Proof Texts

[Guest]

I am coming to understand that the new people, (younger generations) don't like proof texts. I've heard it said from time to time by people younger than me, and I think Igakusei mentioned it.

I've never really given it much thought until recently because it doesn't make any sense, and leaves me scratching my head. First of all I have never used that term, "proof texts". And if a text of scripture proves something, then what is wrong with that?

Without "proof texts" to use their term, how do you even prove to yourself what you believe? Without John 1:1-3, how would you show somebody that it was Jesus who created the world? You couldn't!

To say you don't like texts that prove things, seems to be the same as saying: "There are no absolutes" or "The truth is whatever you think it is".

What nonsense! If that were true, then why study the Bible at all? Why pray? Why do anything, because none of it matters? If the truth is whatever your brain can come up with, then you can just think your way into heaven. You can believe that you are saved and on your way to glory, and it becomes the truth right? Why do anything else? You sure don't need the Bible... What a trap to be caught in!

Example:

You're sitting in a restaurant and somebody brings you out a pizza. Now you don't know for sure how that pizza got there, whether it was really made back in that kitchen fresh by hand, or if it was frozen and re-heated, or what (there are some really good frozen pizzas out there nowadays)

You may believe that aliens from outer space brought the pizza in a spaceship. But that doesn't change the truth about where it really came from. The real truth about how that pizza got there, is what it is. And you may live 100 years and never find out where it came from, but the truth about where it came from is still the truth. In other words you don't have to ever know what the truth is, for it to be the truth. Even if nobody ever discovers what the truth really is, it is still the truth. (part of this analogy came from Clifford Goldstein) http://gycweb.org/media/called-by-name-2/

Also, "proof texting" is biblical. Jesus used "proof texts" and we are told to prove what the will of God is.

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

2Ti 2:15 Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

So if the Bible is your only rule of faith, then certain things have to be proven. And therefore "proof texts" are indespensible.

[Kevin H]

Actually, while no proof texts stance may be used by people who want to say that there is no absolute, the basic theam of the "no proof text" is wanting to study the Bible in context, the similarities and difference between the different Bible writers. It is the difference between what has been called "Systematic Theology" and a Systematic Theologian, and "Biblical Theology" and Biblical theologians.

It includes wanting to see how ideas develop scripture as opposed to having a conclusion and imposing that conclusion on the rest of scripture. For example, Desmond Ford had proof texts as to how he understands the cross to work. Instead of say allowing Daniel to speak to his issues, he forces his proof texts upon Daniel to make Daniel say what Ford feels about the cross. Or often we take Paul's words (usually reading a lot of Luther and Augustine so that we have lost Paul's thoughts) and forcing those ideas on other Bible texts because we have our proof texts that have proved to us what the Bible is teaching and we make that teaching uniform in the scripture.

[Light Fox]

Hi,

I think there may be a miscommunication happening here; the term "proof text" can be a little misleading.

It generally means one of two things:

1. Using a verse, separated from it's context or intent, to try and support a claim. For example, to cite Romans 3:10-15 to say that all people, including Christians, are swift to shed blood, speak falsehood, etc. That would be an example of a "proof text."

2. Citing a bible verse to attempt to "prove" something to someone who doesn't accept the bible as an agreed authority. Similarly, if a Muslim approached you and cited a Quran verse saying something about Allah, you wouldn't be very convinced because you don't acknowledge the Quran. That would be "proof-texting."

It's not an issue with using a verse to prove a point that's described in the term; it's doing so without regard to the context, be it of the passage itself, or the person with whom you're speaking.

That's how I've always heard it used, anyway.

[Igakusei]

If you'll pay attention, it gets used a lot in devotional bible studies. Prophecy is a good example: someone will point out a prophecy that involves a certain number of days, then go to a completely different prophecy that explicitly uses the day/year principle.

It is then assumed that the second verse explains the first, despite them being in different books by different authors, written hundreds of years apart. It often completely ignores historical context, which is why anyone that has a rudimentary familiarity with bible scholarship will see right through it and suddenly start distrusting everything else you say.

[Guest]

Hi,

I think there may be a miscommunication happening here; the term "proof text" can be a little misleading.

It generally means one of two things:

1. Using a verse, separated from it's context or intent, to try and support a claim. For example, to cite Romans 3:10-15 to say that all people, including Christians, are swift to shed blood, speak falsehood, etc. That would be an example of a "proof text."

2. Citing a bible verse to attempt to "prove" something to someone who doesn't accept the bible as an agreed authority. Similarly, if a Muslim approached you and cited a Quran verse saying something about Allah, you wouldn't be very convinced because you don't acknowledge the Quran. That would be "proof-texting."

It's not an issue with using a verse to prove a point that's described in the term; it's doing so without regard to the context, be it of the passage itself, or the person with whom you're speaking.

That's how I've always heard it used, anyway.

Oh, I see. Thanks Q, I didn't know that. And it does make sense. But I'm pretty sure that some of the people I know that say that, mean it the way I was thinking here.

Thanks guys for trying to help.

[miz3]

I think Igakusei makes a good point.