The typical definition of a “proof text” is any scripture you quote in a debate. Perhaps a better definition is a text (a quote from scripture) taken out of context or from a bad translation to stand for something it really does not mean.
Perhaps if I give an example. In the Pslams it states “Ye are gods.” (Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High). It is often cited by those who believe in theosis, the orthodox doctrine that humans can become like God as heirs with Jesus Christ. It is generally attacked as a proof text, misuse of context, not translating the words correctly, and varying away from the meaning.
Except, of course, Jesus Christ quoted Psalm 82 for that meaning. One might accept Christ as an arbitrator of the meaning of the scriptures.
It gets interesting, though. Most of the scriptures quoted in the New Testament turn out to require serious flexibility in order to make them apply as they are applied (outside of the midrash that is Hebrews, of course).
It was in reviewing this that I realized that all scripture is a proof text.
This is because that when scripture comes from the Celestial world to mortal men, it immediately is encapsulated by the weaknesses of their context, language and understanding. In the act of being received in the first place, it becomes a proof text (that is, a text that suffers from a loss of context and errors in translation).
Next, the scriptures are intended to be used generation after generation, to speak to us, in our context. As a result, in our receiving them they receive a new context, as they did for those who came before us and will for those who came after us. In order to be received for our needs, and as God would speak to us, the scriptures must become proof texts to take life.
As I’ve said before, scripture is a body of communications from God that can work for us as a key to revelation. A Urim and Thummin by which we can tune ourselves and then find the word of God that he has for us. Which is why the scriptures, rather than being a textbook of expository instruction, are as they are. They exist to bring us home to God, to make us like him.
Indeed, because you have the scriptures, you are gods, even children of the most high God.
What do you think? What scriptures have spoken to you from God regardless of what they seemed to say?
My previous essay that touches on this point is: The Scriptures are a What?!
Obviously, the scriptures are:
- The inviolate unchanging word of God, replacing him for us at this time.
- Any inspired writing or sermon that is useful or interesting.
- A Rorschach inkblot.
- A collected miscellany of myths and historical documents.
- A Urim and Thummim
Or something like that. Or are they?
1. The first view of scripture, called Biblidolatry by those who are critical of it, treats the scriptures as the inerrant word of God. Which scriptures, which translation, which conflicts count, all of those issues are swept aside with the claim that God spoke, it is written, and the scriptures are all we need. Versions of this approach have lead to the claim that the heavens are closed — all we need we have and it is all we will get until Christ comes again.
One of the foundations of our faith is the rejection of this view and a rejection of a closed canon.
2. The alternative to number one is Paul’s 2 Timothy 3:15 “And that from a child thou has known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” The word Paul used means inspirational or religious writings. Early Christian libraries, in reliance on Paul, included Plato and other writings (remember that all the early “Bibles” are/were the collections of sacred writings that Christian Communities had, typical archeology will find Plato, Shepard of Hermes, The Pearl and other texts as the mainstays of early Christian “Bibles”).
In many ways our theology embraces the “every word that proceedeth” approach. D&C 68:4 “whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture …” summarizes this nicely — and it is talking about missionaries. Every sacrament talk, every missionary lesson, every family prayer has the potential to be scripture of this type.
3. At the same time, scripture often reflects the reader (especially when being ignored or reinterpreted). I remember being assigned to read On Walden Pond. The book struck me as mostly froth. As we discussed it, one guy began an impassioned defense of the philosophy of the book. As I listened I realized that what he was defending was (a) not in the text and (b) his personal philosophy. The book had been an ink blot for him. Scripture can be the same, and often is.
4. Our scriptures are filled with myths and histories. Reading Kings and Chronicles caused me to realize that the histories are not necessarily accurate histories (the two disagree on many details).
Now myths can be true myths (e.g. The Battle of Bunker Hill really did happen, as did The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere — just because they are foundational myth stories doesn’t mean they didn’t happen). They can also be figurative accounts, sometimes purely figurative — or even just myths and stories.
The other end of the spectrum from “the inerrant word of God” is “miscellaneous accretions of myth and history we have by random chance.” A sort of cultural artifact vs. a divine expression.
Our theology acknowledges that our scriptures may contain accretions, but that they are not only accretions. While scripture is a written collection of oral narratives, each specific to a specific time and need, instance and occurrence, we believe that the scriptures are more as well.
5. Which leaves us with the last view of scripture. Scripture is a body of communications from God that can work for us as a key to revelation. A Urim and Thummin by which we can tune ourselves and then find the word of God that he has for us. Which is why the scriptures, rather than being a textbook of expository instruction, are as they are.
