On the importance of citing sources

[Daniel Marsh]

I'm torn. On the one hand, Always Cite Your Source is one of the important academic principles. On the other hand, as others have said, sometimes it's more complicated than just citing one person. I've just posted an argument in another thread (on the nature of ethics) that I originally got from Bertrand Russell, but I think there's some CS Lewis mixed in, plus a couple of philosophers that I read back in college whose names I've forgotten, and it's all been sitting together in my head these 40 years, so maybe the ideas are mine now. So the source citation gets complicated.

I do try to cite my sources if there are statistics or other modern facts involved. (Example: responding to a recent post that asked why most progressives are atheists. The Pew Research Center was helpful in addressing the underlying assumption.)

I often don't cite the source if it's a familiar quote from the Bible or the Nicene Creed, when I'm addressing Christians, because I figure most Christians won't need footnotes to recognize those quotes.

How many Christians in percentage are well read in theology?

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Many members including me are in the bad habit of expressing doctrinal positions without either citing sources from which one learned the particular doctrine or scriptural interpretation. Additionally, I think a smaller number of members post their own opinions, which could be valid, about what is the correct reading of scripture or the correct theological doctrine or answer to a question, without clearly expressing whether or not it is an opinion, and if it is a new one, that someone has just become aware of, without expressing this, and being prepared to provide at least some degree of explanation as to how they got there.

I think this is a bad habit, and we need to get out of it. Also, simply citing scriptural verses in support of an opinion, by themselves, without discussing potential alternate interpretations of those verses, is also I think problematic, as it has a tendency to lead to “verse wars” in which people cite verses eisgetically, as if our interpretation of a particular verse, by itself, out of context of the rest of scripture, is sufficient to support our interpretation or opinion regarding another issue, when this is really a case of eisegesis per se.

I understand your reasoning, but it would be impossible for me to give references all the time. However I can tell you that The Bible is my reference and, if you follow what I write, you will also know that I use the KJV Bible. I actually seldom refer to others because I believe that the Bible is the final authority for what we believe.

However, if you look at the column, you will see that I define myself as Pentecostal. I would hope that would give you some understanding of the foundations of my faith and that it has influence on what I believe.

As stated by someone else above I do not believe that I am stating opinion, but the revealed word of God and doctrine of Christ and his apostles. If you see it as mere opinion that is your choice and a rejection by you that I am called by Christ Jesus, since you do not believe that I speak his word.

That is your choice. It will be revealed when we stand before Christ whether what I said was of him or not, but to Give you references of others, in almost every part, I cannot.

However my understanding comes from learning, both from the Holy Spirit and those who are called by Jesus whose writings I read. Spurgeon is a favourite though I am not aware of making quotes directly from him. I learned a lot from my father, who was also my pastor, since I am [or was, if you prefer; but he still lives] a preacher's kid.

Other than that I read the word frequently and go to sleep and wake up thinking on it.

You may have to refer to this post or remember it if you want to know my sources but you will get to know me as we fellowship together. That may be far more helpful.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

As I've said in other threads, I would actually support a rule against posting a video all by itself without comment. I refuse to watch some three hour video about a vaguely written subject line.

I'd also support a rule against posting scriptures without comment by the member. No, the quotation doesn't speak for itself.

I tend to post the scriptures in first post and comments in the second post. Maybe, I should reverse those in the future.

The claim that the Holy Spirit gives us all the same interpretation does not hold water because clearly our background, knowledge and what we are trying to prove colors our interpretation.

When I see someone who claims their interpretation is from God or the Holy Spirit. I laugh a lot. ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

 

[Daniel Marsh]

As I've said in other threads, I would actually support a rule against posting a video all by itself without comment. I refuse to watch some three hour video about a vaguely written subject line.

I'd also support a rule against posting scriptures without comment by the member. No, the quotation doesn't speak for itself.

Also, since I do not have speakers and have never been able to get any sound from the inbuilt speakers, I ignore videos. Even if I could get sound to work I would not bother. I will read a long copy and paste with highlighting for context. That has a link to where they got it.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I understand your reasoning, but it would be impossible for me to give references all the time. However I can tell you that The Bible is my reference and, if you follow what I write, you will also know that I use the KJV Bible. I actually seldom refer to others because I believe that the Bible is the final authority for what we believe.

However, if you look at the column, you will see that I define myself as Pentecostal. I would hope that would give you some understanding of the foundations of my faith and that it has influence on what I believe.

