A foundational question for any believer is not only what they believe, but how they read the Bible. The interpretive method a person learns - consciously or unconsciously - shapes their theology, their sense of what carries authority, and the kind of faith they practice.

​

Two contrasting approaches appear frequently: topical proof-texting and contextual (often expository) interpretation.

​

Understanding the difference helps a reader assess teaching more carefully and decide whether Scripture is guiding conclusions - or being used to justify them.

​

​

A Common Pattern: Assembling Verses to Support a Point

​

In some churches, sermons are constructed around a topic chosen by the preacher. Once the theme is decided - such as unity, authority, submission, or the nature of the church - verses are gathered from across the Bible to support the idea. We remember Wellspring's founder saying that he “hoped our fingers were ready,” because we were going to move through so much Scripture in his teaching.

 

A sermon may move rapidly through many passages, drawing lines between them in order to construct a theological conclusion. ​At first glance, this approach can appear very biblical. After all, the sermon may contain dozens of Scripture references. Congregants may be encouraged to turn quickly from one passage to another, covering large portions of the Bible in a single message.

​

However, the key question is not how many verses are cited, but how those verses are being used.

 

When passages are selected primarily because they contain certain words or seem to support a predetermined point, they can easily be removed from their literary and historical context. A verse written to address a specific situation, audience, or argument may be reinterpreted as a general statement supporting a completely different conclusion.

​

Over time, this method can allow almost any practice or doctrine to be promoted by assembling carefully chosen passages from different books, authors, and genres of Scripture. When that happens, Scripture can begin to feel elastic - capable of being made to support almost any conclusion. 

​

That dynamic can cause real harm, including a loss of trust in Scripture and, for some, a loss of faith. For those who remain open to faith, the response is not to treat the Bible as unreliable, but to return to sound interpretation that respects context and the purpose of each passage.

​

​

The Method Behind Wellspring's Doctrinal System

​

This “word study” approach is not just a neutral study technique at Wellspring; it has functioned as a primary method for constructing the church’s doctrinal system - especially its teaching on the three-step “gospel of the kingdom.”

​

As students at Wellspring, we were instructed to perform “word studies” that gathered every occurrence of a particular term - such as church, authority, kingdom, or submission - from across the Bible.

​

After collecting these separate verses, we were then asked to synthesize them into a single, unified teaching.

​

On the surface, this may appear to be a thorough way of studying Scripture. In practice, it became the mechanism by which verses were:

• pulled from different books, authors, and historical settings,

• detached from their original context and argument,

• and then glued together into a system that the original writers and first readers would not have recognized.

 

This is how Norman James’s three-step gospel was built and defended: not by following the argument of Paul, John, or Peter as they wrote, but by assembling scattered verses and phrases into a new structure.

 

There are serious problems with this method:

• Words in the Bible do not always carry the same meaning in every context.

• Different authors use the same terms with different nuances and emphases.

• A verse written to address a specific situation can be turned into a universal rule far beyond what the text warrants.

• Passages with distinct purposes and audiences can be merged into a single system that reflects our logic more than the apostles’ intent.

 

For example:

• A word used metaphorically in one passage may be treated as a literal doctrinal formula in another.

• A situational instruction may be treated as a timeless command.

• Verses from Acts, the Gospels, and the Epistles may be stitched together to support a pre-decided schema—such as “repentance + water baptism in our formula + tongues = being born again” - even though no biblical author ever presents that sequence as the definition of the gospel or being born again.

 

When context is ignored, Scripture effectively becomes raw material for constructing ideas, rather than the authoritative voice that shapes and corrects our ideas.

​

At Wellspring, this was reinforced by an attitude of hubris and superiority. We remember hearing the founder and his wife confidently say of his distinctive doctrine, “We have more than the early church.” Norman James openly claimed to be an "apostle" - a peer to the apostle Paul and the apostle Peter - yet the “gospel of the kingdom” he taught was not the gospel they preached.

 

That posture - placing a 20th-century, Oneness-influenced system above the understanding of the apostles and the first generations of believers - reveals the underlying problem:

• Instead of submitting to the teaching of Christ and His apostles, the text is rearranged to fit the teaching of Norman James.

