Bottom-Up Processing Is Objectively Better

Except in Those Situations Where It Objectively Isn’t

Jan 29, 2026

Thanks for clicking on the article link. This one is fairly personal to me. I’m a bottom-up processor, and when I finally learned the difference between bottom-up and top-down processing, it helped me interface with people who disagree with me in a much better way. I can see where the logical chain breaks, where a key proposition needs to be plugged in, and how to rebuild the steps without talking past each other. I can also tell someone up front that I’m going to preserve what they’re actually trying to say as we work through the text and the logic. I’ve found that approach makes conversations cleaner, calmer, and more productive.

If you want articles like this delivered to your email inbox when I upload them, subscribe for free on Substack. If you’d like to support the work so these articles keep coming, make sure you always have access to the archive, and get anything I put behind the paywall like video content, you can become a $1-a-month patron at www.patreon.com/christianitynow.

Bottom-Up Processing Is Objectively Better
Except in Those Situations Where It Objectively Isn’t

A Bible class is in Mark 16, and a man reads the verse out loud. The teacher responds, “Before anybody asks, baptism cannot have anything to do with salvation, because that would be works,” then moves on without dealing with the words on the page. Bottom-up processing is objectively better in theology because it treats each clear proposition as true on its face in its own context, then integrates other texts without falsifying that proposition to protect a preferred system. The point shows up in Mark 16, it shows up in Paul’s warning about careless teaching, and it shows up in the way people build doctrines out of Revelation 21 that the verse never taught.

A Classroom Pattern That Produces Error

A teacher walks into Mark 16 with the conclusion already settled: faith alone saves, so baptism cannot be connected to salvation in any way. When the class reads Mark 16:16, the teacher has to start by telling the room what the verse cannot mean. He does that because the plain reading of the clause would force him to revise the conclusion, and he is not there to revise it.

That is top-down processing in practice. The teacher is not going to the verse to find what is true and then altering the conclusion after. The teacher is going to the verse with the conclusion already chosen, then explaining away the clause so the conclusion remains untouched.

A Clause That Functions Independently

Jesus said what He said, and the sentence stands as a sentence.

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
(Mark 16:16)

The clause “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” functions independently of any other clause in that context. That clause has to be a true statement, ipso facto, per se, on its face, however Jesus meant it at the time. A man can study the setting, the audience, and the surrounding context, and the man still has to start by treating the proposition as a real claim.

The second clause addresses unbelief and its consequence, and the first clause addresses belief expressed in baptism and its promise. A teacher who tells a class what Mark 16:16 cannot mean, then refuses to handle the words “and is baptized,” is showing the class how to overrule Jesus while keeping the Bible open. Bottom-up processing blocks that move by refusing to let a frame cancel a clause.

Paul’s Warning About Careless Teaching

Paul described a man who wants to teach while speaking loosely. Paul’s warning is blunt, and it matches the kind of classroom move described earlier.

“Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.”
(1 Timothy 1:7)

A man can say, “Baptism cannot be connected to salvation,” and the man may never face what the claim actually affirms about Mark 16:16. A man can repeat a phrase about grace, then use the phrase to treat commanded responses as unacceptable, and the man may never check whether the phrase is being used the way Scripture uses it. Paul’s warning fits because the problem is not tone, the problem is meaning and affirmation.

Bottom-up processing forces a man to slow down at the point where speech gets careless. The bottom-up method asks what the words mean, what the words require, and what the words rule out. That is epistemic hygiene, because it keeps a man from teaching conclusions that are held together by ignoring clauses.

A Doctrine About Heaven Built from a Conclusion

The same system-first habit shows up in a popular claim about heaven. A man decides that heaven must be happy in a way that excludes any sadness, then the man reasons that sadness comes from memory, so memory must be removed. The man then teaches that people in heaven will not remember lost loved ones, and some go farther and teach that people in heaven will have no memories at all.

The verse usually placed under that claim is Revelation 21:4.

“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”
(Revelation 21:4)

Revelation 21:4 promises God’s action in ending death, sorrow, crying, and pain. Revelation 21:4 does not say God deletes a person’s memory, and Revelation 21:4 does not say personal continuity is removed to guarantee comfort. A doctrine that requires the words “wipe away” to mean “erase identity” is a doctrine built from a conclusion rather than from the verse.

Resurrection Requires Personal Continuity

If a man teaches that you will have no memories, the man is also teaching that the person who arrives is no longer you. A human being is not a blank soul with no lived history, and Scripture speaks of resurrection as the raising and transformation of the same subject.

“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption.”
(1 Corinthians 15:42)

Paul’s language points to continuity through transformation. The same life that was sown is raised, and the change is real, but the person remains the person. A doctrine that requires memory deletion as a condition of joy carries the logical commitment of replacing the person rather than raising the person.

Scripture also presents awareness and reasoning after death in a way that assumes recognition and understanding.

“And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.”
(Luke 16:26)

Whatever debate a man wants to have about details of that account, the scene depicts persons speaking with awareness and comprehension. The account does not read like the removal of identity through blankness. The point for this article is narrower: Revelation 21:4 cannot be used to teach memory erasure, and the resurrection hope cannot be reduced to replacement.

Ephesians 2 Does Not Cancel Mark 16

The same integration discipline applies when a man runs to Ephesians 2 as a way to overrule Mark 16. Paul’s paragraph is clear, and the whole paragraph has to be honored together.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”
(Ephesians 2:8-10)

A man who respects Ephesians 2 keeps grace as grace, keeps faith as faith, keeps boasting excluded, and keeps the ordained walk described in verse 10. A man who respects Mark 16 keeps Mark 16:16 standing as a real proposition spoken by Jesus. Bottom-up processing refuses to purchase coherence by falsifying one text to protect another, and the method forces the hard work of defining terms the way each passage uses them.

A teacher who tells a class, “Baptism cannot be connected to salvation because Ephesians 2 says grace,” is doing the same move described in the opening scene. The teacher is treating a summary as a veto over a sentence, and the students are being trained to accept cancellation as interpretation. Bottom-up processing keeps both texts intact and requires integration that does justice to both.

When Top-Down Shortcuts Serve

Top-down processing has a real place when time is short and action is required. A doctor in triage uses broad patterns to decide who gets attention first, and the doctor refines details as information arrives. A father faced with sudden danger makes a big-picture decision for safety, and the fine points get sorted after the danger passes.

Top-down processing also helps a beginner who needs a basic storyline to know what he is reading. That help becomes harmful when the storyline is treated as untouchable and sentences that refuse to fit are treated as disposable.

Conclusion

The Bible class in Mark 16 is a small scene with a big consequence. A teacher can train people to let a system overrule a sentence, and the same habit will produce doctrines about heaven, memory, and resurrection that Revelation 21:4 never taught. Bottom-up processing begins with the proposition, keeps the verse under consideration intact while also keeping the “opposing” verse intact, and handles both without forcing claims they do not make.

Paul’s warning belongs here because careless teaching always has a pattern.