As stated by someone else above I do not believe that I am stating opinion, but the revealed word of God and doctrine of Christ and his apostles. If you see it as mere opinion that is your choice and a rejection by you that I am called by Christ Jesus, since you do not believe that I speak his word.

That is your choice. It will be revealed when we stand before Christ whether what I said was of him or not, but to Give you references of others, in almost every part, I cannot.

However my understanding comes from learning, both from the Holy Spirit and those who are called by Jesus whose writings I read. Spurgeon is a favourite though I am not aware of making quotes directly from him. I learned a lot from my father, who was also my pastor, since I am [or was, if you prefer; but he still lives] a preacher's kid.

Other than that I read the word frequently and go to sleep and wake up thinking on it.

You may have to refer to this post or remember it if you want to know my sources but you will get to know me as we fellowship together. That may be far more helpful.

By only posting scriptures we can only guess at your opinion is. I have often discussed with fellow believers who have contradicting opinions on what a scripture means.

Jesus tells us to pray in our closet. Paul tells us to avoid prayer or speaking in languages that causes confusion in worship services. I Cor 14:29 "no interpretation, keep quiet"

 

[Dave L]

I think it's better to present a menu for discussion, without too much detail, but perhaps an invitation to discuss the details with anyone interested. If you detect problems from the start, then evasive answers can help prove a person's insincerity. Jesus never gave a straight answer to those unwilling to learn. So I believe it is better to invest the time and documentation after genuine interest develops.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

How many Christians in percentage are well read in theology?

On here there are few folks that have a good background on their own church's beliefs and backgrounds and generally, we recognize each other's differences and understand why those differences exist. So we are pretty respectful of each other.

I was a Greek Orthodox seminarian and I have a bachelors in religion, so I've had my fair share of religious studies as well as religious history, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. Back in college I read Mircia Eliade, William James, and other religious philosophers. Generally, I simply present my case with background information and quotes but I'm not going to debate folks at this point, especially if all they do is want me to quote Scripture passages at them. Scripture simply does not cover ALL the questions that have come up over the history of Judaism and Christianity.

 

[The Liturgist]

On here there are few folks that have a good background on their own church's beliefs and backgrounds and generally, we recognize each other's differences and understand why those differences exist. So we are pretty respectful of each other.

I was a Greek Orthodox seminarian and I have a bachelors in religion, so I've had my fair share of religious studies as well as religious history, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. Back in college I read Mircia Eliade, William James, and other religious philosophers. Generally, I simply present my case with background information and quotes but I'm not going to debate folks at this point, especially if all they do is want me to quote Scripture passages at them. Scripture simply does not cover ALL the questions that have come up over the history of Judaism and Christianity.

This seems to me to be a reasonable and balanced approach which reflects your denominational perspective and advanced theological training. I don’t think we can reasonably request that of everyone, but if more people did at least what @Paidiske does, myself included, because I am hugely guilty of axiomatic posting, that would cause a huge improvement.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think it's better to present a menu for discussion, without too much detail, but perhaps an invitation to discuss the details with anyone interested. If you detect problems from the start, then evasive answers can help prove a person's insincerity. Jesus never gave a straight answer to those unwilling to learn. So I believe it is better to invest the time and documentation after genuine interest develops.

I love that - that’s beautiful. Hopefully you and I can discuss more things together in more threads!

 

[The Liturgist]

As I've said in other threads, I would actually support a rule against posting a video all by itself without comment. I refuse to watch some three hour video about a vaguely written subject line.

I'd also support a rule against posting scriptures without comment by the member. No, the quotation doesn't speak for itself.

You might open a thread in the Member Services Center to suggest that. I myself am extremely happy with the moderation of CF.com and the point of this thread is not to complain about that, or indeed about anything, but rather to urge people posting in the Theology Forums who are able, like me, to provide some increased academic rigor, since many of us, including me, did study theology in a formal setting. Of course many people post here who aren’t able to do that, and I respect that, and I also think everyone can make a good contribution.

 

[The Liturgist]

I understand your reasoning, but it would be impossible for me to give references all the time. However I can tell you that The Bible is my reference and, if you follow what I write, you will also know that I use the KJV Bible. I actually seldom refer to others because I believe that the Bible is the final authority for what we believe.

However, if you look at the column, you will see that I define myself as Pentecostal. I would hope that would give you some understanding of the foundations of my faith and that it has influence on what I believe.

As stated by someone else above I do not believe that I am stating opinion, but the revealed word of God and doctrine of Christ and his apostles. If you see it as mere opinion that is your choice and a rejection by you that I am called by Christ Jesus, since you do not believe that I speak his word.