• Instead of letting Paul define the gospel, isolated phrases from Paul are used to justify a gospel he never preached.

 

This attitude cannot lead to proper interpretation of Scripture. A method that:

• lifts verses out of context,

• recombines them into a novel system,

• and then claims greater insight than the early church,

should be recognized for what it is and rejected.

 

Faithful handling of Scripture means listening to each book, each author, and each passage in its own context - and allowing the gospel Christ and His apostles actually preached to stand over every later system, including Norman James's and Wellspring’s three-step gospel.

​

 

The Importance of Context

 

Modern biblical scholarship - and much of historic Christian interpretation - emphasizes that the meaning of a passage must first be understood within its own context before it is applied elsewhere.

​

Context includes several important elements:

• Literary context - What comes before and after the passage? How does it function in the author’s argument?

• Historical context - Who was the original audience? What situation prompted the writing?

• Genre - Is the passage narrative, poetry, prophecy, letter, wisdom literature, or apocalyptic imagery? Different genres communicate truth in different ways.

• Authorial intent - What was the biblical writer attempting to communicate to the original readers?

 

Ignoring these questions can cause interpreters to read ideas into the text that were never intended by the author.

 

 

An Alternative Approach: Expository Teaching

​

A different method of handling Scripture is often called expository preaching. Rather than selecting verses to support a topic, this approach begins with a specific passage - sometimes a paragraph, sometimes an entire chapter - and works carefully through its meaning.

 

The goal is to allow the structure and message of the text itself to determine the content of the sermon.

 

In this approach:

• A preacher may spend weeks or months studying a single biblical book.

• Each section of the text is examined in its historical and literary setting.

• The original meaning of the passage is explored before drawing modern application.

 

This method tends to move more slowly through Scripture, but it allows listeners to see how the argument of a biblical author unfolds over time. Rather than assembling isolated verses, the congregation learns to follow the logic of entire books.

​

For many believers, encountering this style of teaching can be transformative. Instead of hearing Scripture used to reinforce predetermined ideas, they begin to see the Bible as a collection of writings with coherent messages intended by their authors.

​

​

Why Method Matters

 

The difference between these two approaches is not merely academic. The way Scripture is interpreted directly affects how authority operates within a church.

​

When verses are frequently assembled to support the preacher’s conclusions, interpretation can become highly dependent on the authority of the teacher. Listeners may struggle to evaluate whether a passage truly means what the speaker claims, because the verses are drawn from many different contexts.

​

In contrast, when teaching proceeds passage by passage through a biblical book, the congregation can observe the text for themselves. The meaning of the passage is grounded in its immediate context, making it easier for listeners to see how conclusions are reached.

​

In this way, the authority of Scripture becomes more visible than the authority of the interpreter.

 

 

Learning to Read the Bible Well

​

Many Christian teachers have emphasized that careful interpretation is essential if believers are to understand the Bible faithfully. Scholars such as Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, have argued that responsible interpretation requires attention to literary context, historical setting, and the intended meaning of the author.

​

Their central principle is simple but important:

A text cannot mean what it never meant to its original author or readers.

​

This principle does not prevent Scripture from speaking to modern believers. Rather, it protects the text from being reshaped to fit ideas that arise from outside the passage itself.

​

​

A Question Worth Considering

 

For Christians who care deeply about the authority of the Bible, the method of interpretation deserves careful reflection.

​

If Scripture is truly the foundation of faith and doctrine, then the way it is handled should aim to hear the voice of the biblical authors as clearly as possible, not merely assemble verses that appear to support a particular teaching.

​

Believers may find it helpful to ask:

• Are passages being explained within their original context?

• Is the meaning of a text derived from the surrounding chapter or book?

• Or are verses primarily being gathered to support conclusions already established?

 

These questions do not assume bad intentions on the part of any teacher. Rather, they reflect a commitment to handling Scripture carefully and responsibly.

​

The Bible itself repeatedly encourages believers to examine what they hear and to understand the Scriptures deeply.

 

Taking time to consider how the Bible is being interpreted can be an important step toward honoring that responsibility.