Biblical “Inconsistencies” : Two Approaches
Posted by Pastoral Musings on August 22nd, 2012
Reading through Matthew, then Mark, and then Luke, a young person can get bored: Didn’t I see this story before? I get it already: How many people did Jesus heal? But something else happens, too. You begin to notice little inconsistencies. Did Jesus say that whoever is not with him is against him (Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23), or did he say that whoever is not against him is for him (Mark 9:40)? Who was there to visit Jesus’ tomb? How did Judas die (Matthew 27:1-10; Acts 1:18-19)?
An innocent Bible reader assumes there must be satisfactory resolutions to such problems. But no such explanations exist. Different biblical books simply tell stories differently. Some offer conflicting answers to important questions.
HuffPo (Emphasis mine.)
…it is a reasonable principle, recognized among critics of secular historians, that two writers must not be held to be contradictory where any natural mode of harmonizing can be imagined. Otherwise it amounts to holding that we know fully and thoroughly all facts of the case, – better even than eye-witnesses seem ever to know them.
Warfield, Works vol 1 pg 417
I think that it is obvious that there is only one of these approaches that is correct.
I think it is also obvious to the thinking person which approach is correct.
August 24th, 2012 at 8:17 am
Actually, there could be a third and possibly more balanced option.
Recognise tenions, or even contradictory details, do exist – like Mark’s gospel having Christ die on Friday while John has him dying on Thursday. Can only have died on one day, not both?
But, if we consider the intent and genre – that of theological narrative-history – I don’t think we have to get that bothered by such things.
Same in comparing Samuel-King and Chronicles. Either God incited David to take a census (2 Sam 24:1) or it was Satan (1 Chron 21:1). I don’t believe we even have to work hard to “harmonise” the accounts and say, “It was probably the Lord allowing Satan to do it.” Or something similar. We simply recognise these are two different books in the library of Scripture and they were given to two differing audiences, as well as the writers/compilers probably had differing resources to draw on, though no doubt sharing some of the same. Two different books in a library might talk of the same topic, but will always be different. Samuel-Kings is approaching things differently from the Chronicler.
Again, doesn’t make any of this false, deceptive, evil, etc. It does not have to be seen as detracting from Scripture being God-breathed and having an authoritative role. It simply recognises these guys were not trying to give straight up, objective history. They were shaping things in a way to teach and communicate a particular perspective into a particular group’s setting. We do very similar things ourselves.
Ah, and didn’t Warfield know that they weren’t all “eyewitnesses”. Our friends Luke and Mark were still giving their account, even as they drew on other testimonies.
[Translate]
August 25th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Actually that is the same as the first way. It is neither epistemologically, nor biblically defensible.
[Translate]
August 25th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
ScottL, If you have two accounts of the same event and they truly contradict each other, then you have error (as in one or both are wrong; one or both are not true). That Satan tempted David to take the census does not contradict the sovereignty of God, which these passages highlight. Check out Job. Satan was trying to incite him to despair and to curse God. God was directing the entire experience in His sovereignty. Perhaps you have a different dictionary than I do. But not true, um, well, not true.
[Translate]
August 29th, 2012 at 2:08 am
Jason -
I’m not sure you engaged with me. Of course, I could just as much assert that a modernist, empirical approach to truth is neither epistemologically nor biblically defensible, at least as we engage the data and reality before us. But I’m not sure that’s helpful in communication.
[Translate]
August 29th, 2012 at 2:23 am
EA -
If you have two accounts of the same event and they truly contradict each other, then you have error (as in one or both are wrong; one or both are not true).
Yes, if you feel the need to approach it from a more modernist, empirical paradigm. There is 1 or 2 options: a) try and reconcile all the data to make it ‘fit’ because truth calls for every detail to empirically and verifiably fit together or b) we see the data as not able to be reconciled and so we think it is false & deceptive.
Both of these, I believe, are approaching things very unhealthily – with an extreme ‘either/or’ perspective. I personally believe it leaves us either a) not being honest about what is before us or b) possibly abandoning the faith and testimony of Scripture because we came with very extreme and unhelpful expectations.
There are others suggesting a better approach – c) We recognise that the purpose and intent of a particular narrative, statement, story, proverb, etc, in Scripture. So, one cannot ‘fit’ John’s and Mark’s testimony together in a more objectively verifiable sense. They have Christ dying on different days. But what we do is recognise that they were not a mere objectively, empirical data report. They both had different intents, situations, settings, audience to whom they were writing. They wrote somewhat independently of one another. They were not being ‘objective’, in the most direct sense. But they were still faithfully communicating what they set out to communicate. God stilled breathed (theopneustos) upon their words.
This is why I am beginning to realise more and more that we have to start at an epistemological level, rather than simply quoting Bible verses and working our best (yes, our non-objective best) to try and make all details fit together. I believe the epistemology of modernism will fail both theoretically and practically. I will never accept some extreme paradigm the other way, as we would recognise in an anti-realist, postmodern perspective that says we can never grasp any truth. I am trying to approach things from what I believe is a somewhat balanced approach, known as practical postmodernism. Here we see an approach that says, “Yes, we can faithfully and reasonably come to know truth.” And I would caveat that by saying we can do this because God has graced us with being created in his image. We can know God, his truth, his revelation. But not in a 100% empirical, objective sense. And he has grace us with the multi-varied gifts that allow us to faithfully and reasonably grasp the truth: the active work of the Spirit, the Scriptures, the church historic, the current expression of the body, good general-natural revelation in God’s world.
