Thought: Scripture Interpreting Scripture Versus Superimposing Scripture Over Scripture
Recently, I have had several people use the line “Interpret Scripture with Scripture.” I know of no one who would disagree with such a statement in the realm of Christian orthodoxy. However, just as all say that Scripture is the true infallible (and/or inerrant) Word of God and to be treated as such while picking and choosing differently what counts and what does not, so also this idiom of interpreting Scripture with Scripture is rather poorly applied.
I fully agree with the statement. But I think there is clearly a misapplication of the principle when it comes to certain points of contention in the church. Most often, when there is a perceived conflict in beliefs, there is among the laity a common tendency to take a given Scripture and superimpose other Scripture as being more important or relevant. In reality, the two in no way conflict.
For example, this has most frequently occurred in discussions surrounding the necessity of baptism. Barring exceptional claims such as the thief on the cross not being baptized, most seem to take the stand that you need to be baptized but it does not directly correlate to salvation. It has been strikingly put to me as, “No, I do not believe baptism saves you.” He had just directly contradicted a word of Scripture without batting an eye. 1 Peter 3:21-22, “Corresponding to that [referring to the flood in Genesis], baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal of a good conscience to God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.”
It was incredible to watch and to realize moments later that I had been the perpetrator of the same crime in several instances I could remember. How bold of us to say, “No, that is not what God meant.” Which, in practice, is what we are saying.
The defense of such a bold statement is based on “other Scriptures that say belief/faith in Christ is what saves you,” or “Christ saves you and then you believe.” No one is denying such claims. What is ridiculous is to confuse the issue and think the two are not the same thing. That belief and baptism are separate issues, the former relating to salvation and the latter kind of maybe sort of not really but also yes relating to it.
This points to the issue at hand and we will continue with this case study of baptism. There seems to be an assumption among protestants that baptism cannot really be necessary for salvation because we need only believe. Therefore, even if that is written in 1 Peter with no shred of ambiguity, there is either a) more compelling evidence that faith is all that is required, b) more volume of Scripture devoted to belief and faith than there is baptism, c) that in practice, the two ideas of faith being salvific and baptism being necessary for salvation are in conflict.
Protestants seem to feel forced at this point to defend the idea that you need only believe and baptism receives an ambiguous relegation. In debate this often looks somewhat like, “Well yes, Peter says that, but look over here/look at all of this.” The mistake is to assume that the two are not in perfect concert. Sadly, in evangelism, this often manifests in a kind of “say the words” approach where people are assumed saved because they said, “I repent and I believe in the Lord Jesus.”
This strikes at a deeper issue of how we view the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Holy Scripture. Often, we make one of two grievous errors without realizing it. Either we imply that the Holy Spirit did not really mean to say what He said OR we imply that we have correctly composed Holy Scripture in the right order of priority and necessity deciding what matters and what does not, essentially placing ourselves in God’s seat.
First, we often imply that the Holy Spirit did not really mean it that way. This appeared in a recent discussion over two statements made in 1 Timothy by the Holy Spirit through Paul.
“14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into trespass. 15 But she will be saved through the bearing of children, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with self-restraint.” - 1 Timothy 2:14-15
“16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.” - 1 Timothy 4:16
Each of these may well be in a preservative sense. But the immediate reaction in the discussion was to say, “It does not really save you, it means sanctify you.” Spurgeon talked about this in a sermon on 1 Timothy 2:1-4, essentially berating those who add or change words of Scripture to fit their own beliefs. Is the Holy Spirit not wiser than we are? Is He unacquainted with the language? Does He lack communication clarity? No. He said what He said. There are other uses of the word sanctification in Holy Scripture. It is self-evident in the verse regarding women as it says clearly, “She [Singular] will be saved through the bearing of children, if they [Plural] continue in faith and love and sanctification with self-restraint.” In the save verse we have saved and sanctification. The list that follows “She will be saved” is contained within salvation.
This in no way contradicts Christ being our savior. The claim that we must have a living faith does not mean that faith is not what saves us. Quite simply, Paul is merely saying a living faith (or faithfulness) to Christ is how we stand in Christ.
It is a fine line and this may not be the best communication of it. But, I want the discussion regarding the issue to be more prevalent. While the principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture is good and necessary, it ought to be practiced rightly. Saying one Scripture does not mean what it says because of a perceived contradiction of inconsistency on our part is not a valid use of the principle. It is instead superimposing one Scripture over another. Cut it out. Just a thought.
