Theology | Knowable Word

When a Beloved Doctrine is Not a Main Point

September 23, 2022 By Peter Krol

Last week, I cautioned care when we debate doctrines that cannot be found as the main points of particular passages of Scripture. To be clear, I am not saying that such doctrines are false; they very well may be true and worth believing! My point is simply that we ought to spend most of our time debating the main points, lest we lose sight of those main points in favor of issues, however true they may be, of lesser importance (Matt 23:1-36, especially Matt 23:23-24). In other words, the focus of our debates ought to be the focus of the Scriptures themselves.

Perhaps you might agree in theory, but what would this look like in practice? This principle can feel quite threatening when it gets personal.

Julia Manzerova (2010), Creative Commons

Examples

For example, is there any passage whose main point is the timing of a rapture? Is there any passage whose main point is to spell out a specific millennial view?

While the book of Galatians and the latter half of Romans 3 clearly teach the doctrine of justification by faith alone as a main point, the particular mechanism for how that justification takes place is not given the same level of attention. For example, is the primary mechanism for justification the righteousness of Christ being credited to believers (imputation), or is it the attachment of believers to Christ through union with him (incorporation)? Perhaps there are other options as well, but such finer points occupy much theological debate.

What about the various denominational positions on baptism or the Lord’s Supper? Church membership? Styles of worship? Church government?

Again, I am not saying that such things don’t matter. Nor that we can’t or shouldn’t hold positions on them (and discuss or debate said positions). All I am saying is: Does the gravity and emphasis of such debates correspond to the gravity and emphasis of such matters in the Scriptures themselves?

To highlight the problem: If you can argue for predestination from Ephesians 1, or you can present a case regarding gender roles from Ephesians 5, but you cannot articulate the main idea of the letter of Ephesians (God uniting all things together in Christ) or explain how chapters 1 and 5 advance that argument—you may be spending too much time on matters of lesser importance.

Conclusion

Systematic theology has much importance. But if the majority of your theological reflection or debate involves systematic doctrines with proof texts, perhaps some shifting of attention is in order.

Can You Tell the Difference?

March 29, 2019 By Peter Krol

At the prodding of my co-blogger Ryan, I’ve recently been pondering the centuries-old practice of citing Bible verses to support theological statements (theological proof-texting). We’ve done our fair share of it on this blog. But perhaps you can help me further think this practice through.

Please read the excerpts below, and let me know (comments, contacts, or emails are fine): What is the difference in how they use the Scripture?

I’m not asking about the difference in theology; that will be clear enough. My question is one of methodology. How does one excerpt’s manner of using proof texts differ from another’s? I believe they do, in fact, differ. The question for us to consider is: How?

Excerpt #1:

The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, [John 1:1, 14; 1 John 5:20; Phil 2:6; Gal 4:4] with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; [Heb 2:14, 16-17; 4:15] being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. [Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Gal 4:4] So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. [Luke 1:35; Col 2:9; Rom 9:5; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 Tim 3:16] Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. [Rom 1:3-4; 1 Tim 2:5]Source VIII.II.

Excerpt #2:

Jesus’ opposers accused him of making himself equal to God. (John 5:18; 10:30-33) However, Jesus never claimed to be on the same level as Almighty God. He said: “The Father is greater than I am.”—John 14:28.

Jesus’ early followers did not view him as being equal to Almighty God. For example, the apostle Paul wrote that after Jesus was resurrected, God “exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position.” Obviously, Paul did not believe that Jesus was Almighty God. Otherwise, how could God exalt Jesus to a superior position? —Philippians 2:9.
Source

Excerpt #3:

Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'”
Source

Excerpt #4:

Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ”
Source

You’ll see that excerpts 1 and 2 form a pair, and excerpts 3 and 4 form a pair. Each excerpt makes a point and uses one or more Bible verses to support that point. Each pair uses the same Bible to make contradictory points.

But I ask: What is different about about how the quoter in each pair uses the Scripture? How is their methodology for proof-texting distinct from one another?

If we’re not careful with our methodology for proof-texting, we run the risk of using the Bible to serve our own ideas, rather than conforming our ideas to those of the Bible. Or, as I believe English preacher Dick Lucas has said, we use the Bible the way a drunk uses a lamppost: more for support than illumination.

Can we identify a methodology for proof-texting that assists conformity of our ideas to the text rather than conformity of the text to our ideas?

