed and reconicled by Damian. And Damian's theological resolution has not been rebutted so as to continue the argument of the example given as evidence of tension. Looking in the mirror and forgetting what you have seen is rather immodest. It should impose upon those who assert theological tension the reality that one of their examples has been dismantled.

With this in view what I am going to continue to insist is that while, in theory, it sounds good the theory of theological tension is yet unproven, hence I do not find arguing its merits to be essential until it can be amply proven.

So what I ask is for another specific example and its specific arguments which show a theology that cannot be reconicled at a certain point. I have yet to see this.

But in humoring the question of fault and the inexhaustive but sufficient revelation of God, I still must say that in principle, the unknown does not exist as inherent tension in the revelation of God, rather as unknown. Unknown is not a tension in itself, that is it cannot be viewed as one of two opposing or conflicting views which is upon what theological tensions is based. Further, that which has been revealed, then, if one is to assert it has tension, must have any accusations or assertions of inconsistency or irreconciliaition proven. I see assertions of this but not proof.

What I would like to see is an actual example and explanation or argument as to why "thus and thus" is irreconciliable, i.e. theologically tense. I suspect any presentations of the sort will stop short of accepting what others might offer as reconciliation (Damian's example) hence forcing an audit of their premise.

[Jason]

Alex,

Thanks for the reply, but I'm left wondering who is being addressed by your response. Is it I? If so, you've misunderstood me. I don't believe in tension in Scripture, unless that tension is simply a paradox, or something that is counter-worldly wisdom.

Finally, my response to one who presents something that is, as you say, irreconcilable, is that it is definitely reconciled in the mind of the all-wise God who gave us the inspired Word.

Alex Guggenheim said:

A limited but essential entry.

So far what I have seen is one proposed example which was addressed and reconicled by Damian. And Damian's theological resolution has not been rebutted so as to continue the argument of the example given as evidence of tension. Looking in the mirror and forgetting what you have seen is rather immodest. It should impose upon those who assert theological tension the reality that one of their examples has been dismantled.

With this in view what I am going to continue to insist is that while, in theory, it sounds good the theory of theological tension is yet unproven, hence I do not find arguing its merits to be essential until it can be amply proven.

So what I ask is for another specific example and its specific arguments which show a theology that cannot be reconicled at a certain point. I have yet to see this.

But in humoring the question of fault and the inexhaustive but sufficient revelation of God, I still must say that in principle, the unknown does not exist as inherent tension in the revelation of God, rather as unknown. Unknown is not a tension in itself, that is it cannot be viewed as one of two opposing or conflicting views which is upon what theological tensions is based. Further, that which has been revealed, then, if one is to assert it has tension, must have any accusations or assertions of inconsistency or irreconciliaition proven. I see assertions of this but not proof.

What I would like to see is an actual example and explanation or argument as to why "thus and thus" is irreconciliable, i.e. theologically tense. I suspect any presentations of the sort will stop short of accepting what others might offer as reconciliation (Damian's example) hence forcing an audit of their premise.

[Scott]

Jason -

 

I agree that Damian, Alex, you and I have some central togetherness about how Scripture reveals God and his purposes. But, whereas I am convinced that God has no tension, and I very much agree that we have tension in our understanding, I would say that Scripture is not God nor God's full (though very sufficient) revelation. So Scripture presents A and B about a said topic, but it does not always lay out how A and B fit together, clarifying things in detail. It leaves A and B sitting side by side, or in one portion of the text and in another portion of the text, and does not say, 'This is how these two statements "fit together"'. They sit there unanswered. I'm thinking right through Gen and Rev, and let's just easily stop in Ecclesiastes or Job or Proverbs, not to mention Gen to Rev.

 

It seems where we differ is that you are convinced Scripture always clarifies how A and B fit together, even if we don't get it. It sounds very good, very evangelical, very honouring to God and his word in Scripture. But I don't see Scripture always clarifying as has been suggested. Of course, in my own tension, I could be claiming that Scripture does not clarify while it actually does clarify. And I think you would challenge me with that. And I am ok to be challenged with such.

