The Bible is God’s Word. God’s Word tells us that God is one, “Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4). Since God is one, of a piece, not divided against Himself, then we know that God’s Word is one, of a piece, not divided against itself. Despite this we often find ourselves in disputes with other believers about what the Bible truly teaches. There is actually something quite beautiful when two people share a conviction that whatever the Bible teaches must be true, even when they disagree about what it teaches. That said, there is something wildly off when two believers play “dueling verses.” This is what happens when each person in the debate seeks to clobber their opponent with Bible verses, while bravely, like Rocky taking a beating, being clobbered by Bible verses from their opponent. It is great when both sides recognize the Bible is the one effective weapon for the battle. It’s not so great when they both think the best way to answer one verse is quoting a different verse.
Paul’s teaching on justification, faith and works doesn’t trump James’ teaching on justification, faith and works. Nor the other way around. To discern what God’s Word says we must at least come to the place where our understanding of both texts are compatible. There may be more work yet to do. One thing we know, however, is that if our understanding of one text contradicts our understanding of another text, then we don’t rightly understand at least one of the texts. It is as certain as the Bible is true.
There are, beyond James and Paul, old and ancient battles we can study to see the futility of dueling verses. Those who believe God is sovereign over our salvation have their favorite proof texts. Those who believe men determine their own end, on the other hand, have their favorite proof texts. If my understanding of my text contradicts your understanding of your text, that doesn’t mean we cry “MYSTERY!” and move on. Instead we check our differing understanding of the differing texts and seek to both understand them in their own context and in the broader context of the other text. That God calls all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), for instance, needs to be understood in a way that is consistent with the truth that no one comes to Jesus unless the Father draws him (John 6:44). The notion that Acts 17:30 teaches that men, in themselves have the capacity to come to repentance is a. not in the text b. unwarranted and c. not true, says the believer in God’s sovereignty. The Arminian, on the other hand, argues that God draws everyone.
Which solution is superior? The first one. First, it is grounded in simple grammar. It doesn’t alter the text but merely stops an unspoken assumption from sneaking past us. Second, if the Father draws all men, why bother mentioning it? “No one comes to Me unless the Father draws him. That said, He draws everyone” makes no sense in context.
My goal, however, is not to, in this brief piece, settle this old intramural debate. Rather it is to remind us of the rules of engagement. You don’t defeat one text with another. We instead integrate all texts together.