That is your choice. It will be revealed when we stand before Christ whether what I said was of him or not, but to Give you references of others, in almost every part, I cannot.

However my understanding comes from learning, both from the Holy Spirit and those who are called by Jesus whose writings I read. Spurgeon is a favourite though I am not aware of making quotes directly from him. I learned a lot from my father, who was also my pastor, since I am [or was, if you prefer; but he still lives] a preacher's kid.

Other than that I read the word frequently and go to sleep and wake up thinking on it.

You may have to refer to this post or remember it if you want to know my sources but you will get to know me as we fellowship together. That may be far more helpful.

If you cite scripture in support of your position, that is helpful, but what would help me personally would be if you, in the case of a controversial position, provided as much information as possible about the scripture you were citing, what you believe it means, and why, because that will help me to better understand what you are saying. I don’t by any means presume to doubt anyone’s calling and am not even in a position to do so if I am not certain of what they are trying to communicate.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'll offer my agreement with those who say that they can't always remember the specifics. Sometimes I can, and I have something very specific in mind; other times I am presenting a synthesis of thought pulled from many different sources from over the years.

I try to make an earnest attempt to provide sources, but I'll admit that I've become sloppier than I used to be on this matter. In the same way that I usually try to present Scriptural references when pulling directly from Scripture--but sometimes will quote or reference Scripture with the hope that those I'm speaking to are already familiar with the Scriptures, or will look them up for themselves. It probably really depends on the context of the conversation, but it's still a good habit that I should avoid getting lazy about.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I try to make an earnest attempt to provide sources, but I'll admit that I've become sloppier than I used to be on this matter. In the same way that I usually try to present Scriptural references when pulling directly from Scripture--but sometimes will quote or reference Scripture with the hope that those I'm speaking to are already familiar with the Scriptures, or will look them up for themselves. It probably really depends on the context of the conversation, but it's still a good habit that I should avoid getting lazy about.

-CryptoLutheran

And of course someone jumps in 5 days later on some tangent

 

[Jake Arsenal]

Many members including me are in the bad habit of expressing doctrinal positions without either citing sources from which one learned the particular doctrine or scriptural interpretation. Additionally, I think a smaller number of members post their own opinions, which could be valid, about what is the correct reading of scripture or the correct theological doctrine or answer to a question, without clearly expressing whether or not it is an opinion, and if it is a new one, that someone has just become aware of, without expressing this, and being prepared to provide at least some degree of explanation as to how they got there.

I think this is a bad habit, and we need to get out of it. Also, simply citing scriptural verses in support of an opinion, by themselves, without discussing potential alternate interpretations of those verses, is also I think problematic, as it has a tendency to lead to “verse wars” in which people cite verses eisgetically, as if our interpretation of a particular verse, by itself, out of context of the rest of scripture, is sufficient to support our interpretation or opinion regarding another issue, when this is really a case of eisegesis per se.

I agree with your first paragraph.

Disagree , there is only one Spirit and He teaches the Scriptures , everybody should have Exactly the same understanding of them
there is enought division of denominations alredy
there is no such thing as opinion if you ask me , either provide it based on Scriptures or it doesn't matter what you wrote no need to type "opinions" because its irrelevant what's ones opinion.

Agreed. The scripture says what it says(in context and interpreted by the whole of scripture).


James 3:13-18
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. 14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. 15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. 16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. 17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. 18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Romans 8:5
For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

Philippians 2:2
Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1 Peter 3:8
Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

 

[Athanasius377]

Great discussion. I agree with the OP that we as thinking Christians should cite sources where appropriate. I go out of my way to cite sources because I want one give credit for research and two, to give someone the original source so they can read it for themselves. Otherwise I am guilty of what I call “rolling and smoking my theology”.
I would also add when citing sources that it’s important to acknowledge when a source is disputed or unreliable. That’s just good scholarship and honest argumentation. We should all be concerned first and foremost with truth. Even if a source disagrees with our position.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

This was a topic that was very important to me years ago. At that time I was spending a lot of time on a "Postmodern Christian" message board, "theooze.com" that went belly up around 2012. But it was an interesting place that was only slightly moderated most of the time. It more or less was almost a kind of Wild West place like Tombstone, a virtual anarchy until somebody really went overboard where a moderator had to delete threads, ban somebody etc. But until then, the law was nowhere in sight.


