Posted on 01/19/2010 3:23:01 AM PST by Gamecock
The “analogy of faith” is a reformed hermeneutical principle which states that, since all scriptures are harmoniously united with no essential contradictions, therefore, every proposed interpretation of any passage must be compared with what the other parts of the bible teach. In other words, the “faith,” or body of doctrine, which the scriptures as a whole proclaim will not be contradicted in any way by any passage. Therefore, if two or three different interpretations of a verse are equally possible, any interpretation that contradicts the clear teaching of any other scriptures must be ruled out from the beginning.
Another related principle, that is very helpful in interpreting prophecy and apocalyptic literature in particular, is that the clear must interpret the unclear. In other words, a very specific interpretation of the highly symbolic visions of John's apocalypse, for example, may never “trump” the clear teachings of Paul's epistles, which are more didactic and less symbolic, and hence more clear.
My other questions would
- who gets to say what the "clear" meaning of a text is, and
- when two texts appear to conflict which one must yield?
- when two texts appear to conflict which one must yield?-
Example?
Therefore, if two or three different interpretations of a verse are equally possible, any interpretation that contradicts the clear teaching of any other scriptures must be ruled out from the beginning.
So there is your answer.
I think a clear example would be the idea of justification by faith alone. Paul teaches this at numerous times and places...basing his arguments on Old Testament passages as well as logic. Therefore when we run up against a passage in James that says “faith without works is dead,” the interpretation which says James is saying faith + works equals justification (or life) must be wrong. Rather, we know that real faith....alone, without anything we do to merit it...brings AFTER it good works. In this case we take explicit passages (the several by Paul) to interpret a more implicit and isolated passage (by James).
This concept—of allowing the clearer, more detailed passages interpret the less clear—is basic to any kind of literary interpretation, and, it seems to me, quite a clear/perspicuous way to approach things—allowing a normal person of average intelligence to understand....what “perspicuity” implies.
As to who gets to make these decisions....I’d say the church in council....however, with the understanding that it’s judgement is not infallible. This is the underlying logic of the great Protestant confessions.
(2)So how do you define perspicuity when now we have to call fallible councils to tell us what the Bible says, knowing they may not be able to do so?
The important things of scripture are crystal clear...but God willed that everything in the bible is NOT totally or equally clear.
The wisdom from the unbeliever Mark Twain is true: “It’s not the things in the bible that I don’t understand that bother me, it’s the things that I do understand.”
We are not called to encapsulate all the mysteries of heaven in our finite brains—as mystery is the invitation to worship.
The gospel and ethics are extremely clear—which is why, when you look at denominations, (evangelical ones anyway) they are practically in 100% agreement on the good news of Christ, and, how we should live. Divisions are often caused by over-emphasizing less essential, and less clear points...making dogma of what should be dicta.
I think, especially in the post-scientific West, we really expect everything to be perfectly clear...before we commit to it...and that is just not the biblical model for faith.
Here is my quibble or cavil or something, except that I can hardly say it.
Leaving aside ecclesiology and Mary and all that, I would say that some Protestants sort of go for the easy theological kill. I've felt like this (I'm not sure "thought" is the fair word) since 1969 when I tried to write a paper comparing Calvin and Aquinas on grace, merit, that stuff. I thought that Calvin made the crisper, clearer case but that he failed anyway because the very crispness and clarity did not answer to the muddiness of human experience (where sometimes we don't know HOW it came to us to do or to be able to do something, but we still sweated blood to do it) or to Scripture ( my favorite verse: for this purpose, being the one in Philippians about working out one's salvation with fear and trembling because it is God working both to will and to do.
And kind of sort of similarly with the ringing line "For freedom Christ has set you free," which leads to speculations about what we mean by freedom.
Now I would say, personally, that not everyone is called to be a theologian, and I would agree that the basic stuff is not only not that hard to grasp intellectually, but is also as rich and wonderful as anyone could need.
I remember before a certain vocal Calvinist decided I was a demon from hell, I once wrung an "Amen" from her. The question was REALLY about limited atonement, but it was phrased something like, "For whom did Christ die?" I answered, "For me."
One really has to have the kind of diseased mind that leads to theology and debate on FR to need to say anything more or to think about anything else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.