The Proof-Texting Dilemma

[myersdad]

Here is an interesting article of an issue i’ve seen on these forums… what do you think?

jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14435.htm

Regardless of whether you are catholic or protestant, proof-texting is an easy way to prove what you want by taking portions of biblical text out of context and applying them to your theological position.

Or…do you think it is a valid system?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Melchior]

Here is an interesting article of an issue i’ve seen on these forums… what do you think?

jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14435.htm

Regardless of whether you are catholic or protestant, proof-texting is an easy way to prove what you want by taking portions of biblical text out of context and applying them to your theological position.

Or…do you think it is a valid system?

Inquiring minds want to know.

If you provide context, it is great. The Fathers all proof texted left and right. But one needs to pay attention to the context if one wants to quote a text to support a position. If not they should be prepared to have that text shoved back into their face with the right context. There is no excuse for any Christian of reasonable intelligence to not be biblically literate.

 

[Scottgun]

Here is an interesting article of an issue i’ve seen on these forums… what do you think?

jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14435.htm

Regardless of whether you are catholic or protestant, proof-texting is an easy way to prove what you want by taking portions of biblical text out of context and applying them to your theological position.

Or…do you think it is a valid system?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I just skimmed the article but he seems basically right on. A list of Scripture texts is not an argument.

Don’t forget this applies to atheists, muslims and anyone else who tries to debunk Christianity with Bible verses. They have the most wooden view of bible texts, try to find a text that seems to say the opposite and declare it a contradiction. It’s approaching the Bible as a butcher approaches a pig. With them you also have to watch out for “textual hopscotch”: That is, they declare the Bible is corrupted. But it is a conveniently selective corruption. That is, if they have a passage they think supports their position, then that passage is authentic. If you give a passage that supports your position, all of sudden they hop over into textual-critic mode and declare or imply it as a corrupt passage. They can’t have it both ways.

Scott

 

[Veritas41]

If you provide context, it is great. The Fathers all proof texted left and right. But one needs to pay attention to the context if one wants to quote a text to support a position. If not they should be prepared to have that text shoved back into their face with the right context. There is no excuse for any Christian of reasonable intelligence to not be biblically literate.

I agree 100% --I’ve done this myself, quoting a particular verse but noting its context (encouraging the other person to read it in context, too) and then when people have cited verses out of context, I hit them with the context.

 

[Zooey]

That’s a very good article!
I was taught, ( long ago, when Wild Poodles Roamed the Earth), that there are three rules for the interpretation of Scripture:

1. 
   *]Context.
   *]Context.
   *]And, of course: Context.
   I have to say, that was:thumbsup: some of the:yup: best advice I ever received.

 

[Veritas41]

That’s a very good article!
I was taught, ( long ago, when Wild Poodles Roamed the Earth), that there are three rules for the interpretation of Scripture:

1. 
   *]Context.
   *]Context.
   *]And, of course: Context.
   I have to say, that was:thumbsup: some of the:yup: best advice I ever received.

1. 
   AMEN! Funny thing is, people who take verses out of context have quoted those rules to me