I have come across many who say Proof-Texting is wrong and claim it has been misused from the beginning of the Advent movement, and that the pioneer Seventh-day Adventists incorrectly used the proof-text method to establish true doctrine.

Yet we see Jesus often used a 'proof text'.

The Temptation of Jesus

Matthew 4

1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'[a]" (Deuteronomy 8:3)

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.'[c]" (Deuteronomy 6:16 )

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.'[d]" (Deuteronomy 6:13 )

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

So how should scripture be used.....?

Proof texting could be suspect when other passages dealing with the same subject point in a different direction. This is why several texts should be used. Context is also important as well as local circumstances.

Jesus didn't always cite from multiple references. One text is sufficient, provided that it is used properly and not to support something that neither context nor the rest of the Bible would support. Yes, Jesus proof-texts. So do Peter, Paul, and Ellen.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Luke 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

Agreed

The problem is in that one text being used properly, which is why we have so many denominations, issues within our own church on things like WO, Trinity, etc.

Perhaps we need to define exactly what proof-texting is. If Jesus using scripture to combat the devil is an example of proof-texting, then proof-texting could loosely be defined as any use of scripture to make a point -- something virtually all Christians do to some degree.

The problem is when people ignore context or other important background to the text. For example, evangelicals often use various Pauline texts to undermine the applicability of the Sabbath for contemporary Christians. Then conclusions they arrive at ignore some of the specific issues that Paul was dealing with at the time. For example, the text about not letting anyone judge us in regard to meat and drink, holidays and the sabbath days.

Jesus did "proof-text" in many situations beyond that of the temptations. He did not often cite more than one text at a time, or else the disciples did not choose to record His full citation. I see nothing wrong with "proof-texting." I think many people have jumped on the wagon to bash "proof-texting" as a defense mechanism against those who use Scripture to hit them over the head. Of course, we should not use scripture that way. But we should definitely encourage citing Scripture appropriately, proof-texts included. The real issue is one of moderation/balance.

My belief is that no doctrine should be built up from one text alone. But proof-texting is not necessarily to establish doctrine. If it is doctrine you wish to support, a minimum of two or three texts should be found to support it.

(This is not saying that "proof-texting" is limited to just one text.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

At the same time, proof-texting is used by agenda-driven people in a sort of dogma-bullying effort to manipulate the religious experience of others -- by both liberals and conservatives. The meaning of a text should never be interpreted without consideration of the context (cultural, geographical, and temporal, scriptural) in which it was written. Many people use Colossians 2:14 to PROVE that the law has been done away. The context, however, is the example of a court scene in which the accuser (certificate of debt in NASB/handwriting of ordinances in KJV) is effectively removed from the witness stand. It is not that the law has been done away with, but rather our legal record of transgressions against it. The law still stands. By ignoring this courtroom context, the evangelicals wrongly conclude that it is the ordinances of God themselves that have been abolished.

SDA's have often tried to say that this handwriting of ordinances that was against us was the ceremonial law or the curses mentioned in Deuteronomy 28. However, if we persist in sin, these curses still stand. Also, it does not make sense that the ceremonial law that illustrates the redemptive work of Christ can rightly be said to be against us. If anything, it is for us. Our record of misdeeds (certificate of debt) is a much more sensible translation. As a side note, I remember that text well when my 1st Sergeant pulled out his KJV to PROVE to me that my scruples regarding the Sabbath were unfounded. It would have been a help to me at that time (over 15 years ago) if I was aware of the implications of some of the other translations. Whatever his shortcomings may have been, I do owe some acknowledgement to Dr. Bacchiocchi's book "Sabbath Under Crossfire" for showing me this.

We (SDA) have often in the past tried to explain that Col. 2:14 refers to the laws of Moses, but this is not true. The context shows that the handwriting on the wall is the record of our sins, and that does not change the commandments one bit.