Proof-texting

[Yeshua1]

I agree. But the problem with that approach is people are forced to recognize that doctrinal differences are sometimes differences in reasoning, understanding, presuppositions, etc., and not always one party denying Scripture itself. We (myself included) are not always charitable when it comes to differing positions. I think it is often because those differences are a rejection of our reasoning rather than Scripture and therefore personal, but we seldom admit to it.

Problem is that when we build our theology on first we our church/pastor/teacher/school states is true, and then grab those proof texts to support them!

 

[Mr. Davis]

If we don't use the text of scripture to prove (test) our doctrine, what do we use?

Using scripture to prove our doctrine is essential! All that I was saying was that cults and some believers use scripture in error.

 

[kyredneck]

Yet we all know it wasn't. Hmmm.

Hmmm, the gospel accomplished just what He intended at that time, and that's what's pertinent. If He says it was preached in all creation under heaven, then I'm meek enough to accept Him at His word.

 

[Covenanter]

It depends who we are & what & why we are doing .....

Teaching Sunday School children single proof texts to reinforce a lesson is helpful to them & a useful exercise.

Jesus frequently cites a text - It is written ... - to make a point, knowing that his hearers/opponents will know the context. He rarely develops arguments based on a text.

e.g Mark 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.​

The Apostles develop arguments from the texts they quote.
e.g. Peter in Acts 2 quotes fully & develops the argument in detail.

Hebrews 1 is a series of proof texts to develop an argument concerning Christ .

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hmmm, the gospel accomplished just what He intended at that time, and that's what's pertinent. If He says it was preached in all creation under heaven then I'm meek enough to accept Him at His word.

Maybe you need to be meek enough to consider the possibility that you are understanding Him wrongly.
Col. 1:23. 'The Gospel.....which was preached [aorist tense] to every creature under heaven.'
Col. 1:28. 'Him we preach [present tense] warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.'

Why is Paul preaching the Gospel when it has already been preached to every creature under heaven? Because v.23 refers to the proclamation of Christ to the world, both in eternity (Psalm 2:7) and in time (Matthew 3:17). But this proclamation still needs to be made so that people can hear it. 'How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?' (Romans 10:14). And so, "This Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come" (Matthew 24:14). How do we know that this hasn't happened yet? Because the end hasn't come yet. The preaching goes on.

 

[kyredneck]

Maybe you need to be meek enough

You need to be meek enough to refrain from derailing this thread. I posted what I did as an example (and intend to provide more) BECAUSE I QUOTE A LOT OF SCRIPTURE, and I'd love to understand how others perceive it.

Start a thread on the spread of the gospel or the great commission or whatever it is that's got you excited and I'll participate.

 

[JonC]

Problem is that when we build our theology on first we our church/pastor/teacher/school states is true, and then grab those proof texts to support them!

That is one problem (one I've referred to as simple indoctrination). Perhaps another issue is in the exact opposite direction - building theology in isolation. It is possible to be influenced by presuppositions, culture, ideologies/worldviews, and what limited knowledge/experience one individual (or a couple of individuals) may possess.

 

[kyredneck]

Revmitchell is totally opposite of me. He says a single verse can establish a doctrine, which I think is asinine. Do you agree with him? I believe redundancy within scripture establishes a doctrine and that's the whole point of my "proof texting"; to show the continuity of a thing.

That isn't a straight forward question to answer, as in part in depends on what you mean by 'establish a doctrine.' I believe a single verse/ text can demonstrate or prove a single doctrine, for example John 1:1 is enough to demonstrate the doctrine of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ in my opinion. However John 1:1 on its own does not establish that doctrine.

Our difference is semantics. I agree with you, in general at least.

Doctrines are established through the consistent exposition of the entire canon of scripture. A single verse/ text therefore might be able to disprove a doctrine, for example, someone tells me that, 'God the son is a lesser God then the father,' I find Phil 2:6 sufficient on it's own to reject that statement.

Yes, this demonstrates redundancy. The more a thing is repeated in scriptures, the more certain the doctrine.

 

[kyredneck]

in my case, with your just posting it here, I find it hard to understand what you're getting at

Post #12.

I had a tendency to be long-winded, and it is good to take in consideration being concise.

Yea, I've written a few enthusiastic 'essays' on the BB myself. I think it's a stage many of us go through, but "brevity is the soul of wit", and makes for better online discussions, and I don't know of any book that demonstrates brevity any better than the Bible. (although I have wondered why the framers of our constitution couldn't have expounded more)

I think a verse can plainly teach a doctrine and we ought to believe what a verse plainly says. On the other hand, if there is only one single verse in the whole Bible that teaches a doctrine -- e.g. (proxy) baptism for the dead, 1 Cor. 15:29 -- we have reason to be suspect of the interpretation of that verse. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" is a good standard in regard to "establishing" a doctrine.

