by Joe Whiting

Welcome back! We are in our third week of big questions and short answers for biblical counseling and theology. This week we will briefly consider the Bible’s authority over theological controversies. Believe it or not there are solid, sound believers, who love the Lord, who want to serve the Lord, who also disagree on some theological points. That disagreement doesn’t necessarily mean that one of the two people are self-deceived in a salvific sense. It also doesn’t necessarily mean that one of the two people lack sincerity in their argument. It means that someone is sincerely wrong in their understanding.

What are we to do with this? How do we handle it when we or someone else is sincerely wrong in their theological argument? Are we the authority in what’s right because we “feel” more strongly about our argument? Are we, or they, in the right because we’ve been taught a certain way? Is the professor or pastor who taught us, or our tradition in thought the standard, or is the Bible the standard? Is our theology the authority into which the Scripture must fit, or is the Scripture the authority over our theology into which our theology must fit, or be corrected so that it fits (i.e., agrees with, submits to Scripture)?

Living out our theology produces conviction of the truth. The more we act upon our theological convictions the more we are convicted of the truth behind that theology. That’s a good thing! At the same time, what happens when people come to two different theological conclusions? In order to gain a better understanding of the answer to today’s question we ought to first review the last two week’s posts. Then, we will consider how to practically apply those truths to theological disagreements in a way that pleases God and edifies the hearer.

When we review the last couple of questions we are reminded that the Bible is God’s inspired Word (2 Tim. 3:16), that God is the ultimate authority (1 Chr. 29:11; Ps. 103:19), that God is absolutely infallible (Ps. 19:7), when Scripture speaks – God speaks (Rom. 9:17; Gal. 3:8), and when God speaks He is always righteous and just (Ps. 89:14; 119:137), never wrong (Ps. 147:5; Rom. 11:33-34), and never lies (Titus 1:2).

Considering these truths about God and His Word it is clear that the Bible is the authority on all things to which it speaks. Moreover, the Bible is also clear on all things to which it speaks. Scripture claims to be so clear that it can be understood by a child and the simplest of men (Deut. 6:6-7; Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 3:14-15; Ps. 19:7b). While it is true that some parts of Scripture are more difficult to understand than others (2 Pt. 3:16), it is nonetheless clear and true in its message (Ps. 119:105; 2 Pt. 1:19a; Jn. 17:17).

Next, it should also be helpful to understand that the Bible is also inerrant (i.e., free from error). Since Scripture says God is omnipresent (Prv. 15:3; Ps. 139:7-12), omnisciencent, He knows all things possible and actual (Job 34:21; Ps. 139:1-6; 147:5; Isa. 66:18; Matt. 12:25; Rom. 11:33-34), is righteous and just in all His ways, and has the ability to act upon all His infinite knowledge (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 37:23-24; Job 11:7-11, 37:23; 2 Cor. 6:18; Jer. 32:17; Rev. 4:8, 19:6), then it logically follows that He is characteristically inerrant. Furthermore, if God is characteristically inerrant and clear, His Word is, too.

Therefore, if there is a theological controversy between individuals the issue is not with Scripture. The issue is with the individual’s understanding of, and submission to, the Scripture. Scripture is rightly used when we sow our theological understanding out of it (i.e., exegesis), rather than reading our preconceived notions into it (i.e., eisegesis). In the former case Scripture is the judge, in the latter we are. We are to let Scripture inform our theology and practice, not the other way around.

Now that we have a better idea of the what and why of Scripture as the authority over theological disagreements, how are we to apply that knowledge? How are we to respond when we and another believes everything written above yet we arrive at two different understandings and practice? Make no mistake about it, the pursuit of truth will bring people to this point.