Embrace the Tension

December 19, 2018 By Peter Krol

Jim Elliff makes an important point. To read Scripture rightly, we must be willing to allow each author, in each text, to make the point he wants to make. We must not be quick to harmonize its teaching with the rest of the Bible, lest we dilute or overturn the point at hand.

Elliff writes:

For instance, a man may read that he is to exert diligence in pursuing truths from God, but, on the other side his mind flies to passages that say God alone grants that understanding and unless God opens the heart, he is helpless to obtain any benefit from his diligence. So, the mind patches together a way both things are really one thing. But now you’ve ripped something away that the author intended to emphasize. He makes one point, but he purposely did not make the other point. He wasn’t writing a systematic theology, but was driving a truth home.

In some odd cases, the meaning of the first statement is turned on its head and all the potency is excised from the text by our propensity to blend all seemingly contrary thoughts together. As we read, we say, “Christ does not really mean we are to give up our possessions because in this place He says that some believers are wealthy.” So as we read we are denying the statement before we let it say anything to us. And, without intending to do so, we are telling ourselves and perhaps others that it would have been better if Jesus would have said something much more benign.

This does not mean that harmonizing, or creating a systematic theology is wrong; on the contrary, it is critical that we do this! But not at the expense of what the Holy Spirit aims to teach in a particular passage.

For further explanation from Elliff, check it out!

HT: Elizabeth Hankins

In Theological Controversy, What Do You Spew?

July 8, 2016 By Peter Krol

Last week I argued that our best hope in controversy is to continue in the Scriptures. And yet, the Scriptures are what we so quickly abandon or ignore. When the right hook of controversy knocks out our teeth and adrenaline kicks in, what do we spew? Do we spew Scripture? Or do we spew such things as wit, history, or theology? What we spew betrays what we trust in to carry the battle.

Lesley Mitchell (2011), Creative Commons

My inspiration for this post comes from the currently raging controversy among conservative theologians regarding the Trinity. In this controversy, all agree that Jesus submitted to his Father’s will during his incarnation. But is such submission a part of the Father/Son relationship from all eternity, or not? If you’d like to learn more, see the two helpful summaries by Wyatt Graham (here and here). My goal is not to enter the discussion itself, but to reflect on how it has played out so far.

The Scriptures demand a few rules of engagement for theological controversy. If we’re willing to listen, the Scriptures can equip us for a good, good work.

1. Debate is necessary but not sufficient.

We must be alert (Acts 20:29-31) and always ready to defend our hope when we are attacked (1 Pet 3:14-17). We ought to hone our skills at explaining our theology from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2-3). But remember from 2 Tim 2 (last week) that we must avoid the childish passion for quarreling. We cannot rely on well-crafted words, careful argumentation, or higher education to carry the battle. Such things are necessary—I’m not saying we can go without them!—but they are not sufficient. One can be a clear speaker, witty writer, and pedigreed academic—and still be dead wrong. He who meditates on the testimonies of God will end up with more understanding than all his teachers (Ps 119:99).

2. History is necessary but not sufficient.

Let us not fall into the error of ignoring the past (Ps 106:1-13). But let us also not fall into the equally damaging error of living in the past; it is not from wisdom that we do this (Eccl 7:10). We must learn from history, but history alone cannot carry the battle.

3. Theology is necessary but not sufficient.

The Bible teaches many important truths about God, like dots on a grid. And we love to draw connections between those dots to make them all fit together. This work of dot-connecting, we call “systematic theology.” And we must do this, or our thinking will not be rational and our teaching will not be clear. But let us be careful to defend tenaciously the dots of Scripture and not the hand-drawn lines of men. We must consider theology, but theology alone cannot carry the battle.

4. Bible verses are necessary but not sufficient.

Jesus clearly submitted his will to his Father’s will in the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:36). But was Mark’s intention in this passage to teach us about the eternal nature of the Trinity?

Jesus clearly had all glory together with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5). But did Jesus the pray-er (or John the narrator) have in mind exactly what later creeds would call “the unity of the Godhead” in which “there be three Persons of one substance” (Westminster Confession of Faith)?

Please note: I am not questioning the confessional understanding of the Trinity. I am simply questioning how we use Bible verses to defend our positions. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are proof that people can use many Bible verses to support conclusions that are simply false. When we spew, we must spew Bible verses. But let them be Bible verses in context, and according to the intentions of the original author for his original audience.

