What is the Biblical basis for Oompa Loompas?

Question

Biblical basis questions are quite popular here, and many of them are good questions. But a large number of them are also really bad questions, because they are based on the false premise that there is a Biblical basis.

A few recent examples:

• What is the biblical basis for the Athanasian Creed's statement that believing in the Trinity is necessary for salvation?
• What is the Biblical basis for claiming that Paul upholds and teaches the Torah law?
• What is the biblical basis for valuing virginity, but dispensing with levirate marriage?

How should we, as a community, address these issues?

Outright banning Biblical basis questions would be far to heavy-handed an approach to address this subset of bad questions.

But suggestions to the OP that there is not or may not be a Biblical basis, and that the question ought to be broadened to simply "What is the basis for this belief" often go unheeded.

As a result, we often get well-intended answers, which don't actually answer the question. For example this answer uses Biblical references, but fails to directly tie to the subject matter of the question. On the same question, this answer does a great job of explaining the basis for the belief, but relies primarily on extra-Biblical sources.

Sometimes it's also unclear whether a question truly fits within the "Biblical basis" format. Some groups may hold a belief because they believe it is in scripture, others may hold a belief for other reasons. What do we do in these cases?

To move this discussion more into the abstract, how would we answer:

Q. What is the Biblical basis for Oompa Loompas?

And for the sake of argument, lets suppose that someone finds a prooftext somewhere that could, with some imagination, be used to support Oompa Loompas.

Is such a question Primarily-opinion-based (as the existence of a Biblical basis depends on opinion)?

Does the question implicitly ask "... according to those who believe there is a Biblical basis?" (I suppose this is implied today, but I don't think it solves the problem.)

Should some, or all, Biblical basis questions be broadened to simply "basis" questions, to fairly allow for these possibilities?

At the moment, we're left with voting wars (as evidenced in my first example question), and this doesn't seem like the appropriate course.

Answer 1

How would we decide which biblical basis questions are valid and which ones aren't?

By the criteria of, "Does this belief actually have a biblical basis," I happen to believe that most of the biblical basis questions here are invalid, because I believe that most of the beliefs whose biblical basis are being asked for don't have a valid basis in the Bible.

Does that mean I would get to go around voting to close all biblical basis questions for which I think the biblical basis is unsound? Can I get 'em closed by gathering together enough users with sufficient rep who agree with my position, and together VTC?

What objective criteria could we adopt that would give us a valid guideline beyond our own beliefs and our own interpretation of the Bible to determine which biblical basis questions are and aren't valid?

I can think of only one:

Does any recognizable Christian group or denomination hold to the belief, and think that it has a basis in the Bible?

This is the only criteria I've found useful in questioning a biblical basis question, and leaving comments for the OP: Can you point to an actual Christian group or denomination that holds to this belief, and thinks it has a biblical basis? This would be the answer to your theoretical Oompa Loompa biblical basis question.

If we make any modification to the on-topic criteria of biblical basis questions, this is the one I would suggest.

Here, for reference, is the current "Biblical basis" guideline in: Types of questions that are within community guidelines:

5. Some questions ask for the "biblical Basis." Example. It is vital to note that a good answer to this kind of question mandates that you provide the verses and arguments used by proponents of the view in question. Whether the verses are being interpreted correctly or not by proponents of that view is irrelevant to this site. Another example here.

By the same token, answers that say "there is no biblical basis," and especially answers that give the biblical basis for the opposite belief, such as this one, would be "Not an Answer" for a biblical basis questions, because the on-topic guidelines would require that some Christian group thinks the belief does have a biblical basis. Of course, answers that give the biblical basis for the opposite belief should instead be posted in answer to a corresponding question asking for the biblical basis against the belief specified, such as this one in relation to this one.

Edit: As I've said in some of my comments on this and some of the other answers here, I don't think we should require biblical basis questions right off the bat to identify a Christian group or denomination that holds to the belief in question and thinks it has a biblical basis. But I think questions should be challengable as to whether any Christian group or denomination holds it, and if no one can identify such a group, then the question should be closed.

