If The Scriptures Are True We Can Know What They Say

This article is a response to a comment in another thread. To discuss the comment there would distract from the intended conversation so I'm starting a new discussion here.

When I interpret Scripture I always start with three fundamental premises that are declared in Scripture. First that ALL Scripture is plenarily inspired by God the Holy Spirit Himself (this means that right down to every jot and title is inspired). Second that God cannot lie. Titus 1:2 Third that the Word of God does not have trickery, falsehood, all is plain. Proverbs 8.

If I am using a good translation of the Scriptures then I can confidently say that anything that I read that seems to falsify any of those three fundamental and declared premises is untrue and related to my lack of understanding.

There can be no in context disagreement between Jesus, Paul, Peter, Isaiah… and so on. If there is a in context disagreement between them found in the Scriptures then Christianity is a lie. Either God is true and every man a liar or He is not the God He claims to be which would make Him a liar unfit for worship and unable to save.

With this bit of business out of the way I’d like to reply to your post. First let me quote you in whole so as to maintain your context for our readers.

I have yet to meet, or read on line, a Bible-believing Christian who does not explain away some Biblical reference which fails to conform to their own view of what a Bible-believing Christian should believe. One example in my personal experience was the pastor who teaches that Christians should never drink alcohol, then said that surely our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would not have turned water into wine for the guests at a wedding feast. I have the same problem with explaining away James 2:14-26 as "about justification before men, not before God." That is not what James said. That is what someone who doesn't want to believe James is talking about justification before God would naturally suggest. Martin Luther had the same problem - he came close to arguing that James should be deleted from the Protestant version of the Bible, along with six books accepted by the Roman church which WERE deleted.

I believe that if two Bible verses conflict, we generally have to admit that no doctrinal explanation, which is necessarily a matter of human reasoning, can reconcile them. WE can't be the ones to chose which verse modifies the other verse, or vice versa. The only exception is, if Jesus said it, then it takes precedence over Paul, Peter, James, John... But we can only hope we understood Jesus correctly.

Since salvation is ultimately a matter of grace, not our own merit, I don't believe most of the criteria being discussed here are definitive. Does God have the power and authority to extend his grace to one who has not trusted that the Christ paid the full price of their sins? Could God of his mere grace and mercy forgive someone who seeks to please God on their own terms? Of course, whether we like it or not. God may even extend his grace to an atheist. If He does so, none of us will have anything to say about it.

Now I would like to reply on a though by though basis.

I have yet to meet, or read on line, a Bible-believing Christian who does not explain away some Biblical reference which fails to conform to their own view of what a Bible-believing Christian should believe

That’s quite a statement. I’d find it more believable if you were to say that you haven’t found someone you think is completely consistent. The classis “What do you DO with this verse then?” is along the same thinking as your statement here. Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean they are “explaining away” anything. I don’t mean to be offensive, but that question, and the statement you made says more about the person asking and making it than the person they are describing.

I challenge you to find a single instance of me “explaining away” any verse in the Bible, which is what you are accusing me of here. There are challenging portions of Scripture that require deep study, but that doesn’t mean one must explain it away. I might very well “explain away” someone’s understanding of a verse, but only if that understanding is not supported by Scripture. Such as the case with people claiming that James 2 indicates that Salvation is dependant on works. Scripture overwhelmingly destroys such a thought front to back. So to keep that understanding of those verses, in denial of the rest of Scripture, truly makes someone miss what James was inspired to write about. We miss the true value of these verses when we force them to mean what they do not.

One example in my personal experience was the pastor who teaches that Christians should never drink alcohol, then said that surely our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would not have turned water into wine for the guests at a wedding feast.

It is unfortunate that you’ve experienced inconsistent preaching…. But as you mention it is very common. Christians are “allowed” to drink alcohol of course. They were drinking “strong” wine at the Passover Feast (the last supper). Also if we actually read what Scripture says on the subject we find that alcohol robs us of wisdom but it is not prohibited. We suffer because of it but there is no law or command against using it.

I have the same problem with explaining away James 2:14-26 as "about justification before men, not before God." That is not what James said. That is what someone who doesn't want to believe James is talking about justification before God would naturally suggest. Martin Luther had the same problem - he came close to arguing that James should be deleted from the Protestant version of the Bible, along with six books accepted by the Roman church which WERE deleted.

If James 2 means that Salvation is by faith & works then it is not part of inspired Scripture and should never be included with Scripture. This is the reason the Catholic books are not part of the Bible, they are inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. However, James 2 does not mean what that, and it is inspired Scripture.

I believe that if two Bible verses conflict, we generally have to admit that no doctrinal explanation, which is necessarily a matter of human reasoning, can reconcile them. WE can't be the ones to chose which verse modifies the other verse, or vice versa. The only exception is, if Jesus said it, then it takes precedence over Paul, Peter, James, John... But we can only hope we understood Jesus correctly.

Then we are in a very bad way. “But we can only hope we understood…” This thinking puts us in the driver’s seat. We are no longer believing God Almighty, we are fashioning a god of our own making… that doesn’t go over very well with the True God of the Universe.

You should notes that Jesus didn’t pen any of the Bible, even His own words… Writers inspired by God the Holy Spirit wrote ALL of it. No Scripture is of any private interpretation – we are not involved in deciding what it means. We can’t pick and choose. It all fits together because it is all true. There is no portion of Scripture that takes authority over any other part. It is “all given” for study and correction.

Since salvation is ultimately a matter of grace, not our own merit, I don't believe most of the criteria being discussed here are definitive. Does God have the power and authority to extend his grace to one who has not trusted that the Christ paid the full price of their sins? Could God of his mere grace and mercy forgive someone who seeks to please God on their own terms? Of course, whether we like it or not. God may even extend his grace to an atheist. If He does so, none of us will have anything to say about it.

If God were to violate His own word then that would make Him a liar. He would no longer be righteous. Christ was able to pay our sin debt because He alone was qualified to do so. He was sinless. If God is a liar then Jesus is not sinless, and could not then have died “in accordance with the Scriptures” for our sins. He would have simply died like any other man hung on a cross.. and would have stayed dead.

If God lies, then Scripture is of no profit to men. If however, God is not a liar and His Word is perfectly true then we can actually trust it. If we can trust it then we can study what it says in the context of what it says and know for sure what it means.

These are the thoughts I had when I read the comment. How about you?