 

But, case in point (which I keep suggesting): Where we have come to our own conclusion that tension statements have been resolved - let's say around Christ - we say that Scripture (and maybe Scripture alone) has resolved that tension, like around how he is both eternally divine and is fully human. One could claim that Scripture has sufficiently clarified the tension of how Christ could entail both natures. But I would say rubbish I'm not so sure. You, I and others have come to a resolve in some form or fashion around this reality. But we didn't get all of the theo-philosophical outworkings of the incarnation, hypostatic union, tri-unified nature of God from a simple read and engagement in Scripture. That's what the OP asks about. The tensions were reasonably resolved from first taking the data in Scripture, but working outside of Scripture. Scripture wasn't given to teach us the doctrine of the hypostatic union. It simply wasn't. I'm not saying such is an unreasonable conclusion with the data. It's just that Matthew, John, Paul, Peter and the others weren't laying out how this all fit together in a nice phrasing known as the hypostatic union. It wasn't their modus operandi. Their modus operandi was to present the reality of Christ's divinity and humanity, but not in a theo-philosophical construct known as the hypostatic union. Of course, you might challenge me that this was part of the MO. That would be fine, but I would have to disagree.

 

A) God is God and has no tension

B) Humanity is finite and we have tension, even in the midst of God's gracious revealing of himself to us

C) Scripture, though sufficient, is not God's fully, laid bare revelation of himself and it allows statements A and B to rest within the same text without dealing with all the questions and details that can arise from such statements.

 

We seem to agree on A and B, but not C. I'm simply at a place in which I see Scripture as a very foundational and strongly sufficient revelation for God's people to walk forward in knowing him and his purposes. But I cannot see it's goal as to always make certain statements, and then go back and clarify where tension might exist. I think this could set up Scripture as being God, rather than coming from and being God-breathed.

[Damian]

Scott,

You do realize that you are undercutting/devaluing the ENTIRE discipline of theology just to make a point, don't you?  You do also realize that you sound like the "dreaded" fundamentalists (with a slightly better vocabulary) that you regularly oppose?

[Alex Guggenheim]

Damian

I do hope Scott sees this.

Jason

My response was general and not toward anyone specifically

[Jason]

ScottL,

After a quick reading, I think that I can affirm you A, B, and C.

First of all, however, I think you need to do one thing: you need to realize that we do not believe that Scripture is a full revelation of God. It is a straw man, especially when I have already affirmed that I believe Scripture is not a full revelation of God, but a sufficient revelation of God. I think it would help this discussion along for you to acknowledge that. I also think that Damian and Alex would agree on that point.

Now, back to your C. You said, 

C) Scripture, though sufficient, is not God's fully, laid bare revelation of himself and it allows statements A and B to rest within the same text without dealing with all the questions and details that can arise from such statements.

That's great. I agree with you on that. That is not tension. That is giving us the information that we need and allowing us to trust God for the rest. It may be paradox, but it is not tension in the sense that there will never be a reconciliation of the issues that are not resolved in our minds. There will be times that we are able to come to the Scriptures and find that we have learned and the questions are resolved in our minds. There will be other times that we come to Scripture again and again, and we leave with tension. The tension, however, is not so much inherent in Scripture as it is part and parcel of our finite understanding. 

Simply because Scripture doesn't give us every answer doesn't mean that Scripture contains genuine discrepancies and errors. I also have a feeling that you are not saying that it does; all inerrrancy discussions to the contrary, I think you're saying something other than that here. That's why I asked at the outset of the discussion for a definition of tension. 

In my mind tension is an unresolved issue. Tension is often a paradox. Sometimes tension is simply a turning of my world upside down by the overthrow of my worldly wisdom. Never is tension a true discrepancy or error in the Bible.

Perhaps we can move forward by clarifying your meaning of tension, since tension is somewhat of an obscure and malleable word in this context. It may be that we're talking past each other.

