But They Have Their Verses Too?

I run into the “but they have their verses too” response a lot in my Bible teachings on various topics. For sure we ought to consider all verses on a subject as we are determining God’s truth (John 8:31-32), but are there really passages on both sides of many topics as some assert? No, since God wrote the Bible, it won’t contradict itself as a man-made document might. And actually, when we examine the verses on the “other side,” we find they don’t really say what is claimed about them. Let’s look at some examples …

When we point out how clear and plain I Cor 14:34-35 (“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church”) is on the subject of women preachers (can a woman bring the sermon in the church service?), many believers will say “but what about the passages on the other side?” They are usually referring to texts like Acts 21:9 which says Philip “had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.” But is that really a verse on the other side? Not if you really look at what it is actually saying and not add to it. It doesn’t say anything about those daughters prophesying in church, which is the very thing I Cor 14:34-35 is condemning. See how there is no contradiction?

Consider the Once Saved Always Saved issue. The Baptist frame it this way – it is impossible for a Christian to “fall from grace.” But doesn’t Gal 5:4 assert some Paul was writing to there had “fallen from grace”? Please read the following verses which also prove the OSAS theory is just wishful thinking: Heb 3:1,12, James 5:19-20, II Pet 2:20-22, Rev 3:5. Some claim “but they have their verses too” on the OSAS topic. I think the one I hear most often is John 10:28 (“And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand”). But do “they” really have a verse on their side here? Isn’t it immediately obvious just by reading the verse, noting especially the word “pluck” (“to pull or move by force” – dictionary.com), that the verse is saying a man can’t be forced to leave the Lord, not that a man can’t voluntarily leave the Lord? Just 10 verses previous Jesus said “No man taketh it (his life) from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again …” Nobody thinks that same phraseology means Jesus couldn’t lay down his life voluntarily. So me thinks the OSAS proponents really know John 10:28 is not a verse supporting their position.

The New Testament teaches definitely in six or eight passages that baptism is necessary to salvation – Mark 16:16a (“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”) being a very simple one to understand. But aren’t there verses on the other side? Doesn’t the most famous verse in the Bible (John 3:16) teach all one has to do to be saved is believe? But I think “faith only salvation” advocates realize the absence of the word “only” in the verse is there undoing. I have never met one of them that taught Mark 11:24 (“What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them”) meant the only condition of acceptable prayer was believing you would receive what you ask for. Consider this short article that makes my point here in more detail – https://bibledebates.wordpress.com/2017/05/11/if-mark-1124-doesnt-mean-faith-only-then-why-would-john-316/

Another good illustration is Calvinism’s Limited Atonement theory – that Jesus didn’t die for everybody. Aren’t texts like Heb 2:9b (“that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man”) super clear on the matter? (write me for 4 or 5 more passages that are just as clear) But don’t “they have their verses too”? The one I hear often in my debates with the Calvinists is Matt 20:28 – “the Son of man came … to give his life a ransom for many.” But is that verse really on their side? Does “many” really imply “less than all”? Here is how dictionary.com defines the word “many” – “a large or considerable number of persons or things.” Wouldn’t all men be “a large or considerable number of persons”? Consider this parallel – “There have been many race horses, but only one Secretariat.” Is “many” in that sentence talking about all the race horses, or just a limited few?

Conclusion: So “they” don’t really “have their verses too.” “Their verses” don’t actually say what they want them to say. Believers are misusing, adding to, reading into verses because of wishful thinking / ulterior motives.  Kyle Butt describes what is happening correctly – “It is not because the Bible is hopelessly confusing and cannot be understood. … It is simply because humans bring their already prejudiced views to the text of the Bible and try to force it to say what they ‘think’ it should say” (II Thess 2:10). When you actually examine “their verses” (in detail and in context), those opposing the truth (John 17:17) really have zero verses. And of course that is the way it would have to be; it is the ultimate insult to God to say He “talks out of both sides of His mouth.”

hear Bible Crossfire Sundays at 8:00 pm central on SiriusXM national radio Family Talk 131 & 62 local stations across America or at www.BibleDebates.info