If possible, I would encourage you to read these 2 posts on my blog, which is me interacting with the thoughts of a reformed theologian-philosopher from Calvin College by the name of Jamie Smith. I interact with his book, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?. Here is article 1 and here is article 2.
[Translate]
August 29th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
ScottL,
I must respectfully, but firmly state that you are either confused, or you are erecting a straw man. I am nor dealing empirically or according to modernism. I am speaking from a biblical, Christian Theistic epistemology, which teaches that the fear of the LORD is rhe beginning of knowledge.
There are no brute facts. All facts are interpreted. The biblical, Christian Theistic worldview understands that God reveals Himself to all men, all men have knowledge of God, and sin makes men foolish (Romans 1:18-22). Foolish men seek to view God and the world through their own eyes and interpret based pon their own authority. Christian Theistic epistemology understands that all knowledge is in and frim God, the source of all truth. Understanding hat God has revealed Himself, not only in the world, but in Scripture, we seek to subject every thought to Christ as He has revealed Himself in His Scriptures. We seek to respect the Scriptures and embrace the unerring truthfulness of them, because only they provide us with that which is necessary for knowledge and coherence. This means that we embrace, love, and welcome the fact that Scripture is inerrant as the Eord of God which provides us with the knowledge of God and the universe which we need. To deny that is to open the door for incoherence and remove the grounds for predication.
On the other hand, the postmodernism which you profess to follow makes truth subjective and resident within man instead of outside him, thus making man autonomous in authority. Not only so, but,embracing multiculturalism, postmodernism is supposed to be tolerant by definition/description. Oddly enough, the deeper ou go in this the more intolerant you are becoming. Your oneliners that you post on G+ and Twitter aten’t smart so much as sarcastic. They are also attacks on a biblical, Christian Theistic epistemology. That makes them anti-God in that they are rejecting Him as the supreme authority as the Truth.
These are hard words, I know, but hard situations call for exactly that. It is time ou abandon the misrepresentations, and it is also time to repent and ubmit to Scripture. With this in mind, I offer o buy and ship to you either The Knowledge of God or The Doctrine of The Word of God by John Frame as a token of friendship and as a token of my desire o help ou overcome the Bartian/Ennsian heresy that threatens to lead you farther than ou need o go.
In Christ Alone,
JLS
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 4:18 am
Jason -
I’m not sure what to say. You haven’t interacted with anything I’ve said, you’ve judged my motives, and you have tried to group me in with heretics. What can a man say? We could have discussed the in’s and out’s of things, graciously and as grown-ups. You are a precious and godly man, and I suppose the unhealthy discussions that have taken place at times in past months, even years, at Theologica has coloured your lens for any discussion around these topics to take place between you and I. I’ve never been perfect in interaction, but I can only say your comments as the champion of God’s true and right ways, with mine being pretty much heretical, is at best childish and at worst completely appalling.
I think it’s best that we not talk about these particular topics if it will only lead to frustration, distrust and anger.
Your brother
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 8:50 am
ScottL,
I am sorry that our discussion has come to this. I am most definitely imperfect in my interaction and wish to do better. I assure you that I am neither angry nor disgusted. I saw quite some time ago from your tweets and G+ statuses that it was heading in this direction. Your one liners probably seemed wise and smart, but, if you recall, issue was taken with some of them. Why? Because of the sarcasm that came across as well as the almost total rejection of Reformed theology. It has seemed for quite a while now that you have been subtly on the offensive against the inerrantist point of view and Reformed theology. I have been forebearing for months. It was simply time o firmly warn you and call ou to repent of the bad doctrine and the attack.
I can honestly say that I have not only interacted with what you said, but I have warned you repeatedly about the road you are travelling.
I did indeed interact by explaining that, while you claimed that I follow an empirical modernist worldview and you a postmodern worldview, I follow a biblical, Christian Theistic worldview and epistemology. I briefly explained that so that you would see where I am coming from. I then explained that your pomo doesn’t work, and that you interact inconsistently with its principle of inclusion.
Never in these things did I judge your motives. I have no idea what pushes you to embrace the things that you do. I tendered an offer to buy and ship to you an expensive book as a token of my love and sincerity. Instead of graciously receiving the warning (Which, by the way, wasn’t the first, either from me or from others on T about your position.), you have chosen to take the role of victim and imply that I am speaking childishly. I assure you that growm Christian men can take the heat that comes with the positions they take. That was what I expected of you, and I am disappointed to find it otherwise.
Furthermore, while I am glad that you implicitly admit that Barth and Enns are heretics, I did not group you with them, but strongly implied that they were inluencing you toward heresy.
Perhaps, instead of attempting to psycho-analyze me in a virtual setting and telling me what bad discussions have done to me, you should take stock of your own interactions which have led us to this point. Until recently, you have always seemed to be a reasonable man. Your tenacity in attempting to counter my views on inerrancy, owever, has gone beyond the bounds of reasonable discusion.
The offer of friendship and the offer of the book still stands.
In Christ,
JasonS
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 10:20 am
Scott, he’s right. In describing a “third way,” you’re essentially just repeating the point of the HuffPo article. The stultifying assertions “No such explanations exist” is utter and complete nonsense in many, many ways. Even granting for the sake of argument genuine contradictions, only an intellectually lazy person would say that what seems to ME in my place, time, culture, and language a discrepancy between two texts is without question a contradiction and that no further information, knowledge, understanding would clarify the situation for me. Don’t bother confusing me with any further facts. I’ll stick with my prejudice. That the team you want to be on???