ScottL said:

Jason -

 

I agree that Damian, Alex, you and I have some central togetherness about how Scripture reveals God and his purposes. But, whereas I am convinced that God has no tension, and I very much agree that we have tension in our understanding, I would say that Scripture is not God nor God's full (though very sufficient) revelation. So Scripture presents A and B about a said topic, but it does not always lay out how A and B fit together, clarifying things in detail. It leaves A and B sitting side by side, or in one portion of the text and in another portion of the text, and does not say, 'This is how these two statements "fit together"'. They sit there unanswered. I'm thinking right through Gen and Rev, and let's just easily stop in Ecclesiastes or Job or Proverbs, not to mention Gen to Rev.

 

It seems where we differ is that you are convinced Scripture always clarifies how A and B fit together, even if we don't get it. It sounds very good, very evangelical, very honouring to God and his word in Scripture. But I don't see Scripture always clarifying as has been suggested. Of course, in my own tension, I could be claiming that Scripture does not clarify while it actually does clarify. And I think you would challenge me with that. And I am ok to be challenged with such.

 

But, case in point (which I keep suggesting): Where we have come to our own conclusion that tension statements have been resolved - let's say around Christ - we say that Scripture (and maybe Scripture alone) has resolved that tension, like around how he is both eternally divine and is fully human. One could claim that Scripture has sufficiently clarified the tension of how Christ could entail both natures. But I would say rubbish I'm not so sure. You, I and others have come to a resolve in some form or fashion around this reality. But we didn't get all of the theo-philosophical outworkings of the incarnation, hypostatic union, tri-unified nature of God from a simple read and engagement in Scripture. That's what the OP asks about. The tensions were reasonably resolved from first taking the data in Scripture, but working outside of Scripture. Scripture wasn't given to teach us the doctrine of the hypostatic union. It simply wasn't. I'm not saying such is an unreasonable conclusion with the data. It's just that Matthew, John, Paul, Peter and the others weren't laying out how this all fit together in a nice phrasing known as the hypostatic union. It wasn't their modus operandi. Their modus operandi was to present the reality of Christ's divinity and humanity, but not in a theo-philosophical construct known as the hypostatic union. Of course, you might challenge me that this was part of the MO. That would be fine, but I would have to disagree.

 

A) God is God and has no tension

B) Humanity is finite and we have tension, even in the midst of God's gracious revealing of himself to us

C) Scripture, though sufficient, is not God's fully, laid bare revelation of himself and it allows statements A and B to rest within the same text without dealing with all the questions and details that can arise from such statements.

 

We seem to agree on A and B, but not C. I'm simply at a place in which I see Scripture as a very foundational and strongly sufficient revelation for God's people to walk forward in knowing him and his purposes. But I cannot see it's goal as to always make certain statements, and then go back and clarify where tension might exist. I think this could set up Scripture as being God, rather than coming from and being God-breathed.

[Scott]

Damian -

 

I am happy for you to explain more. As I've said, I don't embrace biblicism. But let's look at the question presented in the OP -
Does tension exist in Scripture?

 

I am simply looking at Scripture itself, not theology as a whole. Theology
starts in Scripture, but very rarely
ends there. Scripture lays tension statements side by side, or in various portions of Scripture without
always clarifying on how they fit together. Sometimes it does bring them together in some fashion or form, but not always. That is simple reality. And the bringing together happens as we reflect on how these things fit together, which can very much be from God himself. But Scripture does not always resolve tension. Of course, I would be happy for us to lay out every tension presented in Scripture and how those tensions are also clarified and resolved. We could start with Christ's divinity and humanity, God's sovereignty and humanity's responsibility, etc.


Damian said:




Scott,

 

You do realize that you are undercutting/devaluing the ENTIRE discipline of theology just to make a point, don't you?  You do also realize that you sound like the "dreaded" fundamentalists (with a slightly better vocabulary) that you regularly oppose?








