How Many, How Many?
In recent weeks I have had an interesting time blogging at Theology for the Masses. We had a rather heated discussion on original sin. I hold to the position and one of the members wanted to refuted. The discussion got heated when the question of using the Bible was brought up. Some wanted to argue this from the Bible, myself included; others did not for their own reasons. During that heated debate, I was accused of what is called prooftexting. The post that brought this accusation was one in which I made a case from the Bible, citing several verses from both the Old and New Testaments to show that original sin is a biblical doctrine that we have to accept.
This past weekend, I endeavored to exegete Ephesians 5:25
. In the results of my study, I found that Christ’s love for the church is completely different from that of the world. Indeed Psalms 5:5 and 11:5 both say that all who do wickedness and evil and violence are hated by God. So it seems that God loving the church is not the same as God loving the world, and I could make a case that he doesn’t. But in my treatment of Eph. 5:25, I kept the context, both immediate and the larger context, in view. I kept the original language in view and even checked my reading of the Greek against other verses. Yet again I am prooftexting to reach my conclusions.
My question is, how many verses must I cited to avoid prooftexting? Obviously a large number didn’t work, nor did a careful treatment of one text work either. Should I just not use the Bible and just go with what makes sense to me? I don’t know. It gets very aggitating to be accused of prooftexting when you are doing everything to avoid misinterpreting the text. May be I should have not posted what I see the text saying and just post what will make everyone happy and agree with me. Concerning my post from this weekend, if I had posted about husbands and their love for their wives no one would have questioned my use of only Ephesians 5:25. However, since I focused on the second half of the verse, which is the basis for how husbands are to love, I am proof texting.
So I apologize for making proof texts and when I can figure out how not to do it, I will come back and make some posts.
Related posts:
- No related posts
2 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Sorry, I do not mean to frustrate you. In many ways you are right. And I think my last comment might have been a little misunderstood.
I do believe that God loves the church in a unique and special way, much like you were talking about. But eph.5 is a passage that is describing the love of the father to the church, not that he does not love the world. You are correct on the first part, but one can not “add” or “subjract” from the text…this is what I mean. the text focuses on Jesus’s role in connection to the church, and we can not conclude that just because it does not say “God loves the world” that he does not love the world too. Maybe this might help:
This seemed to be your approach to Eph.5 (it just seemed to me this was what you are saying)
1)God loves the Church
2)The World is not the Church
3)Since the world is not the church, God does not love the world.
If that is what you meant, then my statement about prooftexting, I believe, would be correct. Because that 3 step process is incorrect for at least 2 reasons.
1) It is inconsistent with the rest of scripture in relation to God’s love for the masses. OT and NT God shows love to people who were not Israel/church. God does not show favortism.
2) The three points that I seem to see you saying (and maybe you did not) are logically flawed. Here is why:
The first line is valid statement but it is still wrong. For those proposed three points to be true and consistent it would have to say “all of God’s love is only for the church” then the conclusion “the world is not the church, therefore God does not love the world” would be correct. But we know that God loves things that are not the church. Examples would be…the Kingdom of God (which is greater than the church), his creation on earth, and people who are not apart of the church. The last statement of God loving people might not flow with you but it is correct in my thinking.
sorry if my approach annoys you are if the prooftext is frustrating. I was not intending to do that. I was just trying to discus these things the best I can. “tommy boy”
Tom,
Apology accepted. First, I did not in any way deny the the love of God for the world. The point was to emphasize the love of God for the church was greater than the love of God for the world. Christ died for her, not for the world. It is the church that Christ will present to God at the last day, not the world. I was speaking of the quality of love, not the quantity. I should have made that clear.
The Psalmist, as I pointed out in the post, says that God hates those who do evil. All men are sinners and therefore do evil in the sight of God. Not even Moses, David, and Paul were exempt from this universal as I’m sure you’d agree. So in one sense God does hate the world and will delight in punishing us. God said in Deuteronomy 28:63
that he will delight in destroying Israel for her unfaithfulness and sin.
Also, in Ezekiel 16
and in Jeremiah 3
the relationship that God defines with Israel is that of father-daughter and husband-wife. No other nation has that relationship. His love
for her is not the same love that he has for any other nation.
Malachi 1:2-3
says that because God loved Jacob instead of Esau, Israel was blessed but Edom was condemned to wickedness and God’s wrath. In fact there again, God explicitly says he hates Esau and the term for hate means just that, hate. You can take that indiviually or nationally because the context allows for both.
Are you saying that the kingdom of God is not the church? What did Jesus mean, then, in Matthew 16:18
, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? What did Paul mean in Colossians 1:13
, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins”?
I must warn you not to use the phrase “add or subtract from the words of Scripture.” In Revelation the punishment is for the person guilty to receive all of the plagues mentioned in that book. In the Old Testament, the person is condemned of sin. That phrase cannot be used in such a cavelier fashion. That should be used for the most serious of offenses, not a disagreement in interpretation.