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 10:22 am
John doesn’t have a Thursday crucifixion. Where on earth do you come up with that???
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 10:33 am
Respect, at a minimum, for the ancient writers demands giving the benefit of the doubt in terms of whether they are genuinely giving contradictory information or merely complementary.
Humility, at any rate, recognizes that we don’t know enough to make the kind of positive assertion of cotradiction that the HuffPo piece does. Any THINKING person ought to be embarrassed by that kind of talk.
Intelligence, seeing the data, considers what scenarios might be behind statements which may puzzle and present a challenge to fitting them all together.
Love, for God and brothers, hopes and believes all things, and is prejudiced toward these, and goes way beyond mere respect–which any reasonable interpreter ought to have by mere self-respect, and love holds it as a premise to expect the best until the worst is definitely demonstrated to be true.
Hate, on the other hand, jumps easily and quickly to the most disfavorable conclusion from data that is, in fact, wholly insufficient to the purpose.
Respect, humility, intelligence, love, these are virtues of the Kingdom. The HuffPo bit flatly demonstrates the hate that the unredeemed mind has for God.
Choose this day whom you will serve is all I can say.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 10:35 am
Well said.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Marv -
As one author notes:
‘John’s distinctiveness comes to the fore even more in those few instances where he provides his version of a story known in the Synoptics. The passion of Christ is a good example. According to the Synoptics (see Mark 15), Jesus ate a final Passover meal with his disciples on Thursday evening, after which he was betrayed, arrested, and put on trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin and Pilate in the early morning. After he was convicted, Jesus was crucified on Friday at the third hour (9:00 a.m.) and suffered until he died at the ninth hour (3:00 p.m).
John’s description of Jesus’s last few days is quite different (John 18:28-19:16). Jesus indeed ate a final meal with his disciples on Thursday evening, but it was not a Passover meal. We know this not only because John does not call it a Passover meal but also because John explicitly says that the meal occurred before the Passover (13:1-2) and explicitly identifies the following day as the day of Preparation of Passover Week (19:14 NIV). In fact, during Jesus’s Roman trial on Friday, the Jews were not willing to enter the palace of Pilate because they wanted to remain ceremonially clean for the coming Passover meal (18:28). So John places the death of Jesus on a different day than in the Synoptics, and this is joined by yet another temporal dislocation. John’s Gospel does not fix the crucifixion at the third hour (9:00 a.m.), as in the Synoptics, but at the sixth hour (noon).’
Technically, these details don’t line up in the ‘objective’ sense. But I do not think we have to head towards the conclusion that this is somehow false or deceptive or worse. John and the Synoptics (like Mark) have different intent, audience and situations they are addressing.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Marv -
First off, I’m not really connecting in to the Huff post article. Haven’t even read the article.
I think there are 2 aspects to consider:
1) In a technical-factual, and therefore, objective sense, there are contradictions (or tensions) that exist.
2) This is no contradiction in the form of misleading, deceptive, false motives.
I find #1 not important and #2 as helpful. You see, the typical approach I find amongst evangelicals is that we HAVE TO reconcile all the data because, well, if we don’t, then the conclusion is that we can ONLY have a non-inerrant, non-objective, falsified account. And thus we cannot trust the text. And if we cannot trust the text, then we must abandon the text in some form or fashion. It is, in my perspective, a grave over-reaction that many evangelicals take. So we have to keep working hard enough to reconcile the data, and if we cannot, then we can easily follow it up with a statement, ‘Well, we as humans simply don’t have enough information. But we will keep searching and it’s possible we will one day unearth enough data to see it reconciled 100%.’
I don’t believe we have to work that hard because we can recognise such things as genre, literary methods, ancient perspectives, particular audience, that the canon (though a whole) consists of multiple writings by multiple authors, a library of varied writings. I don’t have to perfectly reconcile John and the Synoptics, or Samuel-Kings and Chronicles. It misses the whole background, purpose and intent of each individual ‘book’ within the library of the canon.
I agree that hope believes all things, but, firstly, this is more from a practical perspective (i.e., me believing the best about Jason, or he believing the best about me). Now, in seeing hope played out in our trust of the text, I do believe and hope the best about the text. But this does not call to blindly toss things out that are presented within scholarship (similar to what happens amongst many Christians when presented with some scientific data – the easy thing is to simply claim it is not trustworthy, even complete rubbish). Though there are a lot of questions presented and tensions (or ‘contradictions’) raised by many scholars, here is where I find myself falling – I still do, in faith, believe that the text (the graphe) is what it says it is. I do see it as God-breathed, authoritative, coming providentially from our God. That is the true belief and hope deep in my spirit.
So, though it sounds nice and emotionally charged to say I’m simply not believing the best about the Scripture, I do believe I am upholding a great trust in God’s breath being very much upon Scripture, even in the midst of the critical scholarship one has to deal with outside of normative conservative evangelicalism. I am committed to the Scripture being exactly what Scripture says it is.
So I choose very much to serve our God, revealed in Christ and the gospel, as testified to in the God-breathed Scripture. I do not sway from that, even though I might not accept every nuance that you feel must be accepted, lest we head quickly down some slippery slope.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
ScottL,
Here’s the thing. I don’t think you intentionally undermine Scripture. Unintentionally, yes. That is why I speak up.
I also think that you misunderstand my approach. I don’t believe that we must perfectly reconcile apparent discrepancies, but do believe there is the possibility of doing so. I also believe that the breath of God is not so much upon Scripture as permeating Scripture and having given Scripture. That is more so what Paul said about it. That does make it God’s Word. Apparent discrepancies not withstanding, I believe that we must accpt Scripture to be true and hold to that, even if we find ourselves presently unable to find a solution. We should not think that he absence of a present solution means there ill never be a solution.
