How do we explain verses that disagree with our theology?

My thoughts are in red above...

 

God's word does not come down to a single verse. Not even a single chapter. I need not struggle with understanding, for He has told me that we see through a glass darkly, knowing only part.

My faith is in Him -- His scriptures help in knowing Him and His will, but they are not the great I AM. It is through Him that all things are possible. Simply be still and know that He is God.

 

Well, for one thing, just because someone believes in eternal security doesn't mean they don't believe in conditional security. I, for one, believe that security is conditional, but God meets those conditions within those who are his own so that they are eternally secure. Those who are born again are kept by the power of God. It is God's power that keeps them obedient, and works more and more obedience within them. Among other things, God's Spirit works in their hearts so that they will heed his Word with it's warnings of the dire consequences that would result if they were to reject him. In those who are new creatures, those warnings work to spur them on in their obedience to him.

 

The warnings in Hebrews are some of the most controverted scriptures, but there are several ways of understanding them in the OSAS and TULIP systems that make more sense than the Arminian system does. Personally, I think they warn the Jew that has professed Christ ,and become a visible member of the new covenant Gospel church, against turning back to Moses and the temple sacrifices; else they come into judgement which reveals their lack of true faith. The destruction of Jerusalem some years later annhiliates their hope in the temple and it's animal sacrifices.

 

no biblical doctrines come from one verse, they must be taught in more then one verse, through out the bible. Scripture interpeting scripture. You can not take one verse and interpet it and pit it against another verse, scripture all fits together like a puzzle does. You do not just interpet this verse, you interpet it in light of other verses, taking all into consideration.

 

I agree with your statement. After studying the Bible for years it's not that I still can't learn from it. However, I worship THE MAN not the book. I believe that someone can study the Bible and come up with a clear understanding of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said we can be saved, and how He told us to live our lives.

Most theological discussion deals with things that are peripheral to this understanding and are rather insignificant. Jesus told us that in order to be saved we must approach Him as a little child. If we don't, we will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Little children would not understand or be intereted in most of the theological arguments found on this board.

 

I apologize for not reading the whole post and going back to the OP but here is my thought.

If a verse truly "disagrees" with our theology then we change our theology.
Plain and simple.

However, what I think the question is, what do we do when a verse appears to conflict our theology which we base on another verse?

In that case you have to study and take the Bible as a whole.
Read in context and fine what theology fits all verses without making any conflict of any.

 

There's no difficulty here. Whatever discipline Paul accomplished, was accomplished by God's grace. We're told very explicitly, that it is God that works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure, Philippians 2:13.

We're also told that without holiness no man will see the Lord, Heb. 12:14, just as we're told that Jesus will keep us from falling and will present us faultless to His Father, Jude 1:24.

These things are a comfort who see Christ as their righteousness, and warning to those who attempt to establish their own righteousness.

Again, this means just what it says. Remember Judas who prophesied in Christ's name, and in Christ's name cast out devils, and in Christ's name did many wonderful works. But Christ never knew him, not in the sense of being one of the elect. He committed apostasy and never repented. Sure, he felt guilty and in dispair he hanged himself, but it was not the godly sorrow that worketh repentance, 2 Cor. 7:10.

Now think of the rest of the Eleven who fled and forsook Christ at the critical moment. Peter denied Christ not once, but three times. What was the difference between the Eleven and Judas? How is it that Judas betrayed Christ, and the Eleven did not fall so far? This reason, and this reason only:

Christ prayed for them, John 17:9, Luke 22:32. He did not pray for Judas.

From the beginning, Judas was a devil. He savoured money, and was a thief, yet he was numbered among the Twelve. And so there are those in the church today who are the Judas's of their generation. They are like the wayside, the stony ground, and the ground choked with thistles. They all received the seed of the Gospel, and in that sense they were enlightened, and tasted of the heavenly gift, and partook of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, but the Gospel took no root in their hearts and they fell away.

 

Context,
Context,
Context.

 

We have no choice but to be faithful to the text of Scripture. We must follow all the necessary steps to arrive at a proper understanding of Scripture.

We need to let the text shape our theology, not the other way around.

 

Get yourself a good book on hermeneutics. You can find one at CBD online at a discount. Look for authors like Zuck, Moo&Fee, Virkler, Ramm. All those guys are good.

 

Study the word. Paul urges Timothy in 2 Tim 2:15 to Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Do not make scripture line up with some man's doctrine. Believe the scripture.

 

My friend, think of God as your Father. He will not disown you away for a mistake, but he will punish you, even take your life if you live in rebellion (sinneth meaning sin and sin and sin and sin, etc.).
Whom God loveth he also chasteneth.
He says we will know "them" by their fruits." How is this possible unless we see that after they continue in sin and there is is or is not punishment, we can pretty much tell if they are children of God or not?

The short answer is, however, that if verses don't agree with our theology, we don't explain anything; we study and then understand, or we study and change our theology!

These are great questions.
RM

 

Often the verses which disagree with our Theology are "vice' related (often known as controversial "worldly" issues). Possibly it is an unwillingless to submit to what the Lord asks of us. Of course, this isn't always the case. This verse helps me keep issues in perspective.

Matthew 6:33, “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”

 

If a verse doesn't fit into your system, you get out your theological shoehorn and force the verse in. I know that this works because I've seen it done in commentaries, and they can't print stuff in a commentary if it isn't true.

I've also seen it done in study Bibles.

I've even seen preachers do it live and in person, but that's not saying much, 'cause some preachers will do anything.

Shoehorning works every time, but it isn't always easy. Sometimes you have to beat the verse senseless and drag it into your system and actually put your own words into its mouth, prefacing it with something like "This simply means . . ."

Sad to admit, I shoehorned a verse once myself. I felt so bad afterwards, though, I swore off. Now I just believe the Bible and interpret each verse the same way God does. :saint:

 

IMO, there are verses that in their proper context point toward conditional security. I don't think that just regarding context is going to solve this tension in the Scripture. I think Philippians 3 is a good example, where Paul is talking about his desire to be conformed to Christ, etc etc, and he says his motivation for this is so that he may 'attain unto the ressurection of the dead'(nasb). I'm struggling with this part of scripture. I've studied the context, and I can't see what this means.

I think saying scripture interprets scripture is good. Thanks Donna and others who have said this.

 

Oh, context is the interpreter's strong tower; the perplexed runneth into it, and is safe.

You see, lawyers use many words when writing a document because of the inherent flexibility of language. They know, as history has proved, that there is almost NO way to say something that precludes somebody reinterpreting it if he needs to. In ordinary language, such as the Bible uses, the opportunities are endless.

When does a verse need reinterpreting? Why, whenever the larger context of Scripture requires it. Just understand that the larger context of Scripture is a euphemism for my theological system. If some verse is giving you fits, just grab your shoehorn, look heavenward, intone the words "The larger context of Scripture indicates . . ." and go to work. You'll have that verse (or paragraph) behaving itself in two shakes of a lamb's tail.

If you need help in seeing how this is done, check two opposing commentaries on the Book of Hebrews.