General

Proof-texting

I’m sure many would read my recent series of articles and grumble “that’s just Derek proof-texting again.”

Consider Ed Hurst’s statement from 2016:

Ed Hurst — Misguiding Spirits
For now, there are two primary results that I would expect from any genuine encounter with God or His agents. One is that you will be humble and penitent. Not so much in terms of modeling yourself after any number of cultural models that bear such labeling, but that you will surely set aside arrogance and self-focus. I have no problem with serious self-confidence, by comparison. Two, you would be especially humble and accountable to the Bible. Not slavish bibliolatry, but evincing a sincere desire to avoid conflict with what it teaches. A failure can also manifest in the perverted legalism of proof-texting, too. It’s the message between the lines that is sacred, not the precise wording.

See that part about proof-texting? To wit:

Proof texting is the method by which a person appeals to a biblical text to prove or justify a theological position without regard for the context of the passage they are citing. [..] Yet, while the method of proof texting can be problematic, nevertheless theology must still maintain a thoroughly biblical character. The New Testament authors support this idea in their own citations of the Old Testament text. Thus, the main criticism of proof texting falls on its method rather than its desire and motivation to base theology on the canonical text. But in one’s interpretation of a text, the genre and context should never be ignored. As the saying goes, “a text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.

The claim of proof-texting is an ad hominem: it’s a claim about someone’s motivations, not merely their objective actions, that is, their ideas. Making the accusation of proof-texting presupposes that a person is choosing to ignore the context in favor of something else (e.g. their preferred doctrines). It presupposes and prejudges the person who is citing scripture without establishing the fact.

As the quote above shows, there is a strong temptation to criticize the method of proof-texting, rather than the motivation itself, as if the former proves the latter. But scripture itself contains the very form of proof-texting throughout its pages. Check out all those bolded lines in Hebrews 1. That’s the author building up his point by citing different verses verse-by-verse until he arrives at his conclusion. That’s the method of proof-texting, and it’s the kind of thing that Paul liked to do. It’s one ways that we engage in critical thinking and rational argument with respect to the Word of God.

Is the author of Hebrews taking those verses out-of-context? How do you know?

I find the accusation of “proof-texting” to be a juvenile-level objection. It’s lazy and dismissive. As with all personal attacks, accusations of proof-texting should come with proof. If you want to claim that someone is taking scripture out-of-context, then you at least have to show why their understanding of the context is wrong (and ideally what the correct context actually is, though this isn’t always possible).

That is what I do. Unlike Radix Fidem, I can show precisely where Radix Fidem’s doctrines conflict with the context of scripture. I can demonstrate it. I have no need to throw empty insults or question people’s motivations, I need only show that the interpretations do not match the context. Whether they are proof-texting or not ultimately doesn’t matter.

General purpose terminology—like the insult “bibliolatry”—which paints a whole group as guilty in the abstract…

Ed Hurst — Be the Gospel
We give the nickname “bibliolatry” to the odd mental habit of evangelicals who worship the Bible instead of the Living Word. They invest so much reverence into the physical artifact, or the body of content, that they lose track of what it’s about. To them, the book is the Savior, and it manifests in a bunch of ritual instincts about the physical artifact. For them, the book is the only way God can speak to the world. This is what happens when you embrace the obsession with “propositional truth”.

…is not godly nor loving. It is prejudicial.

The casual, almost flippant, way in which Hurst throws around the insult “bibliolatry” to tarnish people who disagree with him is really quite shocking, given how loving, humble, and respectful his followers portray him to be.

It would be one thing if the insult were true, then one could at least attempt to claim that it was truth spoken with hard love. But, the irony is that I know of no Christian who would say that the Bible is the only way that God can speak to the world, nor have I ever found any Christian who claims that we are saved by faith in the Bible, nor have I ever met a Christian who is so obsessed with “propositional truth” that they deny the working of the Holy Spirit. While I’m sure you could find a few individuals to make these claims, this certainly does not apply generally to evangelicals as a group. In fact, most Christians would probably say something like this: the Holy Spirit reveals God’s truth through the Word of God contained in the Bible.

These accusations are unfounded and ‘bibliolatry’ is nothing more than a smear:

comment by Jason
The same arguments the Left has used for decades (put downs / ending the discussion statements) and what Ayn Rand called “the art of smearing”

What about you, dear reader? Do you believe that God only reveals truth through propositional logic? Do you know anyone who believes this?

Note that in the past, I’ve written positively about proof-texting (because, you know, the Bible contains proof-texting). For example, I wrote:

A central theme of this summary so far has been that when the patriarchal proof-texts are examined, we find that they lack any direct evidence to establish headship relationship between a husband and wife. [..] In order to engage in logically sound proof-texting, one must establish baseline evidence and build upon it. That is not being done.

