Is there a difference between citing biblical references vs. proof-texting?
It is common to ask another person to give a verse reference as support for his/her opinion. Christians typically seek to validate one's views as substantiated by the Bible. Even non-Christians refer to the Bible when wanting to argue against a view held by a Christian for they know that we recognize its authority.
On the other hand, many Christian principles and concepts are never explicity mentioned in the scriptures, e.g. belief in the Trinity is arrived at by inference from the scriptures, not quoting specific verses which mention it. Sometimes the converse of this also occurs where something is specifically mention in a verse, but not explained yet people have been known to adopt highly developed rituals related to a single verse, e.g. Mormon teachings regarding baptism for the dead based on 1 Corinthians 15:29. The later example might even be seen as a case where the resulting practice has nothing to do with the idea actually being expressed in the scripture, yet those who engage in it would argue that it is found in scriptures.
So, what is it that makes one argument that uses scripture to support itself a case of merely citing biblical references and another argument a case of proof-texting? What is different in the methodology of the two that makes proof-texting unacceptable and the use of biblical citations not only an acceptable but highly recommended? And perhaps more importantly, how can we tell when we may have drifted from an appropriate use of Biblical citations to substantiate a point of view to mere proof-texting?
It is common to ask another person to give a verse reference as support for his/her opinion. Christians typically seek to validate one's views as substantiated by the Bible. Even non-Christians refer to the Bible when wanting to argue against a view held by a Christian for they know that we recognize its authority.
On the other hand, many Christian principles and concepts are never explicity mentioned in the scriptures, e.g. belief in the Trinity is arrived at by inference from the scriptures, not quoting specific verses which mention it. Sometimes the converse of this also occurs where something is specifically mention in a verse, but not explained yet people have been known to adopt highly developed rituals related to a single verse, e.g. Mormon teachings regarding baptism for the dead based on 1 Corinthians 15:29. The later example might even be seen as a case where the resulting practice has nothing to do with the idea actually being expressed in the scripture, yet those who engage in it would argue that it is found in scriptures.
So, what is it that makes one argument that uses scripture to support itself a case of merely citing biblical references and another argument a case of proof-texting? What is different in the methodology of the two that makes proof-texting unacceptable and the use of biblical citations not only an acceptable but highly recommended? And perhaps more importantly, how can we tell when we may have drifted from an appropriate use of Biblical citations to substantiate a point of view to mere proof-texting?