Yes, redundancy.

 

[kyredneck]

All that I was saying was that cults and some believers use scripture in error.

It's called 'wresting the scripture'.

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Peter 3

Or corrupting the word of God to make merchandise from it:

17 For we are not as the many, corrupting the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, speak we in Christ. 2 Cor 2

( did I just demonstrate 'proof texting'?)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You need to be meek enough to refrain from derailing this thread. I posted what I did as an example (and intend to provide more) BECAUSE I QUOTE A LOT OF SCRIPTURE, and I'd love to understand how others perceive it.

Well I perceive it as not great. I don't think my worst enemy would accuse me of not quoting Scripture in my posts, but the devil can quote Scripture (Matthew 4:6). It is helpful to know why you believe the verses you quote mean what you say they do.

Start a thread on the spread of the gospel or the great commission or whatever it is that's got you excited and I'll participate.

What got me excited was the posting of unrelated verses without explanation to push a doctrine that had nothing to do with the O.P. I may start a thread on Matt. 14 if I get the time.

 

[kyredneck]

Well I perceive it as not great.

Wow. Zactly my opinion of your use of scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Maybe you need to be meek enough to consider the possibility that you are understanding Him wrongly.
Col. 1:23. 'The Gospel.....which was preached [aorist tense] to every creature under heaven.'
Col. 1:28. 'Him we preach [present tense] warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.'

Why is Paul preaching the Gospel when it has already been preached to every creature under heaven? Because v.23 refers to the proclamation of Christ to the world, both in eternity (Psalm 2:7) and in time (Matthew 3:17). But this proclamation still needs to be made so that people can hear it. 'How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?' (Romans 10:14). And so, "This Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come" (Matthew 24:14). How do we know that this hasn't happened yet? Because the end hasn't come yet. The preaching goes on.

The Second Coming event will be the biggest thing Earth has ever seen, so was not AD 70 for sure, and will come after all who need to hear the message have heard it, as God will save out His elect in total before that comes to pass!

 

[kyredneck]

Proof texting?:

Israel as a Nation and God's Plan post 19.

 

[Rlee]

"Proof texting" is a very serious matter. Cults, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, rely on it for deriving their twisted doctrines. Also, the issue of slavery, was opposed by many, and they could quote passages in support of their position. But those who favored slavery did likewise. Thanks to prayers by Lincoln and many others, slavery was abolished, at great cost to both sides.

It can be a serious matter leading to cultic offshoots, but there has always been one quote given that stays with me every time I hear someone proof text, and that is "Context, context, context." Walter Martin I believe?

 

[Rlee]

Very good and interesting thread!

 

[Yeshua1]

It can be a serious matter leading to cultic offshoots, but there has always been one quote given that stays with me every time I hear someone proof text, and that is "Context, context, context." Walter Martin I believe?

Also, do not pin all of of your theology on just an isolated verse! Baptism for the dead, as theMormons do?

 

[Rlee]

Also, do not pin all of of your theology on just an isolated verse! Baptism for the dead, as theMormons do?

There are some instances where particular divisions within the church came about simply because of a verse or two pulled out of context and used as a proof text. Sad and unnecessary.

 

[Yeshua1]

There are some instances where particular divisions within the church came about simply because of a verse or two pulled out of context and used as a proof text. Sad and unnecessary.

Foot washing, praying in tongues etc!

 

[Billx]

There is a huge difference between 'proof texting' and 'mere proof texting' - to just throw out a text without any explanation and expect the people you are addressing to understand it in exactly the same light as you yourself do is not helpful and it inevitably results with people pitting scripture against scripture - and then we wonder why those outside of the kingdom, or those new to the faith, struggle to understand the bible and respect the bible - we have made it into a mass of unintelligible contradictions.

However to provide a proof text, with the explanation of how you understand it and how it fits into your argument, and how it challenges you audience - that is to enlighten - it is to challenge presuppositions. However as one person has already noted, such challenge is often not readily received.

This is, sadly a reflection on us all (I include myself), we are far more likely to be more interested in either cementing our own opinions, or demonstrating our prowess by crushing those who don't agree with us then we are is discussing the great truths of God's word in love, and we rarely set a good example of how to reason together - more often we fall into all the same traps that those without Christ are want to use in discussion (ad-hom etc)

A bigger problem than "proof-texting" is "no-texting" at all.

Remember, proof texting is at times without context. A single statement with or without context is not sufficient to base a doctrine upon. Maybe one or two places. Proof testers throw out words faster than most of us can talk or at my age even think. Proof text platitudes verge on biblical bullying.