To say that contradictions may remain and Scripture remain true is an incoherent statement. Notice hat I said the statement was incoherent, not you. It is incoherent because it violates the law of non-contradiction. We cannot say that something is both true and not true at the same time. It won’t work. Such an idea undermines rationality.
ScottL, you’ve always been a favorite of mine from T. This isn’t personal; it is about Scripture and the fact hat your view removes the only ground for predication that we have.
The offer to buy and ship The Doctrine Of The Word Of God still stands.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Scott,
How do you know your “another way” is different from way one if you haven’t read it?
It’s the assertion “there are contradictions” that is the problem. This assertion you make and the same assertions made by whoever wrote that HuffPo thing.
That there are challenging distinctions in parallel texts, we all agree. You know many of the usual suspects. You even trotted out a few yourself.
Mind you, you’re own list is an odd one. One factually incorrect. The other an example of different focus though non-contradictory statement. And yet you use these two examples to support your statement (in one voice with the HuffPo thing)that there absolutely are contradictions. These two aren’t, but they somehow illustrate that there are contradictions.
The flip side, which the HP thing asserts–asserts an absolute negative (warning) that there are no explanations!!
You must realize, and surely will admit as a thoughtful and reasonable person, that in regard to any list of such “usual suspects” at least SOME of them WILL be amenible to explanations that remove any purported “tension.”
This is true in regular life as well as in Biblical Studies. Has to be. A good deal of this is merely our ignorance. You can admit this, no?
In fact, I assert that the only reasonable POV is that the vast, vast majority of such potential contradictions are of this nature. It isn’t that we HAVE TO think this to support anything. It’s that this is the only reasonable thing to say, barring prejudice against the texts and their writers.
So therefore the statement “there are no explanations” is completely unreasonable.
What one might say, the BEST that POV can say is that we have several instances where, due to the nature of the evidence, little chance exists to satisfactorally reconcile two apparently inconsistent statements.
Even then, no one can assert absolute knowledge that the apparent inconsistencies are in fact true inconsistencies. Not without a time machine.
To do so is arrogant in the extreme. And so not something you’d endorse.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Jason -
Your comments are still baffling to me. You are still approaching me as if I am heading down some path of heresy, or possibly even embraced it now. Please don’t be offended when I say this, but this is outright silly.
Let’s forget your problems with Enns or Sparks. There are plenty of solid, Bible-honouring, God-fearing, evangelical Christians that could not even fathom your accusations. I am very serious here. Yes, I agree that you would be grouped with a more conservative approach to things. But you really have to get off the high horse of claiming that you are the one upholding and championing God’s real truth, while I am simply attempting to destroy all measures of God’s truth and revelation. It really is silly and unhelpful for actual healthy dialogue. I meet with pastors and theologians of all sorts from America and Europe that would likely challenge your perspective as being too narrow, part of a particular American tribal evangelicalism. Again, please don’t be offended. But all I’m saying is that the emotionally charged banter of you as the upholder of the truth and me as the almost-heretic one denigrating any sense of truth is simply silly. I really don’t know what else to say. I really have to ask that you stop doing this. To mark out as heretics people like Barth or Enns or whomever within the actual fold of orthodox Christianity, I cannot even fathom it. Disagree with people. But to claim them as heretics when they aren’t is just as dangerous as being a heretic. Look back at something like Nicaea.
It is true that I have become dissatisfied with some of the reformed, evangelical perspectives that I once held to. They simply have not met me in Christ in the way that I believed they would or should. It’s probably more of a direct problem with some of the neo-reformed approaches in American evangelicalism today. Some of it, I believe is unhelpful. It’s possible they got off track from some of the fathers. But as I’ve said before, I need a bit more interaction with the fathers of old. But I am not satisfied that this paradigm is the full set of helping people understand the purposes of God.
I do push at times, in a provocative sense. But, as one wise man said, there is a time to… I’m typically very gracious in my interaction. I was always chided as the nice guy over at Theologica. I still approach things that way. I’m not a fan of sarcasm, which is rampant in some forms on blogging. And, yes, one-liners in Twitter (or G+) aren’t always telling the whole story. And I can definitely confess that there have been times when things could have been better left alone. But, at times, some things need to be stated, and so I take the opportunity. You don’t have to follow me on Twitter or G+ if it upsets you. I am fine if you’d rather me not comment here. I do come here to interact, and sometimes with some prodding to possibly make you think through some things, some presuppositions. But I generally think you will interact with grace.
As I’ve stated, it’s very easy to say you hold to a Theistic Christian biblical worldview. But, you see, you only think you do.
Of course everyone claims to hold to the best Theistic Christian biblical worldview. That’s what we are dialoguing about. As I see it, there are deep roots of a more modernist, post-Enlightenment empiricism in your approach. You cannot deny it because you make statements like these – Truth is always objective. Scripture is always objective. Only Scripture provides us with that which is necessary for knowledge and coherence. And that might be the actual Theistic Christian biblical worldview you claim, but it is also a modernist framework. You cannot get away from it. Study the in’s and out’s of modernism thought. Again, it might be the framework that Scripture presents, though I don’t believe it is. But it is still modernist. I can guarantee you pre-moderns, or biblical writers, did not approach things the same way. But I am BY NO MEANS holding to an anti-realist perspective that says we can never understand truth, God’s revelation. It’s silly and untenable with simple common sense reality. But I hold more of what I think is a balanced approach, a pragmatic realist approach – we can really know truth, but not as dogmatically objective as the rationalist, modernist view claims.
