Proof-Texting. Did Jesus use it? How should it be used?

[NightEternal]

More frequently what I see is a text used to support an existing doctrine without the text actually being about that doctrine.


For instance, we had an evangelist at one time cite this text for the health message:

1Co 3:16 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?
1Co 3:17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.


There is another text within the same book that gets across the idea that our bodies individually are a temple of God. But this verse is not speaking of that.

Exactly. I have noticed this as well.

 

[WarEagle]

I have come across many who say Proof-Texting is [SIZE=-1]wrong and that from the beginning of the Advent movement, pioneer Seventh-day Adventist used the proof-text method to establish true doctrine.[/SIZE]

Yet, Jesus often used a 'proof text'.

The Temptation of Jesus

1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.
3The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'[a]" (Deuteronomy 8:3)

5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[b]"

7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[c]" (Deuteronomy 6:16 )

8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[d]" (Deuteronomy 6:13 )

11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

Jesus did not use prooftexts.

If you believe He did, then you're either claiming that He didn't know the scriptures, or He did know the scriptures, but twisted them.

To say that Jesus used prooftexts, I believe, borders on blasphemy.

You've yet to show that Jesus used prooftexts.

 

[reddogs]

Jesus did not use prooftexts.

If you believe He did, then you're either claiming that He didn't know the scriptures, or He did know the scriptures, but twisted them.

To say that Jesus used prooftexts, I believe, borders on blasphemy.

You've yet to show that Jesus used prooftexts.

The ones in bold are the prooftexts, maybe you missed them........

 

[WarEagle]

The ones in bold are the prooftexts, maybe you missed them........

And how is it that you believe these are prooftexts?

 

[reddogs]

And how is it that you believe these are prooftexts?

Define 'prooftexts' as you see it, as everyone seems to have their own idea on it....

 

[tall73]

Proof text method tends to focus on the words and the meaning of the words standing on their own.

The Historical-Grammatical method, as Adventist scholars like to say (to distinguish from the historical-critical with its presuppositions) does not just focus on the words in isolation but on the context, the setting of the letter, the structure, grammar , etc. to derive what was the original intention of the author, rather than simply a current application.

 

[reddogs]

Proof text method tends to focus on the words and the meaning of the words standing on their own.

The Historical-Grammatical method, as Adventist scholars like to say (to distinguish from the historical-critical with its presuppositions) does not just focus on the words in isolation but on the context, the setting of the letter, the structure, grammar , etc. to derive what was the original intention of the author, rather than simply a current application.

So did Jesus use 'proof text' when he said "It is written:" then cited the truth from the scripture.....

 

[tall73]

So did Jesus use 'proof text' when he said "It is written:" then cited the truth from the scripture.....

It is not a proof text just because you are proving something with it.

The issue is more about being faithful to the original intent of the author than whether you use it to make a point.


The term itself though is an implied attack. It is meant to show that they are wresting Scripture.

There is probably a better term...I would have to look for it.

 

[WarEagle]

Define 'prooftexts' as you see it, as everyone seems to have their own idea on it....

Define prooftext as you see it.

A prooftext is a verse or passage of scripture taken out of context in order to support an Unbiblical position.

That's where the old saying, "text without context is prooftext" comes in.

 

[Sophia7]

For example?


How are doctrines established Sophia?


Jon

Read what I actually said. I wasn't talking about establishing doctrines. I was talking about establishing biblical support for a doctrinal position. There's a big difference.

 

[reddogs]

A prooftext is a verse or passage of scripture taken out of context in order to support an Unbiblical position.

That's where the old saying, "text without context is prooftext" comes in.

Well thank you for your 'interpretation', but would you have a more authoritative definition that we all would be able to accept?

 

[WarEagle]

That's what it means. I'm not going to give you a whole big hermeneutic lecture about it. You asked what it meant and I told you.

 

[reddogs]

That's what it means. I'm not going to give you a whole big hermeneutic lecture about it. You asked what it meant and I told you.

Well thats all fine and good but your word is as good as the next man, thus a little documentation would be nice...

 

[Jon0388g]

Read what I actually said. I wasn't talking about establishing doctrines. I was talking about establishing biblical support for a doctrinal position. There's a big difference.

Here is what you originally stated:

Proof-texting is taking a bunch of verses from different parts of the Bible out of their original contexts and stringing them together to try to establish biblical support for a doctrinal position.

1. I am still awaiting your example.

2. Whether you were or were not talking about establishing doctrines, I'd like you to state how you think doctrines are established. The state of the dead for example. Does someone pull an idea out of a hat, and search for texts to support it? Or is it established through some other method?



Jon

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by Jon0388g
For example?


How are doctrines established Sophia?

Read what I actually said. I wasn't talking about establishing doctrines. I was talking about establishing biblical support for a doctrinal position. There's a big difference.

And that would be?

 

[Sophia7]

Here is what you originally stated:

1. I am still awaiting your example.

2. Whether you were or were not talking about establishing doctrines, I'd like you to state how you think doctrines are established. The state of the dead for example. Does someone pull an idea out of a hat, and search for texts to support it? Or is it established through some other method?

Jon

Here is a link to an article by George Knight detailing how some of the Adventist doctrinal pillars were established:
http://www.adventistreview.org/2001-1524/story5.html

I never said that these doctrines were formulated by proof-texting. However, some Adventists do try to defend their doctrinal positions by proof-texting. For example, I've often heard the argument that Isaiah 66:23 proves that that Sabbath observance is still required because it will be kept in heaven and in the new earth. The context isn't about this, though, as evidenced especially by this text:

ISA 65:20 "Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.

Did anyone hear Doug Batchelor's explanation of this in his revival meetings when asked about this discrepancy? He said that it's not really talking about people dying but about their ceasing to be considered children at 100. That's what I would call proof-texting.

 

[djconklin]

For example, I've often heard the argument that Isaiah 66:23 proves that that Sabbath observance is still required because it will be kept in heaven and in the new earth. The context isn't about this, though, as evidenced especially by this text:

ISA 65:20 "Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.

You didn't go back far enough. Go to verse 17 in chapter 65:

Isaiah 65:17​

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Clearly this passage is talking about the earth made new, echoed by John:
​

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

 

[woobadooba]

[/color][/size]

You didn't go back far enough. Go to verse 17 in chapter 65:

Isaiah 65:17​

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Clearly this passage is talking about the earth made new, echoed by John:
​

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

We've been down this road before. You are just wasting your time.

 

[Sophia7]

[/color][/size]

You didn't go back far enough. Go to verse 17 in chapter 65:

Isaiah 65:17​

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Clearly this passage is talking about the earth made new, echoed by John:
​

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Well, you are just furthering the example. Please explain why this passage says that people will die in the new earth then.

 

[djconklin]

Always tell the truth--you never know when it might sink in--different words just might do the trick!