It never ceases to amaze me when theology debates so heavily involve man's philosophy. When Scripture is cited, philosophy is cited in its negation. Arminians will argue against predestination by arguing that it would mean God is unfair. Calvinists ask if faith comes by hearing, then why don't all who hear come to faith? Theistic Evolutionists argue that science has disproven the literal interpretation of Genesis. Those who believe works are needed for salvation argue that if they're not, even the most wicked of people can get saved. The list goes on for miles.
But tell me, at what point did man become God's teacher? I believe in predestination because the Bible says "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son..." (Romans 8:29a). I believe faith comes by hearing because the Bible says "...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17). I believe God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days because the Bible says "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:..." (Exodus 20:11a). I believe we are saved by grace, through faith, not of works, because the Bible says "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Just as the list of philosophical attacks on Scripture never seems to end, so also does the list of Scriptures that repel them. Now, obviously, if you're not a Christian, it shouldn't matter to you what the Bible says. You should take it in context in order to be honest about what you're not believing, but you can at least admit that you don't believe it. Then you can bring your philosophical reasons why not. If, however, you are a Christian, you have no excuse for taking your philosophy more seriously than your God. You don't get to say "if this Scripture is true, it leads to this conclusion I find particularly disagreeable".
And you can't really argue for differences of interpretation, either. If you're using philosophy against Scripture, that's not a disagreement over interpretation, but over the implications of the natural interpretation of the text. I don't know about you, but I don't think I've ever come across a book that is intended to consistently and reliably mean just about anything other than what it very clearly says. If I have read such a book, I have not known it, because it very clearly says what it says, and the normal rules of language normally enable us to decipher the intended meaning of a well written book. And tell me, dear brethren, is God not the best of writers? Or is His book such an unintelligible mess that He needs you, a man or a woman born nearly 2,000 years after its initial publication, to set the record straight?
According to the word of the Lord, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The only correct way to interpret this passage is that there is a correct way to interpret this, and all other passages. With man's ever-changing philosophy? No. With God's never-changing truth. God's message to man is simple: Take it, or leave it. No servant can serve two masters, and so you must choose. The omniscient God, through His word, or the non-scient human being, whose heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked? To me, it's an easy choice.