In all, I cannot see us moving forward if you continually see yourself as the high protector of God’s real truth while I am the kind of wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing here to distort any notion of truth or God’s revelation in Scripture. I will help us get……nowhere.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Jason -
I don’t believe that we must perfectly reconcile apparent discrepancies, but do believe there is the possibility of doing so.
As I read you, what I am interpreting is better stated this way: I don’t believe that we, as humans, can perfectly reconcile apparent discrepancies, but I do believe there is the possibility of doing so if we study and research all available data. And, if in the end, we never do reconcile things, it’s because we don’t have enough date because, yes, in the end, all things can be reconciled.
That seems a good summary of your comment.
Your commitment to the law of non-contradiction seems to be overriding God’s revelation in Scripture itself. You continually turn to it as the trump card that settles it all.
We have already established, or I have, very much that truth can be truth and not be objectively factual. The convictional power of the Holy Spirit in your’s and I’s life is hardly objective. But I believe very much that it is true. The convictional power of the gospel is hardly empirically objective. Nevertheless, the gospel’s work in my life, by the same Spirit, is very much true.
As I keep quoting elsewhere, as one Christian film maker said – Fiction — though rarely factual — is often True.
Are quoted proverbs from Egyptian wisdom literature objective fact? Or does that characteristic just happen once it is put into the canon? Are parable stories objective fact? Are songs of praise simply objective fact? Are the emotions of two lovers in Song of Songs objective fact? Are two accounts of the same event with varying differing details objective, empirical fact?
I’d say the answer is, No. But I would say that all of these very much present God’s truth and revelation. The conviction of the Spirit and gospel, the assimilation of Egyptian proverbs, the songs sung from the deepest emotions of David, the expression of sex between 2 lovers, the differing details of the passion week in the Gospels. They are all true, but not from the framework of empirical, factual, objective data.
So it is not incoherent to say that something is not factually objective but true. Jason Skipper is a godly husband and father. I have stepped outside the factual, objective category. But it is nevertheless very much true.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Marv -
What one might say, the BEST that POV can say is that we have several instances where, due to the nature of the evidence, little chance exists to satisfactorally reconcile two apparently inconsistent statements.
This is more well-balanced. This is a better approach.
But I am not a fan of this approach usually given, which I stated in my comment above to Jason: I don’t believe that we, as humans, can perfectly reconcile apparent discrepancies, but I do believe there is the possibility of doing so if we study and research all available data. And, if in the end, we never do reconcile things, it’s because we don’t have enough date because, yes, in the end, all things can be reconciled.
It’s the get-out-of-jail-free card used so often without honest engagement.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
ScottL,
You were always one of my favorites on Theologica from my first day there, and I am very disappointed with how this has played out. To this point you’ve not interacted with my arguments at all. You’ve chosen to do everything but call names; and you came very close to that by speaking of my acting childishly and referring to my stance as silly.
Not only have you done that, but you have refused to acknowledge my offer to buy and ship to you a book that would take approximately $50 out of my pocket. I offered you a token of friendship as well as a sign of my sincerity, and you have insulted me by ignoring it.
There is no excuse for this, ScottL. None at all. We can discuss this charitably, and I will gladly continue to try to do so. I will not, however, continue a discussion where so many straw men and ad hominem arguments are presented.
Back up and read what I’ve said. I’ve said that you are on a path that is not good. It is what it is. There’s no need to pretend that Enns hasn’t provoked much controversy with his book and views. There is no need to pretend that there have not been many who reject that view as wrong and borderline heretical. One only need search the internet to find that there are folks with credibility who declare that there is a huge problem with that view. One of the problems is that the view doesn’t only relate to Scripture, but to the person and perfections of Christ.
Wow! Speaking of emotionally charged and misrepresenting one’s words, this takes the cake, ScottL. I am on no high horse. I do not present myself as the one upholding and championing God’s truth as if I thought myself alone and above others; yet that is what you insinuate.
I did not say that you attempted to destroy all measures of God’s truth and revelation. That is not at all what I said. If you wish to speak of silliness, you may wish to examine yourself, as you have sinned against me, which is more than silly- it is false witness.
I honestly don’t care if you think me too narrow. I’m not speaking to curry favor with you. If that were the case I would be a “yes man”.
What I have said has been no more emotionally charged than what you have said. In fact, I believe it is right that we be passionate about what we believe. The difference between the two of us on this issue is that I have worked hard to give you good reasons for my beliefs while you have emoted and ranted against me as though I have abused, accused, and misused you.
You wish to ask me to stop writing what I believe on my blog? Seriously, ScottL, this is typical liberal, post modern emotional blackmail. You are a better person than that. You are not the ScottL who helped me so much when I first joined Theologica. You are now refusing to reason with me and blaming me for being the problem. Again, playing the victim card won’t work with me, and it truly disappoints me that you are doing that and dishonestly misrepresenting what I’ve been doing here.
No doubt we all err. I don’t think that Reformed Theology is perfect. I simply think it is the best approach available at the present.
ScottL, this isn’t about whether or not I follow you on G+ and Twitter. It is about your overall attitude as of late- something that you are refusing to acknowledge while accusing me of being the one with the sinful approach.
I certainly am not asking you to stop commenting here.