Requiring that a denomination be identified right off the bat is too high a bar for new users who come here having heard about a Christian doctrine and wanting to know its basis in the Bible. We already chase away enough new users who don't ask questions "in the right way." Most biblical basis questions will be about an identifiable Christian doctrine. Any that aren't we can deal with on a case-by-case basis through challenging the question as stated above.

Answer 2

Proposal:

In order for any question to be a valid "What is the Biblical basis for", we ask the OP to first show that what they are asking about is a valid teaching within Christianity, and that some source claims that there's a Biblical basis.

Bad question:

What is the Biblical basis for Ommpa Loompas?

Improved Question:

Father John Jones of the Catholic Church, preaching at the Church of St. Willie Wonka said in his sermon, recorded online here, that Oompa Loompas do, indeed, exist, and were mentioned in Scripture, but he didn't say where". What is the Biblical basis for Oompa Loompas?

It's less heavy-handed than an outright ban and addresses the issue of "any old fool can make up any old thing and ask for the Biblical basis".

As a means to enforce it, a comment pointing back to this post, and closing as "unclear what you're asking" until the OP makes the necessary edit, at which point, it can get flagged for re-opening.

If this works, maybe we can incorporate some verbiage on this into the help under "how to ask".

Answer 3

I think you're conflating a few different issues.

One is asking about topics which are either unclear, or for which there is reasonable doubt whether it's actually held by Christians. If someone wants to ask for the Biblical basis for the theology of Oompa Loompas, then the question should be closed as unclear until they can edit it to explain better, preferably with quotes from those who hold it.

Another kind of question are those for which its adherents do not argue from the Bible for it. An example is What is the biblical basis for the Immaculate Conception?. These questions are fine, and some of the few ones where it is appropriate to answer the question with "there isn't." (This is a very different situation from the more common kind of question where most people think a belief doesn't have a Biblical basis, but a minority scrape together some kind of Biblical basis.)

On the specific questions you raised:

• What is the biblical basis for the idea that believing in the Trinity is necessary for salvation?

  • I don't think this is a problematic question. It could perhaps be clarified to ask for what the earliest supporters of the Athanasian creed thought, or more broadly, what any subsequent adherents thought and argued. Its answers are mostly okay, but I don't really like any because they're not focused in on what the creed was saying.

• What is the Biblical basis for claiming that Paul upholds and teaches the Torah law?

  • This is fine, but a quote of someone saying he did uphold it would help.

• What is the biblical basis for valuing virginity, but dispensing with levirate marriage?

  • I think this question has a faulty foundation, but I couldn't justify voting to close it because it's indisputable that most Christians do value virginity but don't support levirate marriage. bruised reed's answer is good: it addresses the faulty foundation and gives the real basis for why virginity is valued.

I don't think we should be requiring questions to demonstrate that anyone thinks there is a Biblical basis, because (except for groups like the LDS which have additional scriptures) almost all denominations will attempt to ground almost all of their beliefs in the scriptures. Even the Catholic Church, which has a strong authority of tradition, uses the scriptures to back up most of their beliefs (the Immaculate Conception question above is one of the few on this site that doesn't.) I think all we need is to show that a group believes the belief in question.

Answer 4

It is estimated that there are over 40,000 Christian denominations worldwide. I have attended the services of perhaps fifteen of them, and read books and articles concerning a few dozen more. I think it hubris for me to challenge anyone who asks a Biblical basis question, because the odds that some denomination somewhere views that question as important is likely to be high.

I think it important to note that "Biblical basis" means different things to different people. I studied Physics and Mathematics in college. I know what a mathematical proof is. I have also read books on the law and archaeology. What constitutes a proof or a defense of an idea means different things in all these disciplines.

I do not believe in Purgatory, but I admit that there are some verses in the Bible that support such an idea without proving it. Likewise the necessity of belief in the trinity for salvation. There are verses that touch on facets of this question, whether supporting or contradicting it. Those relevant verses are the Biblical basis for an opinion one way or another about what ideas are consistent with the Bible and what are not.

Taking the trinity as an example. The full doctrine of the trinity is a complicated matter. It is likely that one cannot justify all aspects of it using the Bible alone. But that does not mean that one cannot justify some aspects via Scripture. I think it a worthwhile endeavor to search for as much support (or the opposite) as possible in order to sift it and come to a conclusion concerning a question. A full, mathematical proof would be nice, but in a court of law it is often the preponderance of the evidence. Thus stating the following is useful:

a) this is what must be proven

b) this is what has strong support

c) this is what has poor support

d) this is what has no apparent support

Answer 5

There's a class-within-the-class of questions that come up often that for me makes this site a turn-off: find the Biblical basis for a particularly Catholic doctrine.

1. Almost all of these already have a post on Catholic Answers. Someone asking a question here probably didn't do their homework. They might not like or agree with the corresponding post on Catholic Answers, but those posts seem to be the official Catholic response very reliably.
2. Answers are unwieldy: the doctrine in question is often defined in an encyclical, at an Ecumenical Council or in the Catechism, which provide scriptural citations (or citations to other sources which in turn contain Scriptural citations, eg, if it quotes Aquinas or Augustine who in turn were referencing scripture). To ask for the Biblical basis is therefore to ask for a reproduction of sometimes lengthy arguments which are a poor fit for SE sites. At the same time, providing the citation to the appropriate encyclical, paragraph in the Catechism, etc., gives someone who is genuinely curious everything he or she needs to understand the reason for the logic.
3. It pre-supposes a sola scriptura approach (or often comes across that way). Presumably, someone asks a question here either (1) they are trying to understand a different view, or (2) they are trying to understand something their own church teaches. In the first case, trying to understand someone else's point of view while constraining answers to your frame-of-reference seems self-defeating.

Answer 6

Prove it. Prove that someone is claiming that the bible supports the condition. I know I could easily find some one with the Trinity question. Maybe the Paul/Torah question. Certainly not the virginity/marriage or oompa loompa question.

So I have a pretty simple solution. Any biblical basis question stands with the assumption that some Christians do use the bible to support the belief. But, if challenged, the OP must prove that assumption. It can be as simple as a single blog post that makes the claim that the bible supports the position and that there are Christians who believe it does.

This is very much like the requirement to prove a Christian belief exists and is therefore on topic. A self identified Christian must simply and publicly claim the belief.

Answer 7

I'm going to suggest a formula that if the question cannot fill in, it is not on topic:

• According to [Perspective], (what is the)/(is there a) Biblical basis that [Subject] [Claim about subject]?

Definitions

• Subject, Doctrine or Concept: The basic topic of discussion. In the first given example it would be The Trinity. The Subject of the question. Can be a person or group.

• Claim: This is what separates a good question from a bad. A claim about the Oompa Loompas must be made for which you are seeking biblical support or basis. Until a specific claim about them is made, you are just asking....if they exist? Its unclear at best and primarily opinion based at worst since no starting or ending perspective is given either.

• Perspective: The Established theological perspective, framework, system or denomination. Examples: Reformed Theology, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal, Anglican, Lutheran, LDS, etc. It may be the perspective of the desired answer, or simply of who is making the claim. It can even be left open to all Christianity in some cases. This is not traditional scope.

I am not saying questions should be scoped(verb) I am simply saying all questions do have a perspective or scope(dictionary noun definition). I am placing no demands on what that scope is, I am simply identifying it. Much like every argument has a bias, every question has a scope. The problem is when it is unsaid and too unclear from the rest of the question to comprehend naturally.

Please stop commenting about requiring scope. No where have I said that and I have repeatedly said that is not what I am saying.