What I liked about that place was the kind of interactions, discussions and debates you could have. Because they could often be much more interesting that what takes place in what I call the "Christian Ghetto", where all the different groups stay in their little neighborhoods and only talk about various minutia of what canon law etc. applies to whatever situation.


Instead of that there was a lot of "Think Different" kinds of discussions, where lots of people were rethinking or advocating for some kind of position that was much different than what they were raised in. You had some nonsacramental protestants becoming interested in more traditional Christianity and asking questions. But you often had the opposite of that, where others were questioning the need for "Institutional Christianity" and doing things like making threads promoting the Christian Anarchy movement, and lots of people were into things like "House Churches".


Anyway while on the Board I had it in for this one radical author named Frank Viola whose first big hit book was "Pagan Christian" because not only did I disagree with the book (That tries to make the case that the basic liturgical Christian format comes from Paganism) but the author two or three times would come by to promote his next venture and I would do my best to denounce him because he really seemed like a false teacher. Basically he was making his living selling materials to people who want to do "House Churches" especially Charismatics and Anabaptist types, and he seemed to be doing his best to basically proselytize people away from their local body to instead staying home and having their friends over doing a home church worship/ prayer / Bible study meeting using his materials and being part of his home church network.
https://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christianity-Exploring-Church-Practices/dp/1414364555


Oh and I forgot the most important part as far as the OP goes. This guy was a naked Plagiarist. I once was very active studying the "Church Growth" movement when I was looking to a be a Protestant pastor. As a seminary student, but also a former student of the Social Sciences I was very interested in ways to engineer church functions to be seeker friendly, and other kinds of group dynamics that let a small group actually grow into a church. (Their are lots of Social Psychology things that come into play that small church plants have to overcome). Anyway I was very up on books written to help churches have "cell groups" and I owned many of them, and intended to use some of them. But when I read the guys materials I could tell he was directly stealing the various formats, exercises etc. that came from these books! Which would have been fine if he had at least cited them, but he didn't he just advocated doing the various exercises and wrote it in a way where the reader would probably assume he invented it!


Anyway this one time I really confronted him on the plagarism. On top of that he posted a thread on something like a new book on a "Emergent Biblical Church structure". He had a few followers that were interested in this new book he was researching and were looking for some preview type hints. But the guy was evasive, I could just tell that he absolutely knew nothing on the topic (He was just biding his time to hopefully steal from some other Protestant author). So I answered the topic questions from the poster from what I knew Eastern Orthodox theology had the answers and gave them and in detail especially on topics like paradosis / Apostolic tradition but also pointed out that this was the very antithesis refutation to his position on many assumptions (but it answered all the questions of the poster extremely well)!

But I found out like a year and a half later, after I lost track of him and started thinking about him again and googled him, and I found he basically plagiarized me this time! Well technically it was me, summarizing all the Eastern Orthodox theology I digested from reading books by Conciliar press and hearing various Eastern Orthodox church services homilies! And the same sort of thing happened, he got praised by people who assumed that he made all that stuff up on his own. So I was temporarily chagrined. A few years back, I have seen him come out with a "Recommended Reading" list a few years back, and was happy to see him recommend maybe a dozen Eastern Orthodox books on that list so I guess I sort of won in the long run... He is both citing sources, but his teaching has become a bit more moderated as well even though he is still making money from his old books like "Pagan Christianity" that the iconoclasts still buy.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

By only posting scriptures we can only guess at your opinion is. I have often discussed with fellow believers who have contradicting opinions on what a scripture means.

Jesus tells us to pray in our closet. Paul tells us to avoid prayer or speaking in languages that causes confusion in worship services. I Cor 14:29 "no interpretation, keep quiet"

That's a very loose application of the text quoted, and its out of context so it is rather inexact.

I read the side column of your introduction of yourself.

1. United States tells me something about your application of the Scriptures.

2. Christian suggests to me that you are rather self-opinionated and don't want to be held responsible to any denominational theological thought, or that you're concealing it for advantage.

When reading what you say I tend to take note of these things.

For instance you noted what I explained about myself and my pentecostal upbringing and immediately struck out with an anti-pentecostal stance in quoting something you believe opposes the experience.

Duly noted.

 

[Taodeching]

I'd also support a rule against posting scriptures without comment by the member. No, the quotation doesn't speak for itself.

I concur. Nothing bugs me more than posting a verse or some verses and expecting others to know what one means by that.

 

[2BeholdHisGlory]

Nothing blesses me more then less words from others and more from scripture. We all have our preferences. I will gravitate towards those others might be bugged by. Theres a lid for every pot it seems lol