Look at what you’re doing here. You are over reacting. I’ve tried very hard to be calm, and think that I have, though I speak very plainly. Now, however, you are speaking of cutting the ties and burning bridges. Again, this is not the ScottL I met on Theologica three years ago.
Ok. I’ll call it a presuppositionalist view point. That is fine. It doesn’t change what it is. No, it is not modernist at all. It is biblically based. Modernism is related to the Enlightenment, empiricism, and rationalism, all of which are definitely not Theistic points of view. Postmodernism isn’t theistic, either.
Why not interact with my arguments instead of casting aspersions? You’ve not once dealt with my arguments for a biblical Christian Theistic/presuppostionalist epistemology.
Once again, you have stated something that I did not say. I did not say that at all. I fear that someday this conversation will be a true embarrassment to you, as you look back and recognize that you have so badly misrepresented me.
The offer of the book remains, and the offer of friendship remains. I’ll also gladly dialogue with you, but to do so must be done with the understanding that I expect interaction with my arguments instead of aspersions. I am your friend and love you in Christ. Where this conversation goes from here is in your hands.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
ScottL,
Thanks for interacting with some of what I’ve said. Maybe this will take us somewhere.
A good summary? That was a very poor summary. Is it possible to reconcile? Yes, I say. Must we reconcile everything at the present? No, I say. Are there solutions? Indeed there are. There are large volumes that deal with the alleged discrepancies.
ScottL, can something be both true and not true at once? No. Interestingly enough, Scripture tells us that no lie is of the truth. It also tells us that God is true, without iniquity, and His work is perfect. Meditating on these things will help us to understand that truth is absolute.
Can you honestly say that something can be “A” and “non-A” at the same time? No.
No, you have not established that; you have assumed that.
What you are discussing is not truth, but the effects of truth. Truth is objective. It is not based upon you, does it have its foundation and existence in you. It comes to you and me from without. That is what objective is about.
I don’t know why you continue to bring empiricism into the discussion. I certainly haven’t, and to insinuate that I believe that everything must be empirically proven would simply be wrong.
Proverbs, songs, and emotional expressions can still be objectively true. For example: “Roses are red, violets are blue” is objectively true. That is poetry, yet it is true. I could also tell my wife, “Sugar is sweet, and so are you, and I love you.” That is objectively true, because my love for her is true.
Even figurative language such as that found in Psalm 36, where David speaks of God’s wings, is still objectively true. It is objectively true in that it is a figurative way to speak of God’s power and protection. Figurative language does not undermine the validity of the truth conveyed by the language. The truth of the language is not found within me, because I don’t determine its truthfulness; that is what subjectiveness is. Truth is true whether I receive it or not. That is why we must hold to truth being objective.
Please do yourself a favor and look up the meaning of objective and subjective. You are not using them rightly, and it will help us much.
Why do you think that it is not objectively true that I am a godly husband and father? If you insist that it is not, you insult me. Think about it.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
One more thing on this:
Actually, what I’m saying is that a presuppositional approach to epistemology will cause us to believe that the Bible is true even if we don’t have all of the data on hand that we wish we had. It remains true even if I am unable to presently reconcile all apparent problems.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
It’s true that on the other side, we cannot claim to know that the two events reconcile the way we suggest. But I don’t think this is what anyone is saying. What we object to is the claim to the existence of contradictions–that positive assertion–when seriouly speaking cannot be backed up by anyone who is both reasonable and intelligent.
This is whay Jason’s post states, if I read him right.
I believe there are no errors. Fine. But I don’t ask everyone to have this conviction. I do think it is what disciples of Jesus Christ should believe. But each of us answers to his own Master. (Certainly not to me.)
But that is not what this post is really about. It’s about what is reasonable and unreasonable in dealing with textual differences. What is consistent with intelligent thought and what is not. Many who take the HuffPo line seem to congratulate themselves in being the ones who have a brain, but this particular instance rather shows a lack of actually employing that brain.
Beyond this, I’m surprised even at the lameness of the examples usually trotted out. Judas’ death? Gimme a break. Are you smarter than a fifth grader? Did he say this or did he say that. Hey, clue phone, it’s for you: He said lots of things, said them more than once, said them in more than one form…
At least the Easter events are a bit more of a challenge. But I submit they’re no more “contradictory” than any complex, real-life, multi-participant event, for which one has mere snippets of information.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Marv,
Thanks for understanding and backing me up.
I truly don’t wish to be disrespectful to ScottL, or to anyone else. I do wish to uphold an epistemology that is correct, and to deny the truthfulness of Scripture is to undermine our only ground for rationality; but I repeat myself.
[Translate]
August 30th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
You guys are using a lot of words to say “frau hulda”. You could at least pepper it with more insults like Luther would.
[Translate]
August 31st, 2012 at 2:56 am
You wrote: God stilled breathed (theopneustos) UPON their words.
Reply: A preposition can say a lot, ScottL. The Word is breathed OUT (from the very being of God: it is HIS word given through the instrumentality of His chosen vessels), NOT breathed upon (indicating an acceptance or blessing of a merely human work).
THIS is the foundational difference between your paradigm and that of Christ’s and the early church. They unhesitatingly affirmed the Word and did not differentiate between something given by man or something given by God.
[Translate]
August 31st, 2012 at 2:58 am
Jason -
I need to clarify. Nothing I said started from any emotionally charged place. It was really questions and proddings to challenge what I think are not solid foundations of epistemology, which affects our view of Scripture. My attitude has not really been that of a nasty person. I don’t like functioning that way. I have failed at times, as I’ve confessed, and I can be provocative at times. But I don’t like sarcasm, arrogance, etc.