Example variants:

• According to most [Protestants], is there a Biblical basis for [Oompa Loompas] [being the lost 10 tribes of Israel?]

• [Does anyone] (any Perspective) believe there is a biblical basis [for the existence] of [Oompa Loompas] and, if so, what is it?

• How do the [Southern Baptists] respond to the biblical evidence for [Oompa Loompas] being [the lost tribes of Israel]?

As you can see the variations are limitless and even help in slightly different cases such as the last one.

Quick Check Questions

Obviously questions will not be phased in this format, but in three questions we can answer if it could:

• Who? - The Perspective
• What? - The Doctrine, Concept or Subject
• What's the claim? (How?) - what is being said about [what]?

Put another way: Who is saying what about what?

Examples

What is the biblical basis for the idea that believing in the [Trinity] (Subject) is [necessary for salvation] (Claim)?

This gives the clear perspective of starting at the Athanasius Creed within the body of the question, even if the title is missing it. +1

What is the Biblical basis for claiming that [Paul] (Subject) [upholds and teaches the Torah law] (claim)?

This may be a rare case where the perspective is missing or left wide open to all Christianity, though I could argue the scope is Early Church. +1 But borderline. Could possibly be improved.

What is the biblical basis for [valuing [virginity] (2nd concept?), but dispensing with] (Or 2 claims?) [levirate marriage] (main Concept)?

This question is confusing because it is either looking for Biblical support for two claims, or for two concepts. -1 This confusion is evident in the response to it. It could be refined by making one claim and making the other claim into the perspective:

According to proponents of abstinence (no premarital sex), what is the Biblical basis for dispensing with levirate marriage? (not saying that is what the OP is asking, I'm not even sure. Just rephrasing for example)

Now the question is much clearer. Clear perspective, subject and claim.

Validity

I think the matter of a Claim's validity or acceptance should simply be left up to the community. There is too much chance for simple ignorance on a topic for users to judge it without being familiar with the perspective.

One could be asking about a fringe concept or heterodoxical doctrine, but as long as it has all three elements defined it is still a valid question.

This proposal only streamlines the first of three levels of interpreting a question, as we will cover next.

Philosophy

My concept comes from observation of this site. Much like the subject, verb and object of a sentence, a question is most clear when it has all three elements.

This applies to far more than biblical basis questions, but because they have consistent form and are less abstract than other questions it makes it much easier to apply this concept to them.

The Subject will always determine the possible perspectives. The Claim also impacts the possible perspectives. A question on the Trinity will be assumed to not be about Jehovah's Witnesses or Oneness Pentecostals unless the Claim makes it clear. It is my belief that the perspective should be left as the most broad possibility dictated by subject and claim. But, we can often get in trouble assuming things. This is why I suggest the perspective be identified. I am not requiring a specific scope.

How do we understand sentences everyday without even thinking about it? We do it constantly. We 1) identify the parts, we 2) fit them into coherent places, and then we 3) examine their content, what they say.

I understand this question is focusing on 3), but I am arguing we as a community are not even doing 1) and 2) the same and until we do, debating what is and is not valid is pointless because we are essentially reading different questions.

Conclusion

Without the three elements of Perspective, Subject and Claim, a Biblical Basis question is always more unclear, open ended and vulnerable to opinion that it could and should be.

This gives us an objective standard we can apply across the board without discrimination and with limited interpretation. Moderators and the community will still need to struggle with clarity, such as the question on Levirate marriage, but we will have a common standard in mind to try and get a question to achieve. And the community will still have to judge whether the content is on topic.

This is not necessarily a proposal for change (nor does the question require an answer to be one) but a proposal to internally clarify our own community's thoughts and to focus it into constructive feedback.

If we cannot identify to an OP why their question is confusing, what it is missing and what they need to add, then we cannot really help them. We will be left to simply close, close, close, and hope they figure it out. That seems to be the current method. The occasional constructive comment can rarely put its finger on the heart of the issue though. This process would hope to improve that.