Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by preacher4truth, Jan 20, 2012.
...and why is it a weak apologetic?
Proof texting ...
Thanks CTB! Nice answer and thanks for the link.
Why would you say that it is a weak apologetic?
Also, I know we can provide links and statements and these are good, but what of our own personal arsenal against this, if we are in fact against this methodology?
Proof Texting: those positions held to by others that Calvinists disagree with.
With proof texting we can prove anything we want to believe. Thus I cannot see how it could be used as a strong apologetic method. I suppose just as anything could be proven anything could be disproven, or attacked with proof texting.
I heard the following one time as a proof texting example.
Judas went and hanged himself. Go thou and do likewise.
Obviously this is a total misuse of the two verses. Yes, both are in scripture, but when taken out of context ... well you see above what happens.
There is the joke from proof texting also proving that automobiles existed in Jerusalem when Jesus and his disciples were there.
They were all in one accord.
Yours is certainly weak and is why all I can say is run forest run.
It isn't a thorough system for engagement with Scriptural content which often, when read in context, often proves an entirely different point.
Also, the original authors of Scripture didn't write in chapter and verse...so it is a poor hermeneutical method.
All that said, it is also a method used by many in Scripture and some of the best theologians in the Church.
I agree. Theologians may at times rightly employ and use proof-texting in the sense they already have a thorough grasp of the Word of God, and a strong understanding of theology, for the most part. Any verse brought up to a true theologian, and said will already have a correct understanding of the context it is in, and thus be able to express said verse according to their theological stance/camp.
As far as laymen, and not representative of all, many employ this weak apologetic, often using texts out of context to prove what they feel is absolute truth, while not having a thorough understanding of the Word of God, or even of the context at hand.
I've heard both used from the standpoint of attempting to be jovial. But one can make a point.
taking ones theological views from scriptures cited out of contex, and/or without regard to their construction/meaning in the original Greek/Hebrew texts!
also found when one takes verse in isolation that runs oppossed to majority of verses clearing supporting something else!
So, when one quotes verses that contradict dogma, such as the Omnis of God, Sovereignty, the state of lost man biblically, God's choosing of man, said is proof-texting. Good point!
One cannot support theology off just a single isolated case in the case of a solid majority of verses that support something else!
Exactly!!! you must take and eat the whole book in other words As Clarke said: to fully comprehend its meaning:study it thoroughly. By the way this is a very good thread.
Some scriptures are clear, unmistakable and not subject to any other interpretation.
Others require context.
For instance, dispensationalists cite I Thess 5:9 as a passage which proves a pre-tribulation rapture:
The reasoning is that during the great tribulation, the antichrist will make war on his opponents, and God will pour out his wrath on the antichrist. Since we are not appointed to wrath, it means we won't be here during the tribulation.
Of course, the verse says no such thing.
This is one example of proof-texting.
Thats actually one of the unmistakeable verses you mention What othe meaning can there be? The great tribulation is the time of God's wrath against an unbelieving world. Since we are in Christ, and Gods wrath was poured out on Him at the cross, why are we subject to further wrath of God? Makes no sense.
Can be used in a good way and a bad way. If you make a doctrinal statement, you very likely will have some verses as your "proof" that your statements are true. However, in a real study of doctrine, one cannot use just the proof text without regard to the context, original intent of the author....
We can see proof texting in every Systematic Theology textbook.
It pays to look up each text - even in the best of them I'm often dismayed at the sources they cite.
QUESTION: Did the writers of the NT use proof texting in their writings and if they did, did they take the scriptures they used out of context?
In this verse, I think Matthew used proof-texting: Matthew 2:17-18 (ESV)
17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:
18 “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.”
The original verse in Jeremiah 35:15 was speaking concerning the captivity of the 10 tribes, and Matthew was comparing the slaughter at Bethlehem to that.
What is "proof texting"? That's when you hold your cell phone up to your buddy, showing him that you had, indeed, sent him the text he said he never got. Your showing him the "proof" of "texting" him. Oh brother, I know!!! :laugh: