What do you do if the verse you’ve used as a proof text doesn’t mean what you think it does?

I’ve always been inquisitive. When I first became a Christian I had a ton of questions, so naturally I picked a topic and searched the Scriptures to answer my question. I did word studies, consulted a concordance, and read every verse pertaining to the topic at hand. Then I developed a theology based upon all the verses I read.

I’ll give you an example. One of the issues which was important to me early on was the issue of the security of the believer. I studied all the verses which sounded like one could lose their salvation. I also weighed the multitude of passages which taught eternal security. One of the verses which really caused me to embrace an eternal security position was Philippians 1:6 which says “he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus”. God finishes what he starts. Debate solved.

Then several years later I preached through Philippians. As I studied the passage I discovered that Paul isn’t exactly talking about the eternal salvation of the Philippians. The ‘good work’ which Paul is referencing is the Philippians partnership in the gospel (see verse 5). Now, I’m not saying that Philippians 1:6 doesn’t teach a principle which might be used in the discussion. But it’s certainly not the nail in the coffin I thought it was.

So what do you do when your awesome proof text verse isn’t quite saying what you think it does? Simple. You say exactly what it means in its context and you use it accordingly. Frankly, I don’t need Philippians 1:6. To me the logic of John 6 is inescapable. But even still, if it doesn’t teach eternal security in the way I thought it taught eternal security then I need to adjust. It’s vital that we do this.

First, it matters because truth matters. We cannot be loose with the truth. If we teach a right doctrine but do it the wrong way with the wrong text we are training ourselves and our people that truth is fluid and that the end justifies the means. That will not only have an impact on the way we do theology, it’ll even have an impact on the way we live our lives.

Second, it builds trust. If people know I believe a certain doctrine but see that I’m willing to concede a particular point for the sake of the truth, then it ought to build trust for the places where I’m not willing to concede a point.

Conversely, if we don’t do this it erodes trust. There are several historical books I’ve stopped reading within the first chapter because of the way they’ve represented something I do know. For example, I was reading a book awhile back on Abraham Lincoln and the author showed a complete misunderstanding of English Puritanism and Edwardsian Calvinism. So I stopped reading. If the author couldn’t take the time to get these facts straight why should I trust him in other areas? I could I know he was going to rightly inform me about areas where I’m not as informed?

This same thing happens if we use a proof text of a verse that isn’t saying what we think it does. It erodes their confidence in our ability to rightly handle the other passages of Scripture. It’s even worse if our error is clearly pointed out but we refuse to stop using it as a proof text.

Use the text in its context to say what it intends to say. If you end up using it for a far application say that. It’s okay. Use something like Philippians 1:6 to teach a general principle that God finishes what he starts whether it be Philippian giving or our salvation. But don’t force a meaning into Philippians 1:6 that isn’t there. Don’t try to make a far application the main point. Let the text speak for itself.