Why do all christian theological arguments turn on biblical proof-texts?

[Albion]

If the Bible is so important to the faith, why didn't Jesus write anything down?

Why didn't the Father write anything down instead of inspiring mortals to write the Old Testament?

Will Christianity always use the Bible as the final arbiter for apologetics and theology?

Yes, although you know that the two largest churches (RC and EO) consider traditions to be the equal of the Bible. However, the Bible is the common denominator among all Christian churches when it comes to doctrinal guidance, so that is why "all Christian theological arguments turn on Biblical proof-texts."

 

[Johnnz]

It's the entire Biblical account that is also necessary to understand Jesus. And that arose from within cultures at the times of their cultural settings, not some 21st century one.

John
NZ

 

[Tzav]

At one time in my life, a proof-text was simply a text, usually a Bible passage, used to support a theological position. I don't know when it changed to a negative thing, but it did some years ago. I admit that the change from a positive idea to a negative one sometimes still sets me back.

 

[single eye]

show me where any individual or group was given the authority to decide for everyone which writings were scripture and which were not. otherwise, it is all conjecture, assumption, and opinion lacking any credible evidence.

 

[Albion]

show me where any individual or group was given the authority to decide for everyone which writings were scripture and which were not. otherwise, it is all conjecture, assumption, and opinion lacking any credible evidence.

The OP, however, didn't ask about interpretations, just why it is that all theological arguments revolve about references to the Bible.

 

[Der Alte]

At one time in my life, a proof-text was simply a text, usually a Bible passage, used to support a theological position. I don't know when it changed to a negative thing, but it did some years ago. I admit that the change from a positive idea to a negative one sometimes still sets me back.

The usual meaning of "proof text" is a text that is taken out-of-context to prove an unorthodox interperetation. For example John 1:1 is used by a certain religious group as a "proof text" to prove that the Logos was not "God" but only "a god." Because they translate the verse as "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was a god."

 

[Albion]

The usual meaning of "proof text" is a text that is taken out-of-context to prove an unorthodox interperetation. For example John 1:1 is used by a certain religious group as a "proof text" to prove that the Logos was not "God" but only "a god." Because they translate the verse as "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was a god."

But that verse is also the most often-cited one whenever orthodox Christians seek to prove the divinity of Christ or the Trinity, using Scripture.

 

[Der Alte]

But that verse is also the most often-cited one whenever orthodox Christians seek to prove the divinity of Christ or the Trinity, using Scripture.

John 1:1 is one of the many verses which speak of the divinity of Christ. But the group I am speaking of inserts the indefinite article "a" before the second occurrence of Theos/God.

The correct translation. No indefinite article before the second occurrence of "God."

John1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was God.​

The proof text translation, with the indefinite article "a" before the second occurrence of "God.".

John1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was a God.​

The proof text version makes John, a devout monotheist Jew, a polytheist by having him describe two gods.

 

[Albion]

John 1:1 is one of the many verses which speak of the divinity of Christ. But the group I am speaking of inserts the indefinite article "a" before the second occurrence of Theos/God.

I know that, but it doesn't seem to be the case that only groups like that one engage in proof-texting. Trinitarians cite that very same verse just as often as Jehovah's Witnesses do.

 

[Der Alte]

I know that, but it doesn't seem to be the case that only groups like that one engage in proof-texting. Trinitarians cite that very same verse just as often as Jehovah's Witnesses do.

I agree people from many different denominations resort to proof texting. The problem with those who prooftext John 1:1, they ignore the context. While the 2d occurrence of Theos in John 1:1 does not have the definite article, that does not necessarily make it indefinite, i.e. "a god." We don't stop there Theos occurs four more times in John 1 without the definite article, vss. 6, 12, 13, and 18, and that same group does not translate those 4 occurrences as "a god." Also vss. 14 and 18 show that the Logos was God.

Joh 1:14 And the Word [acting Himself] became flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

ISV Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The unique God, [μονογενὴς θεὸς/monogenes Theos] who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him.​

 

[Tzav]

The usual meaning of "proof text" is a text that is taken out-of-context to prove an unorthodox interperetation. For example John 1:1 is used by a certain religious group as a "proof text" to prove that the Logos was not "God" but only "a god." Because they translate the verse as "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the word was a god."

Yes, I've read that book.

 

[Albion]

I guess that I don't know that is meant by "proof-texting" then. While I agree with all that you've written about the JWs' misuse of the verse, Trinitarians will just as often explain the meaning correctly and, in so doing, would seem to be engaged in "proof-texting," but if the meaning actually is "taking it out of context in order to justify an unorthodox interpretation," I'll have to adjust my thinking.

 

[South Bound]

Why do all christian theological arguments turn on biblical proof-texts?

"All"? Really? That's kind of weird, since I have theological discussions all the time that don't rely on proof texts.

If the Bible is so important to the faith, why didn't Jesus write anything down?

Yeah, because something writing under the authority and movement of the Holy Spirit is so much less authoritative.

I know this is all post-modern, emergent crap

First correct thing you've said yet.

Will Christianity always use the Bible as the final arbiter for apologetics and theology?

Yes.

If not, what will take its place? Can principles like historical criticism, truth, love, community, grace, or forgiveness ever overcome Sola Scriptura?

I hope not. But we do see some movements within Christianity that have abandoned the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura and, in every case, their doctrine is a train wreck.

((NOTE TO HAMMSTER AND HISTORICUS: PLEASE NOTE THAT NOWHERE IN MY POST DID I SAY THAT CATHOLICS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS.))

I think that is true only for the crowd that wants to stand on the Bible alone. Which is kind of ironic since the Bible itself proclaims there is more to stand on than what is written there and it never claims to be ALL one needs to stand on.