It also means that we can ignore them, find in the whatever it is we already think, or patiently learn from them that which we do not know or suppose. It is up to us what we find in the scriptures and what they become for us.
Wheat & Tares 
To be honest, proof scripturing rarely works, if ever. One time I had a Jehovah’s Witness in Spain say something to the effect that if I would show him proof that his church was wrong, he would join the LDS church. People have to have a spiritual experience in order to be truly converted. My mission president said one time that you have to use the Holy Ghost to bear on the free agency of the investigator to persuade them to do the right thing. Similar thing here. If the person feels nothing, you can show them all the proof of scriptures in the universe and nothing will work.
“If the person feels nothing, you can show them all the proof of scriptures in the universe and nothing will work”
This is why I find myself inclined, despite myself, to Calvinist predestinarianism. The Spirit bloweth where it listeth, and there seems to be no rhyme nor reason as to who resonates with Mormon religious affections and who doesn’t. There are reprobates who catch fire, and diligent beavers who never do.
I rebel at the notion that God creates any human beings for the specific purpose of being damned, but the Church’s Arminian-flavored notion that everybody can obtain a testimony of its truth by following a specific formula, just doesn’t fit with the evidence I’ve observed.
Proof doesn’t exist in the scriptures. From a literary standpoint, for example, the trinity is a logical doctrine from the Bible. However, so is the Mormon interpretation of three seperate being united in person, coupled with the divine investiture of God to Jesus. Context makes all the difference, particularly when it comes to the NT. It really is a shame that Protestants, Evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons, couldn’t have had a Q&A with Paul to just ask – “works, are they essential?” It’s not at all obvious. I can completely understand the evangelical interpretation, but I can also accept that Paul was just stating the Order of salvation. In other words, works are essential, it’s just that the merits of good works don’t circumnavigate the atonement. Again, from a literary standpoint both make sense from various frameworks of understanding.
We prooftext all of the time. I was often discouraged on my mission by all of the proof-texting used to make points in the discussios. Particularly was Galations 5:22-23, regarding the fruits of the Spirit. We were supposed to tell investigators that if they had any of those feelings while praying about the Book of Mormon, they could know that what we are saying is true. Instead Paul is drawing a dichotomy between the “works of the flesh” and the “works of the spirit”, regarding those who live by the spirit and not the law alone. It says nothing of revelation, but speaks more to a disciples nature. A complete misuse of scripture to make a point that Paul never intended.
Very nice post! I have recently been pondering the “scripture as rorschach test” phenomenon as well:
“It is up to us what we find in the scriptures and what they become for us.”
Isn’t this exactly what an ink blot test does? Far from providing communications from God…we interpret what it is we “think” God is telling us. It isn’t that we are finding proof. Stating that we can choose which interpretation category we fall into (the numbers 1 though 5 listed) makes them all fall into number 3 (the inkblot test). Doesn’t it?
This is a hard subject. It’s kind of like statistics – you can prove anything you want. We use the whole “Stick of Judah” and “Stick of Joseph” thing to “prove” that the Book of Mormon was foretold. Others interpret it completely differently, however.
For most members of the LDS Church, using the LDS version of the KJV, our readings of the Bible are “influenced” by the chapter headings, largely written by McConkie. I’ve gained a lot by reading alternative versions of the Bible and alternative commentaries. Things aren’t as crystal clear as the “book answers” we talk about in our correlated manuals.
“We use the whole “Stick of Judah” and “Stick of Joseph” thing to “prove” that the Book of Mormon was foretold. Others interpret it completely differently, however.”
But underneath, it’s actually about the reunification of Germany.
(Name the movie reference!)
Thomas — 😉
Troth Everyman — my point was that it was a way for us to be communicated to, consider it an inspired rorschach (kind of a matrix rather than a mirror).
Though I have used the mirror as a metaphor as well.
What scriptures have spoken to you from God regardless of what they seemed to say?
I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
When I first read this verse, I took the “I have learned for myself that…” out of context. I’ve used it in my own life whenever the gift of knowledge has manifested. I never think of that verse in terms of Presbyterianism.
Nicely said Justin, thanks.
I’ve heard an analogy that says that what humans do to the scriptures is akin to a man showing into a cave, and then upon hearing his echo back — takes the voice to be God, agreeing with him.
It has been argued that proof texting is regular practice employed by scriptural authors.
You got it Justin, it was running into things like that which got me thinking. Of course I was reading them in text, pre-internet as we know it, but the same sort of thing. 😉