# Validity of Proof-texting



## Theoretical (Jun 6, 2006)

This is an odd question, and I am not exactly sure how to word it, but here goes.

Basically, many of the Christians around me take a very skeptical view of proof-texting as a legitimate interpretation of Scripture (WCF and WSC style proof-texts are viewed especially negatively in this context). For the most part, they hold to Scripture quite tightly, but cringe at drawing huge swaths of doctrine out of individual words or individual phrases in seemingly isolated verses. They worry that Scripture is being taken out of context with this approach (and similiar arguments I suppose would be levied about ultra-expositional preaching as well).

I'm really unsure of where to go with this issue, because of how strongly Scriptural I see Westminster to be, but at the same time, I think it raises interesting problems. Am I missing something?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 6, 2006)

Here is some of the historical context for why proof-texts were appended to the Westminster Confession of Faith:



> Proof Text of the Westminster Standards
> The scriptural proofs for the Confession have an interesting story behind it. During the Assembly´s proceedings, the Assembly settled upon various articles of the Confession through the process of discussion and debate. One of the rules in these proceedings was that speakers should make their statements good from Scripture. No doubt, many many quotations from the Scriptures were brought out in their meetings. Nevertheless, the Assembly voted to adopt the precise wording of the Confession without incorporating the numerous biblical references raised during the discussion of each article.
> 
> When the document was completed in December 1646, it was simply the text of the Confession alone that was presented to Parliament. The House of Commons was not satisfied and they gave orders to the Assembly requiring them to add scriptural proofs to it. This action was probably a stall tactic, because the House of Commons were Erastians and they opposed the Confession´s teaching on Church government and the relationship between the Church and the state. But while the motives of the Parliament were suspect, their action greatly enhanced the usefulness of the Confession. Robert Baillie, one of the six Scottish commissioners, wrote, "œThis innovation of our opposites (the Erastians) may well cost the Assembly some time"¦ but it will be for the advantage and strength of the work."
> ...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 6, 2006)

People who complain about the WCF's proof-texts are simply a little ignorant of history. They weren't "proof-texting" at all, they were essentially reluctantly forced to provide some citations that supported what they were saying in the Confession. Had they included all the Scripture references and exegesis which led to the Confession itself, it would be as long as Scripture itself, I'm sure.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 6, 2006)

Some of the WCF prooftexts are entire chapters. How much context do folks want? The OPC's prooftext set (as approved by their GA) is, I daresay, even longer.

People complaining about prooftexting are attributing their pitiful experience with opponents who drop verses without meaningful context or explanation (like John 3:16--"hey! it proves that people have free-will!") as if just referencing the text was the silver bullet. Real prooftexting is contextual, exegetical, and applicational.

Sorry, but the folks who think the Westminster Standards are "drawing huge swaths of doctrine out of individual words or individual phrases in seemingly isolated verses," obviously haven't studied either the Standards or the Scriptures adduced in them. That's just the truth. These are ignorant people.

And I'm sorry they are both factually and feelingly in error, or that this assesment may seem insulting to them. It's not meant to be. But this is exactly why the church is today in such a state. Folks (who otherwise claim a fierce dedication to the Bible) are bringing a whole lot to the Bible, instead of truly coming to the Bible to be taught. Challenge most of them, and they will say they have no time, or they are satisfied that the understanding they have received (from men they trusted!) is the truth. They want to be "Bereans" but they are locked in to a grid of pre-understanding that is quite powerful.


----------



## Theoretical (Jun 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Some of the WCF prooftexts are entire chapters. How much context do folks want? The OPC's prooftext set (as approved by their GA) is, I daresay, even longer.
> 
> People complaining about prooftexting are attributing their pitiful experience with opponents who drop verses without meaningful context or explanation (like John 3:16--"hey! it proves that people have free-will!") as if just referencing the text was the silver bullet. Real prooftexting is contextual, exegetical, and applicational.
> ...



I see what you are saying with that, and that is a distinction I didn't necessarily see with it previously. There is indeed a big difference between stupid proof-texting (the John 3:16 variety) and the formal expositional elements. I suppose that should have been rather obvious, but I have a bad way of missing things staring at me in the face http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/images/smilies/candle.gif. Oh, well - thanks for the clarifications.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 6, 2006)

I'm pretty sure these are the same people who think "Systematic Theology" is trivial and use phrases like "comprehensively catholic and Trinitarian" when describing what they believe. You know, hippies.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 12, 2006)

The Scripture Proofs of the Shorter Catechism by S.W. Carruthers


----------



## beej6 (Jun 12, 2006)

Yeah, Scott, what I read into your concern with your brethren is an aversion (ill-conceived) to any kind of 'systematic' theology. Not realizing, of course, that everyone has a systematic theology, formalized or not. It also could be a misunderstanding about the use of secondary standards.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 12, 2006)

I really wish that Modern Reformation would make copies of articles written in back issues available online. Mike Horton wrote a great article entitled _Who Needs Systematic Theology When We Have the Bible?_ in the Jan/Feb 2003 issue. The whole issue is worth getting a hold of to read to get a feel for the pitfalls of the so-called inductive approach to studying Scripture.