First, consider the relationship between you and the other person. Is the other person truly a brother or sister in Christ? This is an important first distinction to make, to the best of your ability. Their eternal standing makes the difference between evangelizing or edifying. If it’s an unbeliever wanting to argue theology our response would be to avoid their initial argument and get to their greatest need; knowledge of and submission to the truth of the Gospel. It’s the Gospel that saves, not a theological argument (1 Cor. 15:2). However, if the person is a believer then we seek to edify them, if they are mistaken, by graciously correcting a misunderstanding.

Second, consider the place of worship. Are they a member of or consistent attendee of your home church? If not, we ought to turn them back to their shepherd which Christ has set over them. If there are no real answers there then we might try to help them. At the same time, if there are no real answers there, we need to remain mindful to the possibility that they could be gathering ammunition from you in order to fight at their home church. We have to be careful and discerning in the matter.

Third, consider your goal. Our purpose in correcting a wrong understanding must not be to win a debate or display our theological knowledge. While that may edify self, it does nothing for the hearer, nor does it glorify God. In contrast to that 2 Timothy 2:24-25 says our goal ought to be to gently correct the error with truth as a vehicle through which God works to grant repentance, sense, and escape of the snare in which they are caught.

Fourth, consider your character. We are to considering our own understanding and daily walk in the truth. We must be an example of the truth which we are speaking, in love of course. Paul says, in Eph. 4:15 that believers are to be “speaking the truth in love…” Interestingly, the Greek word for “truth” in that verse is in verb form. It’s a character trait. Its not only talking about speaking the truth, but about [being] the truth. In 1 Tim. 1:5 Paul also says, “the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.“ We are to help others by correcting misunderstand (i.e., error), with the truth in word and deed and add to that correction with right motives; the listener’s good and God’s glory.

Fifth, consider the category. Are these disagreements which have a profound impact on one’s eternal destiny? Is the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, or the Trinity in question? Is it error that affects the health of the church like pedobaptism, “lordship” salvation, spiritual gifts, women elders, etc.? Is the misunderstanding something related to the practice of the church, which does not necessarily impact salvation, like the millennial position, covenant theology, spiritual gifts, women in eldership, and church polity? Is the error of a lesser degree (i.e., not unimportant, but less important) like; areas of Christian liberty, timing of the Rapture, etc.? The category of error makes a big difference in the consequences and effects.

Once we’ve considered the above how do we proceed from there? We should ask ourselves what we owe to this person. We owe them, and the Lord, to practice the truth in love. We owe them understanding of their position (i.e., understanding their argument and why they are making it). We also owe them patience. Put yourself in their shoes. Wouldn’t you appreciate a listening ear and patience, too?

Then, we ought to ask what we can learn from this person. Even if their theological understanding and resulting argument is wrong is it possible that they are, at least, asking some good questions? Is it possible that we or you may have missed the mark on understanding an argument, a line of thought, even if it’s erroneous? Oh, yes. It’s possible. Listen and learn.

Next, we ought to ask how we might rightly deal with this person. This is where we will want to have a careful argument. In other words, we want our argument to be like a skilled Sword bearer and not a wildly lashing hacker. In order to achieve this one must practice to keep their argument exegetical (i.e., an argument which draws truth out of Scripture). The argument must be logical, theological, and historically accurate according to Scripture.

Last, we ought to be prayerful. We ought to be seeking the Lord’s help in our thinking. We need the Lord’s help in our thinking about self (i.e., we need humility of heart and right motives), about Him and His glory, and we need a true, God-given love of the truth and to see others rejoice and prosper in it.

We hope this has been as helpful to you as it has to us. Lord willing, we will be back next week and consider the question of continuing revelation. Until then may our gracious Lord bless you and keep you.

^[1] We are not suggesting it’s okay, biblically speaking, for women to be elders in the church. Paul is clear in 1 Tim. 2:12 that the office of elder is not to be filled by women. He goes on in the following verses to explain why that is so. At the same time, it is possible for a woman to [wrongly] by in that position and be a believer. In this case her salvation is not lost, but her ability to be right about her position is. She would be sincerely wrong.