Recently, I heard a pastor say that “God is love.” Agreed. No argument there. Love is not only something that God does, but it is who He is. It is intrinsic to his nature. God is love = good doctrine. However in the next breath, this pastor suggested that because God is love, He would never condemn anyone to Hell. In other words, absolutizing one characteristic of God permits the negation of others. This is an example of “pitting Scripture against itself.” 

Is the Bible consistent?

Do its various teachings mesh together?

Systematic theology asserts that, yes, the various teachings of Scripture interrelate. They form a web of sorts, and touching upon one doctrinal strand should resonate across the entire construct.

In other words, Scripture’s truth is connected, and any given doctrine will affect and inform its peers.

But what does that mean in the “real world”?

Does Scripture’s connectivity hold up in the face of new and progressive challenges to what it says? Does Scripture’s connectivity hold up as the years go by, especially when certain doctrines fall out of popularity?

When sentiment shifts, is it appropriate to isolate some teachings from others?

Is it OK to have a “canon within a canon,” giving credence to only part of God’s Word?

Let’s consider this example.

Recently, I heard a pastor say that “God is love.” Agreed. No argument there. Love is not only something that God does, but it is who He is. It is intrinsic to his nature. God is love = good doctrine.

However in the next breath, this pastor suggested that because God is love, He would never condemn anyone to Hell. In other words, absolutizing one characteristic of God permits the negation of others.

This is an example of “pitting Scripture against itself.” It is an example of isolating a particular doctrine, or a particular truth, and using it to bludgeon Scripture’s other teachings.

Look, if God is God, can’t He speak with clarity and consistency?

And if He can’t, if the Bible is not internally consistent with itself, then why bother with it at all?

If the Apostle John could not reconcile his own statement that “God is love” with what he wrote elsewhere regarding God’s wrath, leaving us to guess what he meant, then what’s the point?

Now, is it possible that differences (like that noted above) are just a matter of interpretation?

Well, yes, in the sense that sometimes people disagree on a given doctrine’s meaning or application.

But there’s a difference between holding an “alternate interpretation” of some portion of Scripture, and ignoring it. In the example above, the pastor simply waved one verse to make the other verses vanish.

So what specific mindset are we critiquing?

What’s we’re critiquing is the existence of a bifurcated theology, which applies God’s Word inconsistently. A theology that is no theology at all, just a matchbox of “truths,” selectively lit. Such theology is dangerous, because it denigrates the Bible’s veracity (and relevancy) in a culture that needs both.

With that said, the world is not fooled.

Amused perhaps, but definitely not fooled, not hoodwinked, when we move the goalposts around.

Look, if you want to move the goalposts, if you want to pit Scripture against itself, then leave the pretense of faith behind and become a philosopher. Put God under a microscope in a secular setting, then debate which parts of His Word are true (or “true-er”), and see where that gets you.

But don’t stake your life on the Bible’s reliability / authority in certain matters, while denying it in others.

You won’t like the result.

Toby B. Holt is a Teaching Elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.