Pitting Scripture against Scripture

[JonC]

I noticed some view offering Scripture to question an interpretation of another verse as an error of "pitting Scriptures against Scripture" (in contrast to my understanding that Scripture interprets Scripture). Is it common in some denominations to interpret passages independent on the Bible as a whole?

 

[agedman]

I agree.

More than once I have set in a service were the pastor read a text and departed from it.

On the other hand, I have also sat in the assembly of those who would move from verse to verse trying to "prove" a point that was never in question.

The same passage that says, "do not lean on your own understanding," also says, "do not let kindness and truth leave you. Bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart." That worldly wisdom fails, and the principles of Scriptures are never perverted judgment.

There must be balance in preaching and teaching of the assembly.

 

[agedman]

oops, when I edited, I pushed the wrong button.

 

[JonC]

On another board I stated a view and provided a dozen or so passages in answer to another preacher’s interpretation of one verse. I thought we would go through and examine the passages. The man responded by accusing me of “pitting Scripture against Scripture". I had not been exposed to that type of reasoning before within the Church.

I have experienced this once before with a Jehovah’s Witness. He insisted that John 1:1 denied Jesus’ deity and instead said that Jesus was “a god.” When I offered a few other passages that affirmed Jesus as God, the man would not consider the implications and instead insisted that we can’t “pit Scripture against Scripture.”

It seems that this type of reasoning would result in competing doctrines within one’s theology. But I also understand that some are opposed to systematic approaches to Scripture (a CoC friend routinely denounces theology all together….using, of course, theology to support his view).

 

[JonShaff]

It's impossible to pit scripture against scripture, rather it is doctrine against doctrine.

 

[JonC]

It's impossible to pit scripture against scripture, rather it is doctrine against doctrine.

That is what ends up often happening, I agree. The problem is that those who resort to that charge of "pitting Scripture against Scripture" are in reality denying the accuracy of the Bible itself. If the Bible is true, and it is, then it is impossible for one passage to be at odds with another. Doctrine should reflect what is revealed in the Word of God. So we should be very open to comparing many passages when deciding on the meaning of a verse.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It's impossible to pit scripture against scripture, rather it is doctrine against doctrine.

You are correct. Properly understood, Scripture will never contradict Scripture.

'The infallible rule for the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and therefore whenever there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by [ie. understood in the light of] other passages which speak more clearly.
[1689 Baptist Confession of faith 1:9]

 

[JonC]

You are correct. Properly understood, Scripture will never contradict Scripture.

'The infallible rule for the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and therefore whenever there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by [ie. understood in the light of] other passages which speak more clearly.
[1689 Baptist Confession of faith 1:9]

Exactly….Scripture will never contradict Scripture. That’s why it is so important to weigh our interpretations with Scripture. Your quote is spot on, brother.

 

[kyredneck]

If the Bible is true, and it is, then it is impossible for one passage to be at odds with another.

Zactly. I love simplicity:

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.
2. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.
3. The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which guidance is to be humbly and earnestly sought. - Charles Hodge

"Comparing scripture with scripture" is NOT "pitting Scripture against Scripture", it's an absolute necessity to do. How else are we to "search the scriptures to see if these things be so".

 

[tyndale1946]

Zactly. I love simplicity:

1. The Scriptures are to be taken in the sense attached to them in the age and by the people to whom they were addressed.
2. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.
3. The Scriptures are to be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which guidance is to be humbly and earnestly sought. - Charles Hodge

"Comparing scripture with scripture" is NOT "pitting Scripture against Scripture", it's an absolute necessity to do. How else are we to "search the scriptures to see if these things be so".

I agree if scripture appears to contradicts scripture then the one applying the contradiction is guilty of error because they have not applied the biblical principles from Timothy... Brother Glen

II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

All Gods words are truth but they have to be rightly divided!

 

[JonC]

I agree if scripture appears to contradicts scripture then the one applying the contradiction is guilty of error because they have not applied the biblical principles from Timothy... Brother Glen

II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

All Gods words are truth but they have to be rightly divided!

A good example would be our discussion elsewhere.

Psalm 37:28 "For the LORD loves justice and does not forsake His godly ones"
Psalm 22:1 "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

In the discussion that sparked this thread (on another post) this brought the charge of "pitting" Scripture against Scripture. The charge is incorrect because what ever interpretation is finally reached must agree with both passages (if both are speaking of the same thing). In truth, both should have been explored to arrive at an interpretation. The charge of "pitting" scripture is merely an excuse not to engage.

 

[tyndale1946]

The charge of "pitting" scripture is merely an excuse not to epitting

Epitting... Is that a word you made up?... Brother Glen

 

[Deacon]

I agree if scripture appears to contradicts scripture then the one applying the contradiction is guilty of error because they have not applied the biblical principles from Timothy... Brother Glen

II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

There are times when scripture contradicts scripture ...but the discrepancies are used for a purpose; they are there to communicate a truth.

The task of the reader and interpreter is to figure out the message that the discrepancy communicates...to "rightly divide the word of truth".

Two clear examples:
1) “I regret that I have made Saul king...” (1 Samuel 15:11, NIV)

“He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”” (1 Samuel 15:29, NIV)

“...And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.” (1 Samuel 15:35, NIV)

2) “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” (Proverbs 26:4–5, NIV)

Rob

 

[JonC]

Epitting... Is that a word you made up?... Brother Glen

Yes. I often make up words that I think will sound cool. Soon i will have a language all my own. Epitting is one of those. It means engage.

(Thanks, I corrected the spelling. This phone auto corrects, but it misses up when I hit backspace).

 

[Internet Theologian]

It's impossible to pit scripture against scripture, rather it is doctrine against doctrine.

Doesn't keep people from trying though. It is what happens here. One shows a passage on ____________ to prove his/her point and the other shows a passage in attempt to undo teaching of previous passage.

 

[tyndale1946]

Yes. I often make up words that I think will sound cool. Soon i will have a language all my own. Epitting is one of those. It means engage.

(Thanks, I corrected the spelling. This phone auto corrects, but it misses up when I hit backspace).

Yeah you better watch that because I went to google and typed in that word epitting looking for a definition and it said you mean spittingEek... See what happens when you use your phone!... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

Doesn't keep people from trying though. It is what happens here. One shows a passage on ____________ to prove his/her point and the other shows a passage in attempt to undo teaching of previous passage.

I disagree. If I hold an interpretation of a verse that denies another passage then I should examine my interpretations of both. The problem is too many people seem to either hold views that they can't defend or they hold a downgraded view of Scripture - that it can't stand up to investigation.

The issue is not "pitting" Scripture against Scripture but pitting Scripture against theology as its equal. Doctrine and Scripture are not necessarily the same thing. Doctrine may fail, but Scripture will never fail. We need to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture (actually, it does whether we allow it or not....we need to realize that it does).