If you're going to say "the Bible says..." at least have the guts to name the verse you're referring to.

have to burst your bubble. sola scriptura only applies to the catholic bible. the protestant bible was based on the priesthood of the believer. neither have anything to do with the writing of Scripture. it has to do with separating writings into groups, putting them in a single collection and naming it the holy bible. the protestant reformers did not claim to have the authority to decide for everyone which writings were scripture.

"Eight years as a Baptist and two years of Bible college", huh?

 

[Der Alte]

I guess that I don't know that is meant by "proof-texting" then. While I agree with all that you've written about the JWs' misuse of the verse, Trinitarians will just as often explain the meaning correctly and, in so doing, would seem to be engaged in "proof-texting," but if the meaning actually is "taking it out of context in order to justify an unorthodox interpretation," I'll have to adjust my thinking.

Just quoting one or two verses to support a theological point in not necessarily "proof texting" in the negative sense. Anyone of any religious affiliation can "proof text." The test is can it be shown to be out-of-context as I have done with John 1:1?

 

[Johnnz]

Any sound belief requires a basis. Quoting Scripture is part of that, but as others have said, context and logic are also important factors.

John
NZ

 

[DrBubbaLove]

If you're going to say "the Bible says..." at least have the guts to name the verse you're referring to.

If one is going to attempt to be a man and call someone out for saying something one thinks is false, then have the guts to put out there where the Bible says it stands alone as all a Christians needs. The best one can do is a verse which says it is "profitable" which no one here disputes.

That the NT makes reference to material that is not recorded there being VERY IMPORTANT to both the Apostles and early Church leaders is common knowledge by most Christians even if some will claim now that we cannot possibly know now what those things are/were.

So the only thing I could possibly be called out on is the position that the Bible never says it is ALL we need. Since it does not say it is ALL we need, how could my inability to give a verse that does not exist demonstarte a lack of guts? This call is a bluff and a weak one at that.

 

[Albion]

If one is going to attempt to be a man and call someone out for saying something one thinks is false, then have the guts to put out there where the Bible says it stands alone as all a Christians needs.

That's a phony proposition. When you have God's word on something, a Christian does not ask if there's anything better.

When we say that we believe the Bible, it is not reasonable to ask why we don't suppose that tea leaves or the Book of Mormon wouldn't be just as good.

We do not read the Bible and conclude that God didn't get his revelation correct, complete, or accurate.

And no one who thinks clearly believes that there is any obligation on the part of God when giving his revelation to us to rule out, with explicit language, every ridiculous hypothetical question that the mind of man can throw at it.

He could have done that, but there is absolutely no reason why he should have. By the way, all the folklore that the Church of Rome has turned into doctrine does not meet the same standard you are demanding of God in this case. I wonder why. In fact, the exact meaning of the wording in some of the papal decrees of the past are STILL being debated among church historians and theologians...but you demand that God account for every irrelevant speculation men can raise against his word...and reject it at the same time as he's inspiring men to record his word and intent for our instruction. It's not even marginally credible.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

THanks I guess Albion, but not sure what any of that had to do with my NOT being able to give a verse which says the Bible is all we need or how I am gutless for not being able to produce it, which is what I was being called out for in your quote of my reply to another poster.

The Bible in the NT clearly states there is more we are meant to know than what is written there. It is not a matter of whether that knowledge is "better". It is a matter of whether or not one believes that knowledge still exists in any reliable/useable form. I can somewhat accept the position that it no longer exists and therefore all one has left is the Bible. I cannot accept someone denying the Bible indicates there is (or was) more to be taught Christians than what is expressed there.

 

[Albion]

THanks I guess Albion, but not sure what any of that had to do with my NOT being able to give a verse which says the Bible is all we need or how I am gutless for not being able to produce it, which is what I was being called out for in your quote of my reply to another poster.

I'm not calling anyone anything, but I did feel like responding to this comment (which I've heard so many times from others):

have the guts to put out there where the Bible says it stands alone as all a Christians needs. The best one can do is a verse which says it is "profitable" which no one here disputes.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................

The Bible in the NT clearly states there is more we are meant to know than what is written there.

Oh no it does not. Not if you are referring to John 20. That passage clearly states that we do NOT need that additional information so long as we have what is in Holy Scripture.

There is, in fact, nowhere in Scripture where it is said that there is other revelation that is on the par with Scripture.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I'm not calling anyone anything, but I did feel like responding to this comment (which I've heard so many times from others):

LOL, the only reason I used the "calling out" phrase was because it was used on me, which had nothing to do with you or your reply to me.

]
Oh no it does not. Not if you are referring to John 20. That passage clearly states that we do NOT need that additional information so long as we have what is in Holy Scripture.

There is, in fact, nowhere in Scripture where it is said that there is other revelation that is on the par with Scripture.

Well we can agree to disagree then and I have no interest in playing "yes it does" - "no it doesn't". Which is why I did not quote anything. If I did I would not use John 20, though clearly 20.23 would be good in discussing whether or not God gave some of His Authority to the Church before going to the Cross.

If I did want to quote I would use:
2 Tim 2:2 & 1:13, 2 Thes 2:15 & 3.6, John 21.25, Mark 13.31 & 16:15, Matt 23:2-3, 2 Pet 1:20, 3:15-16, Rom 10:17, 1 Cor 15:1-2,

And am not intersted in debating the meaning of those verses, to me it is clear the Church from the beginning was relying on oral teaching/tradition well before the NT letters were found in a list of books appropriate to read during the Liturgy.

And Peter equates God's Word with the word preached in 1 Peter 1:25, so I would be hard pressed to support the notion that the Bible puts itself above that oral tradition. Seems rather equal status to me.

And to appease the original poster my comments were directed at:

Origen; Fundamental Doctrines: Preface-
"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition"