I've lately encountered a new term: Proof-texting.
Googling the term I came across 6600 references, so I can only assume that the term is relatively new in terms of broad usage. What it means, basically, is the use of short passages of scripture to prove specific desired doctrines. Typically the proof-texted passages are pulled out of context, or otherwise stretched to derive meaning that clearly does not exist in the verse's original context.
Interestingly enough, the only people I've encountered who use this term are those whose bona fide's as a Christian are at best suspect. I say 'Suspect' because much of their own conjectured doctrines rely themselves upon towers of proof-texts, if not pure thin air.
For example, to suggest that the early church proof-texted Jesus into the Old Testament prophecies surrounding the Messiah is to suggest that Christianity is false. It calls into question the veracity of the entire New Testament, and Salvation by Grace alone (which, by the way, is clear Bible doctrine).
[I really don't know where I'm going with this. I'm as much following the whim of a muse as I am a white hare down a very long dark hole. But that's not entirely fair, as my muse at least is merely nudging me in "a" direction, as opposed to "leading" me anywhere... let alone into the bowels of the 'madness of Hatters and Jabberwockys.' Which is where much of bona fide-lacking Christians dwell.]
Jeremiah said the heart is desperately wicked, and deceitful above all things. Paul said that those who, having professed themselves wise (becoming fools in the process); who have likewise changed the glory of God to suit an image more familiar... an idol of the heart better suited to desires of the flesh, have been given over to a reprobate mind. For those who would slap the elegantly simple Gospel of Jesus Christ upon a wheel of fleshly desire; to shape it anew (and strangely devoid of hope), there is a veil of blindness that covers their eyes. They are blind to the truth. Simplicity is lost on them because the convolutions of their own handiwork hold both greater sway and meaning for them.
One educator at a well-respected Seminary (whom I will not identify at present), rejects the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ because 'she' cannot wrap her mind around the idea of a man dead three days rising to new life-- it was a spiritual resurrection. But the Gospel is not rendered false simply because one cannot 'wrap one's mind around it.' We walk by faith, not by sight. Jesus said to Thomas, "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." And it was in that spirit that Jesus prayed for us who, nearly two millennia later, would likewise also believe:
Neither pray I for these [His disciples] alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word...
Their word. Their testimony. And for those who wrote to the Churches, their Epistles.
Too much is taken for granted on both sides of the ideological fence. On the Left, that the scriptures are clear about nothing; and on the right, that the scriptures say more than they do. Where then is the truth? Whose shibboleth reigns supreme?
Revelation 22:18 says,
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.
And for those on the Right, they take that to mean the ENTIRE Bible, though the verse clearly states the prophecy of this book... the book of Revelation. I do not say those on the right are wrong, for while every verse has but one contextual meaning-- it means what it says where it says it, in context --yet many verses too have more than a single application.
Contrary to what those on the left believe, the Gospel is NOT fraught with ambiguity. No. It is quite clear, and clearly supported by the whole of New Testament scripture:
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures...
This passage is also quite clear-- The Gospel consists of the following:
a) Christ died for our sins
b) He was buried
c) He rose again the third day
If one is to believe the Gospel (and be saved) one must believe that Jesus died for his sins; that he was buried; and that He rose again the third day. One must believe Jesus rose from the dead to be saved. There is no ambiguity here. Romans 10:9 concurs:
[I]f thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved...
No ambiguity here either. And yet there are some who will nonetheless steadfastly proclaim that scripture is 'clear about nothing.' --If I may wax parabolic [adj]: "They cling to tufts of grass at the cliff's edge--" tuft's, I might add, that are unclear... i.e., Phantoms.
How can one believe in Jesus, and be saved by His amazing unmerited Grace, if the scriptures are unclear? On any subject?
The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Who is, and who is not Christian? The man who sowed wheat knows. In the meantime, we grow together until the harvest (which is sooner than most believe). And having shared the same fertile earth as the wheat will not grant the tares a reprieve from the fire. Not all who say, "Lord, Lord" unto Him will enter in. Not all who sit on a church pew... Doer's of the word, not hearers.
But then what do I know? Have I not proof-texted this entire post?
But I'm not sure that this tendency is limited to the right: how often do we see Christians from the left invoke the Bible's clear teachings about helping the poor as if those who oppose government social programs are in opposition to the Bible? The Bible is clear that we should help the poor, but not on how we should help, be it through the work of private charities and individuals or through government aid.
The far more serious problem is the tendency of some to question, not the meaning of a particular passage, but its very authenticity: the argument that the writer proof-texted.
There are some passages, such as the last few verse of Mark, that aren't found in some of our oldest manuscripts, but it's not those passages that are being questioned. It's the passages that are, by all indications, authentic both to the original text and to the beliefs of the early church.
There's no good reason to believe that the New Testament writers proof-texted Jesus into the Messianic prophecies: there's no evidence that, before these texts were written, the church believed anything different. The position is extremely presumptuous, and it doesn't allow for the possibility that Jesus really is the Messiah and that He Himself claimed to be the Messiah: since the reader would dismiss a record of any such claim as "proof-texting," the reader is effectively muzzling Jesus on the issue of who He is.
There's a huge difference between disagreeing about a passage's meaning and disagreeing about its authenticity. Two sincere people who disagree about the meaning are going to be limited in their beliefs by the contents of the passage itself: some interpretations are much more plausible than others, and some are so implausible that no intelligent adult can sincerely hold them.
But if there is disagreement about the authenticity of the text, the person who rejects the text's authenticity is under no obligation to try to reconcile his belief with the contents of the text: he rejects the text's authenticity, so who cares whether his beliefs remotely correspond to the text?
Disagree about the meaning, and the text itself will constrain the degree of the disagreement. Disagree about the authenticity, and there are no constraints: the person who rejects its authenticity is free to believe whatever he wants.
Since Christianity is not -- and should not be -- infinitely malleable, this latter approach to Scripture is something that shouldn't be seen as harmless.
It's worth taking another look at Paul's recitation of the Gospel message, possibly one of the earliest Christian creeds:
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. - I Cor 15:3-4, emphasis mine
It's not just that Christ died and rose, it's that His doing so fulfilled Jewish Scripture.
EL, Re, "the only people I've encountered who use this term are those whose bona fide's as a Christian are at best suspect."
Says you. And, look harder.
Bubba, Re, "It's not just that Christ died and rose, it's that His doing so fulfilled Jewish Scripture."
Well. That's Paul. He was not only a Jew but the chief abuser of Christians before his conversion. Don't you think he'd have an interest in drawing as clear a connection between his new revelatory experience of God-the divine and his own religion as he could?? Of course he would.
Which is why I don't dismiss such connectionsm when testified to by early church fathers.
But I do declare that they don't mean jack to me, personally, as a Gentile, and that for you or anyone to try to bend me to accept them because you do is wrong.
Yeah, proof-texting is quite old. And quite in vogue, Left and Right.