Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 6
He says “you don’t prove a scriptural doctrine through an illustration,” and critiques the normal practice of collecting “proof texts” while ignoring other passages; what would it realistically look like for your group to handle a disputed doctrine by examining “the totality of the New Testament” instead of favorite verses, and what costs (time, identity, tradition) would that demand?
Another way to ask: What would it look like to study a debated doctrine by looking at the whole New Testament, not just a few favorite verses? What would that cost your group in time, comfort, or tradition?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests a realistic approach would start with admitting bias, attempting a “blank slate,” and then gathering every New Testament passage that pertains to the doctrine—without ignoring the difficult ones. The cost would be time and the humility to admit “what I have been taught may… be wrong,” which can threaten tradition and identity.
- He rejects proving doctrine by illustration: “you don’t prove a scriptural doctrine through an illustration.”
- He critiques “proof texts” as “cherry pick[ing]… verses that support… and then you ignore all of these other verses.”
- He says we must start “with a blank slate,” or at least honesty: “No, I don’t. I’ve been indoctrinated.”
- He describes the needed posture: “Hey… I could be wrong… maybe the way I’ve been taught is wrong.”
- He defines the task: look at “every verse in the New Testament that pertains to that subject… the totality of the New Testament.”