I became upset when I saw you judging motives, calling me out as one falling down a dangerous (almost heretical path). Things like this have upset me, and I believe it’s worth such a response. I am nowhere near a dangerous path. Seriously. I cannot even fathom this when faithful people like McKnight, Wright, Jamie Smith, and others would argue exactly the same way. So I am challenging back that we stop approaching this as you trying to save me from the path of destruction. Rather we approach it as 2 brothers seeking God, considering aspects of epistemology, and trying to faithfully understand Scripture as Scripture was meant to be understood. We are simply 2 people who interact in the blogosphere world. And I have come to appreciate years of it with people like you, Rey, Marv, Daniel and others. But this is almost a pseudo-brotherhood, is it not? Interact with me, point by point. Lets talk about epistemology, Scripture, truth, christology, etc. But my life and ministry are accountable to quite a few folk in my life that come to be in real flesh & blood, people that have walked with me for many years now. Let me walk in accountability with them. Let us enjoy theological/philosophical dialogue here. It just comes across quite belittling as you almost trying to save me from the path of destruction.
With Frame’s book, I would be fine for you to send it to me. Do know I was not being rude. As trying to interact with some of the challenges in your comments, I just simply forgot or didn’t think it important. I am not trying to be rude. I could make a copy of something simple like Spark’s first chapter or send you Jamie Smith’s book. I’m not sure interacting with their epistemological foundations will change things for you. You’ve probably yet to read the links I left for the 2 articles. It’s ok, but I think they have nailed something. And again, I chuckle every time I think of Jamie Smith being a staunch reformed, evangelical Calvinist. But he thinks perspectives like DA Carson and other reformed modernist perspectives is not helpful.
So no rudeness was ever meant from the beginning. We talked about believing the best in one another. I still believe the best in you. I am convinced, though not objectively,
that you are an extremely godly man. I have no doubts to that. But I still do not appreciate the perspective of trying to almost ‘save me’. Can we interact point by point and leave the saving aside. I am very much committed to following Christ, believing the good news, submitting my life to accountable people, seeing the Scripture as authoritative, etc.
[Translate]
August 31st, 2012 at 3:18 am
Jason -
It is coming down to epistemology here. This is why we cannot much discuss the nature of God’s truth and revelation in Scripture until we first interact around epistemology.
Do you really believe a story is objective, factual truth? Meaning this – Do you believe a story is completely, 100%, rationally understandable for all people’s of all time’s, no questions asked?
I tell my son a story now in English – about a little boy meeting a penguin and they become friends, and how this communicates the importance of friendship. Let’s say I head to the rural parts of the Serengeti in Africa and tell the same story. Is that same story going to objectively translate into this people’s lives? No way! I have to re-translate, maybe talking of a little boy (who now has African black skin) making friends with a cheetah. They, in such a rural area, cannot comprehend snow, penguins, and the like. They’ve never been to ‘school’ to even know other places have it. So, what do I do, I take the truth reality of the story and retranslate it into their context. This act simply proves that the story – to both my son and the rural African – are truth, but they do not fall into the category of objective, rationally understood truth.
It is closely connected with interpretation. We not only interpret things now with Scripture, but the writers themselves interpreted things. Things happen, and we might call them factually happening. But an interpretive measure takes place in the observation and writing, as well as the latter reading and preserving of that truth. We have too much going for us to say it should all be chucked away. But to simply say, “It’s all objectively true in Scripture, not if’s, and’s or but’s about it,” I think is to not actually understand how truth and revelation is communicated, maintained, passed down, recorded, interpreted, etc.
Even a simple statement of, “I went to the store,” seems pretty straightforward. And it is more than other things. But there is still an interpretive element in writing down what seems an “objective” statement. You made the decision yourself to write it simple and short. You made the decision to leave out all the details. You made a decision not to tell why you were going to the store. This does not take away from the truth reality of the statement, but your intent, audience, situation and motives removes it from being simply identified as “objectively and factually true” in the most pure sense. God communicates well that way. But God is also very aware that if he communicated in his perfect God-way, we might explode or something worse. So God condescends by using his own finite and fallen people to communicate his truth. This is why Bible versions like the New Living Translation can be helpful. Moving across one language to another moves things our of the objective and simply empirical factual data. And we need not even deal with the reality of what it means in the providence of God to not spare the originals, which most people identify as the only inerrant (fully objective and factual??) records.
There is so much here that has to be discussed around epistemology, what is truth, what is revelation, what is objective, what is subjective, the history of different thought paradigms, etc. The story of the boy and the penguin remains truth about friendship, as well as the one about the African boy with the cheetah. Scripture remains true as it quotes wisdom statements from pagan societies, as it quotes pagan poet philosophers, as it tells stories, as it gives us songs, as it celebrates the sexual union of 2 people, as it gives apocalyptic visions, etc. It all remains very much true. But it is not so simply categorised as ‘objectively factual’ to which all rationality can assent to. The psalm that celebrates smashing their enemies’ babies heads against the rocks moves out of the objective because it is not a command of God in the revelation we have of Jesus Christ. Something objective also stays true for all times. God stays true for all times. His mediated word progresses and moves on into the greater light that we find in Christ.
Ok, I could go on. I’m probably not helping at all. It’s a long path in addressing all of these things.
[Translate]
August 31st, 2012 at 3:22 am
Thanks EA. I did not mean anything with that nuance of “upon” instead “out”.
Still, let’s remember what the passage says: All Scripture is God-breathed…
Theopneustos points to the characteristic of God’s breath, or his Spirit. Simply translated – God-breathed.