[Scott]

Jason -


After a quick reading, I think that I can affirm you A, B, and C.


First of all, however, I think you need to do one thing: you need to realize that we do not believe that Scripture is a full revelation of God. It is a straw man, especially when I have already affirmed that I believe Scripture is not a full revelation of God, but a sufficient revelation of God. I think it would help this discussion along for you to acknowledge that. I also think that Damian and Alex would agree on that point.

 

I do understand that you, and most any other Christian, notes that Scripture is not a
full revelation of God. I never said you believed the contrary. I was simply laying out that, because Scripture is not a
full
revelation of God, then we must allow that statements of tension might be found is this great text he has given us.

 

And please stop with the straw men - a) because I never said you held to such and b) let's simply converse without having to throw out in every conversation which fallacy is being utilised. I'm not trying to utilise fallacies here. I'm simply engaging with conversation. :)



That's great. I agree with you on that. That is not tension. That is giving us the information that we need and allowing us to trust God for the rest. It may be paradox, but it is not tension in the sense that there will never be a reconciliation of the issues that are not resolved in our minds. There will be times that we are able to come to the Scriptures and find that we have learned and the questions are resolved in our minds. There will be other times that we come to Scripture again and again, and we leave with tension. The tension, however, is not so much inherent in Scripture as it is part and parcel of our finite understanding.

 

You can't affirm one statement (C) and then de-affirm it in the next breath. :D

 

I don't deny that at some point, in this age or the next, we will come to resolve. But it doesn't mean the resolve is simply laid out
in the text itself. Scripture can, but does not always, resolve and clarify on statements of tension. I read Prov 26:4-5 and see two statements, side by side, that are in tension. I'm not sure I find a statement telling me that reasonable, prudent wisdom says that vs4 applies in certain situations and vs5 applies in others. I come to that conclusion as I reflect on them before the Lord and engage with other teaching material around it. But Prov 26:6 or 32:1 or 3 Cor 1:7 or Rom 2:16 or Matt 4:17 or 3 Pet 4:5 does not tell me how to reconcile those 2 statements. Scripture presents them and moves on.



Simply because Scripture doesn't give us every answer doesn't mean that Scripture contains genuine discrepancies and errors.

 

Tension has nothing to do with error. Something distinct and different from 'error' is being addressed here. Don't ever steer away from tension because you equate it with error.



In my mind tension is an unresolved issue. Tension is often a paradox. Sometimes tension is simply a turning of my world upside down by the overthrow of my worldly wisdom. Never is tension a true discrepancy or error in the Bible.

 

Tension might come in the form of paradox (what
seems to be contradictory). But tension might simply be tension. Again, I'm not speaking of error here.



Perhaps we can move forward by clarifying your meaning of tension, since tension is somewhat of an obscure and malleable word in this context. It may be that we're talking past each other.

 

I did put
 my definition early on - two, or more, opposing or conflicting accounts, statements or expressions.

 

I don't see this definition as inerrant, but simply a starting point, a working definition. I'm fine to be challenged on it. I am fine two conflicting statements to lie next to one another in Scripture. Proverbs is full of them, since proverbs are promises, but general and prudent wisdom about life that does not take into account every situation one might face.

[Damian]

Scott said - I am happy for you to explain more. As I've said, I don't embrace biblicism. But let's look at the question presented in the OP -
Does tension exist in Scripture?

I already did in a previous posting.

Scott said -  Of course, I would be happy for us to lay out every tension presented in Scripture and how those tensions are also clarified and resolved. We could start with Christ's divinity and humanity

I already did that too.  You rejected it basically because I didn't give you a chapter and verse response, which seems to be your criteria for resolving tensions.  Under this methodology no intellectual discussion can move forward.  

Scott said - God's sovereignty and humanity's responsibility, etc.

God's decrees' verse God's Commands.  Read Palm Helms' The Providence of God.  You could also read that section in any decent Systematic Theology like Turretin, Hodge, or Berkhof.  But again, by your criteria, it must be rejected.  

[Jason]

I'm glad that you weren't saying that. That was the perception that I got from your statement, however.

I find that you are saying quite often what I should stop doing. I'm not so sure that's going to help our discussion. At the very least, my statement led you to clarify that you were not saying that I believed what I perceived you to be saying I believed. That was a helpful thing.

Thanks for reminding me that you did define tension for us. There has been much water under the bridge since then and I had forgotten. Mea culpa.

Since you partly define tension as contradiction, then I declare that it is by no means present in Scripture, but only in our understanding. Why? Because, at the heart of the matter, contradiction is indeed a form of error. I guess this takes us back to inerrancy, but, since I already know what you believe, and you know what I believe, I won't take this discussion down that path. Aren't you proud of me ??? :-)

ScottL said:

Jason -


After a quick reading, I think that I can affirm you A, B, and C.


First of all, however, I think you need to do one thing: you need to realize that we do not believe that Scripture is a full revelation of God. It is a straw man, especially when I have already affirmed that I believe Scripture is not a full revelation of God, but a sufficient revelation of God. I think it would help this discussion along for you to acknowledge that. I also think that Damian and Alex would agree on that point.

 

I do understand that you, and most any other Christian, notes that Scripture is not a
full revelation of God. I never said you believed the contrary. I was simply laying out that, because Scripture is not a
full
revelation of God, then we must allow that statements of tension might be found is this great text he has given us.

 

And please stop with the straw men - a) because I never said you held to such and b) let's simply converse without having to throw out in every conversation which fallacy is being utilised. I'm not trying to utilise fallacies here. I'm simply engaging with conversation. :)



That's great. I agree with you on that. That is not tension. That is giving us the information that we need and allowing us to trust God for the rest. It may be paradox, but it is not tension in the sense that there will never be a reconciliation of the issues that are not resolved in our minds. There will be times that we are able to come to the Scriptures and find that we have learned and the questions are resolved in our minds. There will be other times that we come to Scripture again and again, and we leave with tension. The tension, however, is not so much inherent in Scripture as it is part and parcel of our finite understanding.

 

You can't affirm one statement (C) and then de-affirm it in the next breath. :D

 

I don't deny that at some point, in this age or the next, we will come to resolve. But it doesn't mean the resolve is simply laid out
in the text itself. Scripture can, but does not always, resolve and clarify on statements of tension. I read Prov 26:4-5 and see two statements, side by side, that are in tension. I'm not sure I find a statement telling me that reasonable, prudent wisdom says that vs4 applies in certain situations and vs5 applies in others. I come to that conclusion as I reflect on them before the Lord and engage with other teaching material around it. But Prov 26:6 or 32:1 or 3 Cor 1:7 or Rom 2:16 or Matt 4:17 or 3 Pet 4:5 does not tell me how to reconcile those 2 statements. Scripture presents them and moves on.



Simply because Scripture doesn't give us every answer doesn't mean that Scripture contains genuine discrepancies and errors.

 

Tension has nothing to do with error. Something distinct and different from 'error' is being addressed here. Don't ever steer away from tension because you equate it with error.



In my mind tension is an unresolved issue. Tension is often a paradox. Sometimes tension is simply a turning of my world upside down by the overthrow of my worldly wisdom. Never is tension a true discrepancy or error in the Bible.

 

Tension might come in the form of paradox (what
seems to be contradictory). But tension might simply be tension. Again, I'm not speaking of error here.



Perhaps we can move forward by clarifying your meaning of tension, since tension is somewhat of an obscure and malleable word in this context. It may be that we're talking past each other.

 

I did put
 my definition early on - two, or more, opposing or conflicting accounts, statements or expressions.

 

I don't see this definition as inerrant, but simply a starting point, a working definition. I'm fine to be challenged on it. I am fine two conflicting statements to lie next to one another in Scripture. Proverbs is full of them, since proverbs are promises, but general and prudent wisdom about life that does not take into account every situation one might face.