Notice how my approach to proof-texting is to remove one’s motivations entirely and focus solely on whether a text is proof of the claim being made.

6 Comments

  1. professorGBFMtm

    Why doesn’t ED & Jack just team up with this fellow anti-”Bibliolatrist” who graduated from Southern New Hampshire University in 2016?

    Profile photo for Sigrid Johnson
    Sigrid Johnson
    M.F.A in English Literature, Southern New Hampshire University (Graduated 2016)Author has 807 answers and 2.6M answer views2y
    Personally, I just want the Bible to be in line with the actual Torah, Talmud(which says JESUS
    is in a pot of excrement and urine in heck right now so you know I’m a non-investigative investigator like most ”redpillers” in general are who can’t face up to TRUTH, yes?
    As we lack critical thinking, B@llz,brainz, and rational arguments with respect to the Word of God as well as life in general TBH), and the teachings of Jesus.

    Not the Roman pagan traditional patriarchy. Not the contradictory Roman stuff Paul included. Not the deliberate mistranslation of “pederast” to “homosexual” that occurred in the 1950’s. Not the deliberate errors King James (who was gay! And very happy & JOYOUS in general like MY GIRL KAMALA y’all!) added in to highlight his fascination with witches. Not the weird ideas about prophecy John Birch added in the 60’s. Not the deliberate exclusion of the Church mothers decided at the Council of Nicea. Not the distortions made to add in syncretic parallels with every folk religion it came across.

    Hate to break it to the Christians, but your Holy Book is full of deliberate mistranslations and misinterpretation and deliberate exclusions as well as rampant bibliolatry, all put there to uphold first Roman pagan values, then to uphold English imperialist values, and finally, to uphold the values of crackpot racists and misogynists from mid-century America. You all are so confused about what your religion actually is that you can support Trump , who could barely be a more screamingly obvious example of what John of Patmos described as the “spirit of antichrist” (that’s right, he never said there was just one. That was an added peccadillo from Tim Lahaye, who thought one really evil dude was more dramatic than the allegorical descriptions of all men obsessed with power and self-aggrandizement John was actually writing about). Jesus would weep at what you have twisted His teachings to say TBH as I SMH.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Your citation nicely illustrates the subjectivity of ungrounded mysticism, that is, “occult.” But once you ground mysticism with the Word of God, it becomes immediately obvious what is true and what is the deception that Jesus and the Apostles warned about.

  2. professorGBFMtm

    We’re sure many would read our recent series of comments and grumble “That’s just MOSES, JESUS & GBFM being totally rad,bad@ss & kicking it hard as heck again.”

    NO, NO, NO!The following paid(but with a free 7-day trial) substack post by
    Discipleship & Dominion doesn’t sound like someone that considers themselves a secret king WE all know that comes here sometimes?:

    Discipleship & Dominion

    Subscribe

    The Secret King Complex and putting random people in their place
    Oct 15, 2022
    ∙ Paid
    We’ve noticed that there are guys out there who can’t resist the urge to message women on dating apps, just to correct them.

    They aren’t interested in these women—they just start the conversation in order to issue the correction.

    For instance, they’ll see that a girl’s profile says Christian—but her profile photo is immodest. So they strike up a conversation in order to call them to act more modestly, as Christ requires.

    This is a bad idea.

    Last week we talked about taking a passing dog by the ears. This is a classic example. Larson Hicks recently posted a good exhortation on this: Stay in Your Lane – Larson Hicks – YouTube.

    Often this impulse is because men want to exercise authority on behalf of God. But exercising authority requires you to be in the right place on the hierarchy. God delegates his power to husbands and fathers; not to anyone who wants it.

    If you want women to respect God’s hierarchy, you have to respect it yourself.

    To presume to exercise fatherly power, or even brotherly …

    NEED a more proof of how that connects to a certain someone?:

    Sharkly says:
    29 August, 2024 at 6:18 am
    As y’all know, one of my faults is my debilitating level of personal humility. Sometimes I just don’t feel like I can share the true magnitude of my greatness due to inner gnawing pangs telling me. “they’ll never grasp your true cosmological stature. Don’t hurt them with it”. But at some point, excessive humility becomes deceit, and I fear I often stray too close to that precipice while calling others liars & deceivers constantly.

    Anyhoo, I’ll just share a tiny anecdote then to try to combat my overriding bent towards self-effacement.