As I understand it, there is not a distinguishing so much around the characteristic of out, in, upon, by, etc. It’s interesting to ponder this theo-philosophically. But the theopneustos is simply best translated God-breathed (without an English preposition following).
[Translate]
August 31st, 2012 at 3:37 am
Marv -
As Jason and I recognise, this is more about an epistemology, knowing how truth is communicated and interpreted.
God is absolutely objective. As I’ve said elsewhere, at T, the normative verses we like to quote that says that God’s word is perfect, and thus Scripture is perfect, is not talking about the graphe text. Ps 12:6 and others are not talking about the graphe, especially since the graphe as we know it and ascribe ‘inerrancy’ (objectivity??) was not really formulated in that time. This is why I have begun to distinguish between the direct word of God and the mediated word of God. Both give revelation, both are true. But only the first fits into what we identify as objectivity. The other does not. But this does NOT negate the fact that it is true and revelation from our revelatory God.
Yes, God will communicate absolutely. But I cannot even fathom that human beings, both finite AND fallen, can turn around and communicate 100% objectively back the revelation they receive. I DO NOT DOUBT that God has still faithfully communicated his revelation and truth to us. Very much so! There is too much going for us around the testimony and power of the gospel, the Spirit’s work, the Scripture, the church historic, the current church, reasonable interaction with truth propositions, general revelation in creation, etc, etc, that could ever sway me away from Christ and the gospel. But to claim that finite and fallen humans can turn around and communicate EXACTLY like God himself, EXACTLY OBJECTIVE, it just doesn’t compute with reality – now or then. And to suggest that somehow, in the writing of Scripture, God provided a protective layer or something to make sure it came out 100% objective when written in Scripture, I believe, fails to consider the realities of human fallenness, human finiteness, and even the practicalities of how the text came to us over centuries and how it’s been passed on even now for centuries. Even if we could epistemologically, propositionally and objectively prove that the ‘originals’ all fit nice and neatly into an objective construct, I am baffled that God did not seem that bothered to preserve these originals that we claim have the full inerrant and objective characteristic that we so fight for.
So when we come down to the text, we recognise different motives, different situations, different audiences, etc. From an OBJECTIVE point of view, all the details do not live up OBJECTIVELY. I’m not pulling any card that is denigrating Scripture. To misattribute an OT prophecy to the wrong prophet, to have Jesus dying at a different day and hour, to have one text (Chronicles) make David to be the perfect leader and to have another (Samuel) show all his warts (these 2 authors/compilers had different motives) all removes it from the objective. It allows for tensions, I’d even call it contradictions at times, depending on the text we are considering (at least contradiction from “objective” reality). But they all remain true and God’s revelation in the God-breathed Scripture.
[Translate]
August 31st, 2012 at 4:41 am
Bear with the student within me as I quote from “An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: the Search For Meaning” by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., & Moisés Silva.
I could spend time paraphrasing, but this says it much better than I could.
“My theological system should tell me how to exegete. . . . Three considerations make that position not merely defensible but indeed the only real option. . . . first . . . systematic theology is . . . an exercise in contextualization, that is, an attempt to reformulate the teaching of Scripture in ways that are meaningful and understandable to us in our present context. Second . . . our evangelical view of the unity of Scripture demands that we see the whole Bible as the context of any one part. . . . To the extent that we view the whole of Scripture as coming from one Author, therefore, to that extent a systematic understanding of the Bible contributes to the exegesis of individual passages. . . . Third, my proposal will sound a lot less shocking once we remember that . . . everyone does it anyway. . . . all of us read the text as interpreted by our theological presuppositions. . . . The very possibility of understanding anything depends on our prior framework of interpretation. If we perceive a fact that makes sense to us, the simple reason is that we have been able to fit it into the whole complex of ideas that we have previously assimilated.”
from pp. 261-263.)
Whatever we bring to the table (our worldview, concepts of inspiration, etc) influences our exegetical processes. If you believe God is somehow not sufficiently powerful to superintend the recording of His Word, you are likely to arrive at very different conclusions than those who do.
[Translate]
August 31st, 2012 at 9:31 am
ScottL,
Thanks for your reply. I was afraid you would simply back out and drop it, and I don’t want that. I value our interaction too much for that to happen.
I think very highly of you. I do believe that the direction you are taking is not a good one. I do not see how I can refrain from making a judgment call on that so long as I believe that. That being said, I did not, and am not judging your motives. I’m not saying, “ScottL wants to be accepted in academic circles, so his pride is driving him to embrace this viewpoint”. That would be judging your motives. Judging that it is a wrong direction is a different thing, and the fact that you misunderstood that has driven much of this interaction. I have no idea what your motives are. I think they are high motives. I think you are trying your best to grapple with data that you believe presents various problems. I do not judge you as having unworthy motives. Motives and direction are two different things.
Sadly, through all of this, I believe that we both have misunderstood each other to some extent- maybe more than we both realize.
Yes, we had a virtual brotherhood at Theologica. I miss that, yet T. is not what it once was. Discussion is not the same. I think it has outlived its usefulness to a great degree.
Interacting point by point was my intent. With that in mind, I shall try to abstain from answering your points here and try to write a series of posts beginning with establishing my epistemological views, and then build on that.
Email me your address, please, and I’ll send you the book. I’ve begun reading Enns’ book. I have Inspiration and Adam, so I’m not sure that you have to send me anything. Of course, if you think you have something that addresses the issue better than Enns, fire away
[Translate]