Using Scripture References in Books
27th July 2005
Tim has posted an article entitled The Proper Use of Scripture in Books that I wanted to comment on.
Before we go any further, let’s establish the purpose of using the Bible in a book. The goal in prooftexting or quoting from the Bible is to accurately represent and interpret God’s Word. We do not use the Bible to prove what we want it to say. Rather, we turn to the Bible to learn from God Himself, and then share what we have learned with others. We must have our priorities straight.
I am not sure if I disagree with this or not (because of the way it is worded). I think that your position should always be backed by Scripture. If it isn’t, then it is just a subjective opinion that really doesn’t hold much weight and consequently it doesn’t matter if someone differs. Now, I don’t think someone should formulate a position and then find Scripture to support that position. If that is what Tim is trying to say then I agree with him. However, if I am writing a book and I make a statement, I think backing that statement with Scripture is warranted. In fact, I should find Scripture to back all of my positions so they become more credible and don’t fall under the “mere opinions” category. If I cannot find Scripture to back my position then I should abandon it in favor of a Scriptural one.
Again, you have to ask yourself the importance of stating an opinion without Scriptural support. The problem is that someone may differ from that opinion and there is nothing to counter with, they are just as much right as you are. It becomes a circular discussion of one subjective opinion against another.
Obviously, people can still disagree with your position even if you use Scripture to support it. However, the big difference is that you have something as a basis that both parties can reference. I personally would like to see all “Christian” books grounded in Scripture.
I will admit the above would force the reader to be more familiar with the Scripture but I don’t believe that is a bad thing.
AMDG
July 28th, 2005 at 10:47
I agree, Brian, although I think you have more confidence than I do about our ability to get to the “one intended” (which I know is there) meaning of scripture; i.e. given our various “a priori” committements to our interpretive traditions. Also the Reformers spook of the persciputiy of the scripture, i.e. this very issue. They made the distinction of the “inner clarity” (i.e. the essentials are clear for even a child to grasp–e.g. the gospel, etc.), and the “outer clarity” (i.e. secondary/peripheal issues, e.g. eschatology, spiritual gifts, etc.). I think this is a healthy distinction that points to the reality of the “humanness” of the interpreters (us). This in no way undercuts the fact that its possible to get at the “intended” meaning of scripture, just that we won’t “know” for sure if our “tradition” was right until heaven–that’s why I’m sure that when Covenant/Amilleniarian/Hyper-Calvinists get to heaven they are absolutely stunned to realize that us Pre-mil/dispensational/moderate free grace guys were right after all
.
Talk later, Brian!
July 28th, 2005 at 16:10
Well I think your comment has merely added to the conversation. I would have to say that I agree with your additions.
My point was that using Scripture as a basis gives us something to “argue” about heh should you disagree. Where as your opinion (without Scripture) or my opinion (without Scripture) isn’t worth arguing over at all really. I do not mean to say that one side is the right side and one is the wrong as both sides may be wrong.
AMDG
July 28th, 2005 at 21:01
I suppose for some of us, distinguishing between our opinion and scripture proves more difficult than many of us would like to admit
.