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?

[Marv]

Ha. Oh, now I get it. THAT Cain. Not the where'd-he-get-his-wife one... LOL.

Still he's a wander and vagabond in the earth..

Damian said:

Ha!  Thanks Alex.  But Scott is pretty smart!  And Cain does eventually get the stone.  But for Scott to leave the temple means his first stop will be Safenwil, and from there it's but a short stroll over the boarder to Marburg and into the loving arms of Mein Herr Bultmann.

But, Scott, "we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak" ;-)

Alex Guggenheim said:

Damian

Watching you interact with Scott on this matter is like an episode of Kung-Fu with Scott as the grasshoppa. Your responses are theologically masterful but more so edifying.

[Scott]

Alex -

 

I think the problem is that I would agree with all of the reasonable statements Damian has put forth, at least those regarding with dealing with tensions around, say, Christ's divinity and humanity. The only stickler is that he, and the church historic, did not reconcile the Scriptural data from Scripture alone. The started there, but moved out from there. Or with the whole God is not a liar and God sending a deceiving spirit example. The answers posited, whether helpful or not in engaging the tension, were not solely found in Scripture. Were they solely founded in Scripture? Scripture was not given as a systematic textbook to piece together passages from that book and that book to make sense, like a Grudem or Berkhof or Erickson text. Or was Scripture given to do such? I'd be fine for you to helpfully show how the whole God is not a liar and God sending a deceiving spirit example is reconciled in Scripture. What does Scripture say about a holy, righteous, perfect God send a lying spirit?



Alex Guggenheim said:

Damian

Watching you interact with Scott on this matter is like an episode of Kung-Fu with Scott as the grasshoppa. Your responses are theologically masterful but more so edifying.

[Alex Guggenheim]

I'd be fine for you to helpfully show how the whole God is not a liar

So we just quote Scripture without explanation? You have reduced your argument to the absurd.

But since you wish only to speak Scripture without explaining it this might solve your "is God a liar" dilemma:

Numbers 23:19a God is not a man, that he should lie

Hope that helps.

[Jason]

Alex,

ScottL is expecting you to have followed the discussion, I think. 

He presented that passage along with the passage you quoted and said that there is tension there. When he said, he wants you to show how that God is not a liar, he was asking for a reconciliation of the two passages.

I hope I have represented him correctly.

Alex Guggenheim said:

I'd be fine for you to helpfully show how the whole God is not a liar

So we just quote Scripture without explanation? You have reduced your argument to the absurd.

But since you wish only to speak Scripture without explaining it this might solve your "is God a liar" dilemma:

Numbers 23:19a God is not a man, that he should lie

Hope that helps.

[Alex Guggenheim]

Jason,

I did interact, I gave the explicit statement from Scripture that declares God does not lie. The tension is in Scott's mind. If the Bible makes an explicit statement about God then it is true. Scott obviously wishes to believe the statement is true but contradicted by an action of God instead of understanding that God does not lie therefore the passage must be understood in light of God's person, that he does not lie. Even if I explain it to him it appears this is not his interest but even more so, apparently he is "smart" as someone said and clearly he can google a plethora of commentaries on this providing him the explanation of its harmony with God. I am sure in his many days he has encountered the reply or explanation he appears to assume does not exist, I believe he simply rejects it because he prefers doubling down on a errant view of Scripture. 

But still, simply asserting something contradicts God does not make it so. I have yet to see him prove it exists as tension or a contradiction. He said it does, so make the argument.

[Scott]

Alex -

 

I sense an uncharitable comment towards me in your last comment. If I'm reading it wrong, I apologise.

  If the Bible makes an explicit statement about God then it is true. Scott obviously wishes to believe the statement is true but contradicted by an action of God instead of understanding that God does not lie therefore the passage must be understood in light of God's person, that he does not lie.

 

What I find problematic here is this - What makes you 'default' to the Num 23:19 passage as an 'explicit statement about God's person' as the informer of the passage 1 Kings 22:19-23? Why not allow the way God acts in 1 Kings inform how we understand Num 23:19?

 

Now, as I have tried to communicate, I agree with your assessment. I am very much there with you on your conclusions. But what you have done is allow one passage to trump the other. You did not show how Scripture reconciled the 2 statements.

  I believe he simply rejects it because he prefers doubling down on a errant view of Scripture.

 

Tension within the text is not related to inerrancy and errancy. I'm not arguing for or against either one of these.

[Scott]

I despise NING editing in comment boxes!

[Alex Guggenheim]

Scott

The affinity of Scripture requires just what you are describing. Propositions are understood as true based first on direct statements in Scripture. This is a hermeneutic norm. If there are inferences of allegedly contrary views in other places it is incumbent upon the one claiming otherwise with lesser texts to demonstrate how and why the direct statement is understood incorrectly and why the lesser, inferred passage, is superior. But even in this case you have to demonstrate inference which I do not see but more so prove your case against the explictness of the "Gos does not lie" statement. Otherwise the tension only exists in what the student cannot understand and not in the content of Scripture. May we understand God more in understanding the why and how of Ahab being sent a deception? Yes, but not to understand that God might be a liar sometimes but how God's intergrity is never compromised while using such devices. I despise Ning editing too.