This discussion is very Providential. I'm halfway through the reading of _The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God_ by John Frame. It is superb in many respects but especially superb, in my estimation, at dealing with the balance of Systematics, so called Biblical Theology, and "Proof Texting". He makes a compelling argument that to neglect any of the three ends up with an unhealthy and imbalanced view of the Scriptures.

Proof texting has a negative connotation but it shouldn't be so if used correctly and explained better by others above. How can somebody develop Systematics without building their system first upon what texts say about those systems. There is nothing quite so maddening as dealing with a Roman Catholic priest or an Arminian who refuses to interact with an exegeted text by the ironclad claim that: "...but you have to understand that in the larger theme of Scripture that God is Love...." Some people paint in such wide swaths with their systems that they can't even point to a single verse or passage that would support the premises upon which their system is built. Their system, of course, then has the power to be the lens through which all individual verses are interpreted.

Mike Horton does a great job in the above mentioned article of showing the folly of those who claim that the only way to interpret Scripture is the popular inductive study method. The name of the couple that is famous for spreading its message escapes me. It is a very popular method by Calvary Chapel folks. They claim that ministers can't afford to lug around theological texts nor do they have them time to equip all ministers with all tools so they claim that training with the Inductive approach they'll be able to gain Scriptural truth without any other aid.

The problem, as Horton aptly points out, is that those who rely only on individual texts either unknowingly carry a system into the text which they never critique or they will reject the Analogy of Faith and allow Scripture to contradict itself. Since their approach tries to avoid a system, they can come to a passage that teaches that God is one and their approach does not "allow" them to see that in light of the Trinity or they'll come to a passage that speaks of the three persons and their approach doesn't "allow" them to remember that the Godhead is a unity. To be consistent they must accept both in the context of the passage but that's not what they do. They become systematicians unknowingly.

In fact, the system of many Calvary Chapel folks becomes readily apparent when they completely abandon their Inductive approach for all the passages that teach God's Sovereignty in election. In cases like Romans 9 their "God didn't create Robots" system over-rules the text. You hear them talking like Systematic Theologians at that point that "...you have to understand that the greater meaning of Scripture is...."

Systematics and exegetical study would be inadequate without some informing from good Biblical Theology (or study of the Covenant if you like). To see God's unfolding plan of redemption as a complete story is a necessary perspective for study. It is not enough to break everything into theological categories (systematics) or to see verses or passages atomistically (individual verses or passages) but we should try to see the progression of theology as a whole redemptive plan. There are those who abuse this method by relying on it at the exclusion of all others. They say foolish things like: "The preacher should never make application of the Scriptures but just declare what God has done...."

I would imagine there are other prudent ways to consider the Scriptures that help to illumine our understanding. The bottom line, however, is that I am always wary of imperialists who insist there is only one hermaneutical method or grid that is acceptable in the way we view the Scriptures. The most perfect presentation of the Scriptures is all the books of the Bible from cover to cover but, at any one time, we can only ever consider a portion or try to capture a few themes that are presented. Rigid systems enforce too much on the text and neglect Godly perspectives and approaches that are even used by the Biblical authors themselves: you see Paul prooftexting, you see him systematize, and you see him providing a picture of Redemptive History. 

If it's good enough for Paul, then it's good enough for me.


----------



## MW (Jun 23, 2006)

The NT employs proof-texting effectively, especially the books initially intended for Jewish audience. One thinks of Matthew's "fulfilment" motif, or Hebrews "Holy Ghost" statements. It is a type of ad verecundiam, where not only the text is appealed to, but its plain meaning is undisputed within a tradition. It is a valid form of argument in intramural discussion.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jun 24, 2006)

I read somewhere, probably Muller, where he, or someone else, explains what we call proof-texting in the historical context of 17th century Reformed Scholasticism. It is not what we are often led to believe. They held to a historical-grammatical and biblico-theological hermeneutic. Their confessional/theological formulations were based on exegesis and theological synthesis (agree or disagree as we may). In other words, dogmatics was based on exegesis and biblical theology. Seventeenth century Reformed dogmatic/symbolic theology received some bad press in the 19th and 20th century. Muller and others are seeking to uncover primary source evidence to the contrary. I commend them!


----------



## MW (Jun 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> I read somewhere, probably Muller, where he, or someone else, explains what we call proof-texting in the historical context of 17th century Reformed Scholasticism. It is not what we are often led to believe. They held to a historical-grammatical and biblico-theological hermeneutic. Their confessional/theological formulations were based on exegesis and theological synthesis (agree or disagree as we may). In other words, dogmatics was based on exegesis and biblical theology. Seventeenth century Reformed dogmatic/symbolic theology received some bad press in the 19th and 20th century. Muller and others are seeking to uncover primary source evidence to the contrary. I commend them!



It definitely sounds like Muller. He mentions that texts were referred to on the basis of a previously accepted tradition of interpretation.


----------