We’re on much stronger ground when we argue from the main points of passages instead of from possible implications of philosophical presumptions from standalone verses. And when the dots are hard to connect, there’s no shame in declaring: “Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable” (Ps 145:3).

How We Use the Scriptures in Theological Controversy

June 30, 2016 By Peter Krol

Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. (Matt 9:13)

The fact stands undisputed: When two or three gather in Jesus’ name, there will be wars and rumors of wars. Thus, any two prospective marriage partners can be compatible, because every pair of sinners will in the end find themselves incompatible. No church is the perfect church; as soon as you join it you ruin it. And the problem with any ministry position is never the position; it’s the people. Always the people.

Chris Messina (2006), Creative Commons

So we should not be surprised when theological controversy erupts within our Christian communities. God has made everything beautiful in its time, including love and hate, war and peace (Eccl 3:1-11). Even our most trusted confidants will let us down, and we must decide in advance to simply chill out. “Do not take to heart all the things that people say, lest you hear your servant cursing you” (Eccl 7:21).

Especially, those who are teachers in the church must “flee youthful passions”—and easy to overlook is that most naïve and youthful passion we have for foolish, ignorant controversies that only breed quarrels (2 Tim 2:22-23). The Lord’s servant must remind people of these things and “charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers” (2 Tim 2:14). “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind…correcting his opponents with gentleness” (2 Tim 2:24-25).

So the Lord expects controversy. He expects us to face it and not flee. He expects us to be strong and act like men, and not childishly bluster and bully our way through it. But how does one correct without quarreling? How does one desire mercy without condoning deception? How does one guard the good deposit with tenacious, aggressive, and overbearing…humility?

Have You Never Read?

The missing component in much controversy is the Scripture, and shame on us for it.

As foretold long ago, evil people and impostors are going on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived (2 Tim 3:13). Not enduring sound teaching, people continually accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions. They quickly turn from listening to the truth and wander off into myths (2 Tim 4:3-4). Now, more than ever, we need soldiers, sprinters, and shepherds who will preach the word, being ready in season and out of season, who reprove, rebuke, and exhort with complete patience and teaching (2 Tim 4:1-2).

We’ll be ready to fight (and fight clean) only when we continue in the Scripture (2 Tim 3:14). To continue in the Scripture, we must believe the sacred writings are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Tim 3:15)—salvation from sin when we first believe, of course; but also salvation from sin today, tomorrow, and the next day as well. To continue in the Scripture, we must expect the Bible to equip us for every good work (2 Tim 3:17)—including the good work of engaging in theological controversy. To continue in the Scripture, we must trust the Bible alone to help us recognize and resist the rapidly mutating deceptions of our day (2 Tim 3:10-13)—new and sophisticated deceptions that deserve old and uncomplicated answers.

Jesus often asked his quarrelsome opponents: “Have you not read…?” (Matt 12:3, 12:5, 19:4, 21:16, 21:42, 22:31, Mk 12:26). And when Jesus’ own disciples were uncertain what to make of the empty tomb, Jesus considered their problem to be one of foolishness and disbelief of what the prophets had spoken (Luke 24:25-27). From beginning to end, with any group of people, Jesus clung to the Scriptures. If he’d had a pull string, his predictable mantra might have been “It is written.”

I think most of us know these facts conceptually. But when the right hook of controversy knocks out our teeth and adrenaline kicks in, what do we spew? Do we spew Scripture? Or do we spew such things as wit, history, or theology? What we spew betrays what we trust in to carry the battle. More on this next week.

Theology is Never an Academic Exercise

June 5, 2013 By Peter Krol

Mike Riccardi recently posted a great article at The Cripplegate on the book of Philippians. He shows how studying theology and growing in virtue are inseparable.

Although Riccardi’s point is well-made, I commend his article to you more for his excellent model of Bible study. He identifies the main point of Philippians, and he traces out Paul’s flow of thought effortlessly.

The Book of Philippians is about the Gospel. It’s not quite an exposition of the doctrinal content of the Gospel, like Romans is. And it’s not quite a defense of the Gospel in the face of heresy, like Galatians is. Philippians is more about the implications the Gospel has on the various aspects of our lives as believers. It’s about how we are to live in light of the Gospel. The thesis verse of the letter is Philippians 1:27, in which Paul commands his dear friends to “conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ.”

Check it out!