    Due to my shallow well not always producing as much water as I might want, and my living way out on the prairie away from the masses, rather than using and flushing my toilet, I often go out my front door to urinate off the walkway to my porch. And being a modest soul, I face away from my nearest neighbors far to the north and pee into the grass along the south side of my walkway. I also happen to have very fortified urine as I supplement with iodine and other trace minerals.

    It took me a while to figure it out, but I also seem to have a warren of rabbits living in my yard, which often hang out under my vehicle. I think the coyotes are wary of my dwelling, so the rabbits live in my yard. The cottontail rabbits have actually become somewhat accustomed to me, due to me being their rightful king, and they’re not afraid to graze 15 feet from my front door much of the time. And it has become apparent that they are making it a point to selectively eat that grass right along the south side of the walkway where I pee regularly. They are keeping that exact area nibbled down almost bare.

    All that was merely to relate the fact that, even the grass I piss upon becomes a great treat for God’s other creatures. Unintentionally God’s blessing flows to other creatures, even from my body’s waste. The cottontails I bless by my urination likely do not even fully comprehend the nature of our relationship. Just like y’all. But my excessive humility is again keeping me from extending that analogy and explaining how y’all are also blessed by my usually king & hierarchy bulls#it.

    Like

    Sharkly says:
    29 August, 2024 at 6:45 am
    8 days ago, the London Met Police sent me an email claiming, “We’ll investigate your report based on the information you’ve provided and get back to you within 48 hours …”

    Those lazy-@ss layabouts have apparently not yet fully investigated my anti-invasion comments, nor have they even sent me an email pleading for more time. Perhaps they can learn how to better apprehend terrorists from our US Department of homeland security as shown below.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwYtFt4agqo
    That’s the ”Cold Opening: Homeland Security – Saturday Night Live” video.

    Farm Boy says:
    29 August, 2024 at 6:53 am
    But you are the King

    Liked by 2 people

    Sharkly says:
    29 August, 2024 at 7:20 am
    But you are the King

    It now appears that I do act with “sovereign immunity” in the UK, so that I cannot commit a legal wrong there. I reckon that is why Scotland Yard was too abashed to even reply after investigating and realizing that I am their estranged sovereign. I’d be speechless in my presence too, if I were them.

    Are there more Questions on Secret Kings?

  3. Pingback: Dr. Michael Heiser

  4. Lastmod

    bibliolatry

    That’s a hoot. The same people that talk about Hebrew and translations and context and “what Jesus / Paul / this king or that king / Abraham / John / Peter” REALLY meant.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      The irony is that Radix Fidem relies on Michael Heiser, who is known for proof-texting.

      “Note, the pagan concept of “monotheism” is nearest to Heiser’s idea of monolatry. Hellenistic Jew like Philo capitalize on the erroneous thinking of these pagans, who Heiser enjoys using proof texts from to argue his opinion. It was the philosophy of synchronism from the Alexandrian schools that produced the Gnostic ideas which parallel many of Philo’s expressions.” — Heath Henning

      Heiser balked at being called a polytheist, but his description of a Jewish pantheon as “monotheism” most closely matched the polytheistic description from Greek philosophy. Heiser also balked at being associated with the Gnostics, just as Ed Hurst did when I implied the connection.

      Who made claims that the pagan gods were actual gods? The Gnostics:

      “Indeed, many authors argued that the gods of the pagan world were kings of an earlier age that had become deified. None of the early church fathers claimed that there were actual gods of some lower tier as Heiser claims. Only the Gnostics made such claims.” — Heath Henning

      The more I research this topic, the more I note that these “Ancient Near East” proponents owe much of their understanding to “Western” understandings and are, essentially, neo-Gnostic cults (or at least based on Greek philosophy). They’ll say this is a misrepresentation, but that’s only because they don’t like the label and want you not to use it. The label itself fits the teachings. The reality is that Gnosticism is derived from Platonism, and what Radix Fidem (and Heiser) teach is quite similar to those Greek philosophies.

      Here is one example from Lactantius (250-325AD) that associates the views of Heiser (and Radix Fidem) with the philosophers:

      “Now let us refute those also who regard the elements of the world as gods, that is, the heaven, the sun, and the moon; for being ignorant of the Maker of these things, they admire and adore the works themselves. And this error belongs not to the ignorant only, but also to philosophers; since the Stoics are of opinion that all the heavenly bodies are to be considered as among the number of the gods, since they all have fixed and regular motions, by which they most constantly preserve the vicissitudes of the times which succeed them.” — Lactantius in Divine Institutes

      Dismissing the observations—that the Greek philosophy doesn’t match scripture—as “bibliolatry” is just absurd, especially when, as you note, they rely so much on knowing what the Hebrews and translations “REALLY” meant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *