Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Analogy of Scripture: Letting God’s Word Interpret God’s Word

Transcript

The Analogy of Scripture: Letting God’s Word Interpret God’s Word · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reformed thinking. It is really great to have you
0:03
with us today. Good to be here.
0:04
We're taking on a problem that I think every single Christian has
0:08
run into at some .0 for sure. You're reading your Bible,
0:11
right? Maybe you're in a study group or
0:13
I don't know, just scrolling through theology discussions
0:15
online and you just hit a wall. You see one person building an
0:18
entire doctrine on, say, a strange vision in Ezekiel, and
0:24
then someone else comes along and pulls a single phrase out of
0:27
the Book of James to prove the exact opposite point.
0:30
It's just, it's confusing. It is the classic dilemma and
0:33
it's really common. You have two people that are
0:35
reading the same book, looking at the very same words on the
0:38
page, and they walk away with completely contradictory
0:42
conclusions. And, you know, it's not just
0:44
some academic annoyance. It really unsettles people.
0:48
It does. It makes you wonder, you know,
0:50
is God speaking clearly or is the Bible just this, this
0:54
collection of disconnected verses that you can kind of
0:56
twist to mean whatever you want it to mean?
0:59
It can feel like a field of disconnected proof texts, just
1:02
right for the picking. Exactly.
1:04
And that's what we really want to dismantle.
1:05
Today. We're doing a deep dive into a
1:09
concept that it sounds a bit technical, but it's actually the
1:13
lifeline for reading the Bible without losing your mind.
1:15
It's called the analogy of Scripture.
1:17
Or if you want the Latin and the loggia scripture a.
1:21
Let's unpack that. I mean, at its core, this is the
1:23
principle that Scripture interprets Scripture.
1:26
But looking at the sources we've got in front of us today, I can
1:28
tell it's way more nuanced than just, you know, finding a
1:31
similar word in a concordance. It is much more than that.
1:35
The source material we're looking at argues that because
1:37
the Bible has one single divine author, it simply cannot
1:41
contradict itself. So the analogy of Scripture is
1:44
the method, the cool, by which we let the brighter lamps of the
1:48
Bible illuminate the darker corners.
1:50
I like that image. Brighter lamps for the darker
1:52
corners, yeah. And it's not about reducing the
1:55
Bible to some, you know, lowest common denominator.
1:57
It's about finding the nourishing meaning that God
2:00
actually intended for us to find.
2:02
OK, so our mission today is pretty clear.
2:05
Then. We want to move from that
2:06
confusion to clarity. We want to avoid treating the
2:11
Bible like a like a grab bag of quotes.
2:14
A buffet, A verse. Yeah, exactly.
2:16
And start seeing it as a unified, coherent voice.
2:19
We really need to get this. The Bible is its own best
2:23
commentary. That's the foundation of it all.
2:25
All right, let's start there with the foundations.
2:28
Segment 1 is all about the logic of this one voice.
2:32
When we say analogy of Scripture, what are we actually
2:35
defining here? Because, you know, the word
2:37
analogy usually makes me think of comparing two different
2:40
things that are just sort of alike.
2:41
Right. And that's a good place to
2:42
start, because the theological use is more specific.
2:45
Here. We're defining a rule of
2:47
interpretation that absolutely insists on proportion and
2:50
harmony. OK.
2:51
Proportion and harmony, yeah. When sea illusions talk about an
2:54
analogy in this sense, they're not talking about just finding
2:57
creative parallels where we say, oh, this looks a bit like.
2:59
That it's not a literary device. No, it implies that all the
3:03
parts of Scripture fit together perfectly because they all come
3:06
from one mind. And since God is true and does
3:10
not contradict Himself, then Scripture, when we understand it
3:14
rightly, will not, cannot finally contradict Scripture.
3:19
So it's kind of the golden Rule of hermeneutics.
3:21
Then The Bible provides the guardrails, the boundaries for
3:24
its own interpretation. That's a great way to put.
3:27
It But why? Why is this the case?
3:29
I mean, what's the theological basis for this whole idea?
3:32
Well, it goes right back to our confession.
3:35
As Reformed Christians who hold to the Westminster Confession,
3:38
we start with the absolute conviction that the Bible isn't
3:41
just one authority among many other authorities.
3:43
It's not just. A good book.
3:44
No, it is the living God's own speech.
3:47
It's God breathed. So it's all rooted in the
3:50
doctrine of inspiration. Correct.
3:52
That's the bedrock, because the Holy Spirit is the ultimate the
3:55
final author of all 66 books. The Bible possesses this, this
4:00
organic unity. It's one living thing.
4:02
So it's not a fractured compilation of contradictory
4:05
myths like, you know, some critics would say.
4:07
Exactly what it's not God is truthful.
4:10
He is not the author of confusion.
4:12
He doesn't speak in competing voices.
4:15
Therefore, when Scripture speaks about salvation or the nature of
4:19
God or the Church, it speaks with a harmonizing, unified
4:23
voice. That makes perfect sense.
4:25
If God is the author and God isn't confused or self
4:28
contradictory, then his book shouldn't be either.
4:31
And that leads directly to the next point, which is the
4:33
sufficiency of Scripture. We don't need an external key to
4:37
unlock the Bible's meaning. We don't need a Pope, we don't
4:40
need some private Mystic vision, and we certainly don't need a
4:44
secular philosophy department to tell us what God really means.
4:47
The Bible is sufficient to explain itself.
4:49
Now our sources also mention the concept of clarity, or the
4:53
technical term is perspicuity. But they also admit something
4:57
pretty obvious. Not every verse is equally
4:59
clear. And that is a crucial
5:01
distinction to make. Westminster is very careful to
5:03
avoid this this kind of naive claim that everything in
5:06
Scripture is simple and easy to understand.
5:08
Which we all know isn't true. We know it's not.
5:10
Some passages are incredibly hard.
5:13
But, and this is the key, the necessary things, the things we
5:17
absolutely must believe for salvation, those things are
5:20
clearly propounded somewhere in Scripture.
5:23
So the main things are the plain things, the main.
5:25
Things are the plain things, and the remedy for the obscure texts
5:28
is always the clear texts. We use the places where God
5:31
speaks plainly didactically to help us understand the places
5:35
where He might be speaking in figures or symbols or poetry.
5:39
One of the metaphors in our source material that really,
5:41
really stuck with me is this idea of the Bible as an
5:43
unbreakable anvil. It's such a powerful image,
5:47
isn't? It it is.
5:48
The Bible is an unbreakable anvil that has for centuries
5:51
just worn out the hammers of its critics.
5:54
You have higher critical scholarship.
5:56
You have secular philosophy, you have modern pragmatism.
5:59
They all take their swings at the Bible.
6:01
They try to shatter its unity or claim it's just riddled with
6:05
errors. But the anvil remains.
6:06
The anvil remains, The hammers break.
6:08
The Bible stands. And the alternative view is
6:11
pretty bleak, really. If we don't hold to this, we're
6:14
left with a Bible that is, as the sources say, just a
6:18
fractured compilation of contradictory.
6:20
Myths. And if you deny the unity of the
6:22
divine author, that's what you're left with.
6:24
You're left with a merely human artifact.
6:27
And we know that human artifacts are full of errors and
6:30
contradictions. But we're not talking about a
6:32
human artifact. We're talking about the word
6:34
God. So if we agree on this
6:37
foundation that the Bible is a unified whole, how do we
6:41
actually go about reading it that way?
6:43
Segment two of our deep dive gets into the prerequisites and
6:46
the sources warn us about a very specific danger here.
6:49
Yes, the danger of haste, of being in a hurry right there is
6:54
a massive temptation, and I think it's especially strong in
6:56
modern evangelical world to rush immediately to relevant life
7:00
application. Oh yeah, What does this mean to
7:02
me? What?
7:02
Does this mean to me right now in my life?
7:06
We want to know that before we've done the hard work of even
7:08
understanding what the text actually says in its own
7:11
context. It's like trying to build the
7:13
roof of a house before you even laid the foundation.
7:16
The sources use a pretty sharp phrase for this.
7:18
They call it exegetical laziness.
7:21
It is a sharp phrase, but it's an accurate one.
7:24
The analogy of Scripture is not an excuse to skip the hard work
7:29
of studying the passage right in front of you.
7:31
You can't just get stuck on a verse and immediately jump to a
7:34
cross reference because you're too lazy to figure out the
7:37
grammar or the context of what you're actually reading.
7:40
So what are the steps then? Our outline gives us 5 anchor
7:44
questions that we absolutely need to ask before we even think
7:48
about comparing texts. Right.
7:50
And these are rigorous discipline steps.
7:52
The very first question is simply this.
7:54
What does the text say? Just what does it say?
7:56
Yeah, this is all about observation and structure.
7:58
We're looking at the grammar, the way the sentences are built,
8:00
the flow of the argument, just the black and white on the page.
8:04
And the second question. Is this a complete unit, or just
8:07
to look at the immediate context?
8:09
Are we reading a full paragraph, a complete argument?
8:12
Or did we just snip 1/2 sentence out of the middle of a thought
8:15
because we liked how it sounded? Right, which happens all the
8:17
time. Then question three, why is this
8:20
here? That gets to the author's
8:22
intent. Why did the Holy Spirit inspire
8:25
the human author to include this specific passage in this
8:29
specific book? At this specific point?
8:31
What function is it performing in the argument?
8:33
OK. #4 How does it testify to Christ?
8:37
This is the huge one, the Gospel connection.
8:40
Every text Old Testament New is part of the one overarching
8:44
story of redemption that culminates in Jesus.
8:46
We have to ask how this piece fits into that big picture.
8:49
And then finally, the last question.
8:51
What must we believe, love and do?
8:54
And notice that this is the application question and it
8:57
comes dead last. It has to come.
8:58
Last, it must come last. And to answer those first
9:01
questions properly, we need what our sources called grammatical
9:04
historical rigor. They are very, very strong on
9:07
this point. So what does that look like?
9:09
It means we need to, as much as we're able, look at the original
9:12
languages, the Greek and the Hebrew.
9:14
We need to understand syntax, verb tenses, even sentence
9:19
diagrams. We have to do the work.
9:21
Now I think some listeners might hear that and feel a little
9:23
intimidated. You know, do I really need to
9:26
diagram sentences and learn Greek to read my Bible?
9:29
And that's a fair question. But the point isn't that
9:32
everyone needs to be a professional scholar.
9:34
The point is that meaning is carried by grammar, not by our
9:38
feelings or our hunches. We have to find what the source
9:40
is called, the central idea of the text or the CIT, and that
9:44
has to be based on what the words are actually doing in the
9:46
sentence. If we skip this part, we're not
9:49
interpreting, we're just guessing.
9:50
And a big part of that rigor is understanding the genre of what
9:53
you're reading. This is the genre rule.
9:55
Absolutely. You cannot read poetry like you
9:57
read a legal statute. It's just a recipe for disaster,
10:00
right? If you read the Psalms, which
10:02
are full of metaphor, hyperbole and powerful imagery, the same
10:05
way you read the book of Romans, which uses these tight, logical,
10:08
almost legal arguments, you will end up in a complete mess.
10:12
Or reading apocalyptic literature like Revelation.
10:16
The same way you read historical narrative like the Book of
10:18
Kings. You just can't do it.
10:20
The analogy of scripture requires us to honor these
10:23
different literary forms. God chose to speak through
10:26
different genres and we need to listen according to the rules of
10:29
that specific genre. OK, so once we've done that
10:32
homework, we've studied the text in its context, we understand
10:35
the grammar, we've identified the genre, and now we can move
10:37
to the method itself. So segment 3 is about how clear
10:41
interprets obscure. What is the rule of governance
10:45
here? So the.
10:46
Practical mechanic is really this the clearer passages govern
10:50
the less clear passages. Simple as that.
10:52
In principle, yes. The didactic texts.
10:55
So the passages that are clearly meant to teach doctrine
10:58
directly, those control the symbolic or poetic text.
11:02
Explicit direct instruction controls what we might infer
11:05
from a narrative. Can you give us a quick example
11:07
of how that works? Sure.
11:08
Think about the nature of God. We have very clear didactic
11:11
texts in the New Testament that say God is Spirit.
11:13
Right, John. Chapter 4.
11:15
Exactly. Then in the Old Testament,
11:18
especially in the Psalms, we have these poetic texts that
11:20
talk about God's mighty right arm or his eyes that roam the
11:24
earth. The clear didactic teaching
11:27
governs the poetic figurative language.
11:31
We don't develop a doctrine that God has a physical body based on
11:34
a Psalm of. Course not.
11:35
Instead, we interpret the Psalm as a powerful metaphor for God's
11:39
strength and his omniscience, and we do that based on the
11:42
clear teaching we find elsewhere.
11:43
That makes sense. And that brings us to the circle
11:46
of context. The sources describe this as a
11:48
series of widening circles. Yeah, this is a really helpful
11:52
visual. First, you start with the
11:53
smallest circle, the immediate context.
11:55
The verse right before and the verse right after.
11:57
Exactly the paragraph. You're in the flow of the
11:59
argument right there. You interpret the verse based on
12:02
the sentences immediately surrounding.
12:04
It then you widen out. Then you widen out to the book
12:07
context. How does this author say the
12:11
Apostle Paul? How does he use the same words
12:14
or concepts elsewhere in the same letter?
12:17
If Paul uses the word flesh in Romans 8, the 1st place we
12:21
should look to understand it is how he just used flesh back in
12:24
Romans 7. OK.
12:25
And the widest circle is the canonical context.
12:28
And that's the whole ball of wax.
12:30
How does this particular passage in our interpretation of it fit
12:34
within the whole counsel of God? This is where the analogy of
12:37
Scripture fully kicks in. We are checking our
12:39
interpretation against the entire Bible from Genesis to
12:43
Revelation. Now there are a couple of
12:45
distinctions here that our sources to make that I found
12:47
really helpful. The first one is separating
12:50
analogy of scripture from just basic cross referencing.
12:53
This is a vital distinction, and it's a common mistake.
12:56
Just because your study Bible has a little letter next to a
12:59
word that points you to another verse doesn't mean you're doing
13:02
the analogy of Scripture. That kind of cross referencing
13:04
can sometimes just be what scholars call parallelomania.
13:07
Yeah, it's this obsession with finding words that sound the
13:11
same or look the same. You find the word rock in one
13:14
place and the word rock in another, and you just assume
13:16
they mean the same thing and are talking with the same concept.
13:19
The context determines meaning. Always the analogy of Scripture
13:23
requires shared concepts, shared functions, shared theological
13:27
weight, not just matching words in a concordance.
13:30
And there's also distinction to be made between the analogy of
13:32
Scripture and something called the analogy of faith.
13:35
Yes, they're related, but distinct.
13:38
The analogy of scripture is the method.
13:39
It's the text to text illumination we've been talking
13:42
about. It's the process process of
13:43
letting clear texts interpret less clear texts.
13:47
And the analogy of faith. The analogy of faith is the
13:49
result of that process. It's the doctrine, wide
13:51
synthesis, the whole system of theology that the Church has
13:54
confessed over centuries. It becomes a kind of guardrail.
13:57
So 1 builds the other. Exactly.
14:00
The analogy of Scripture, done properly over and over, helps us
14:04
build the analogy of faith, our understanding of core doctrines
14:08
like the Trinity or justification.
14:10
And then that analogy of faith protects us from interpreting a
14:13
single obscure Scripture in a way that would break the entire
14:17
system of truth God has revealed.
14:20
Let's move to segment 4 and actually see this principle in
14:23
action. I think the best way to learn
14:25
this is to watch it work, and our first and best model is
14:29
Jesus himself. Jesus is the master exegete, the
14:32
perfect interpreter of scripture, and if you look at
14:35
the wilderness temptation in Matthew chapter 4, you see a
14:38
perfect demonstration of this. Right, Satan comes to him.
14:41
And Satan quotes Scripture. He takes a verse from Psalm 91
14:44
and he tells Jesus to throw himself down from the temple
14:47
because hey, the Bible says the angels will catch you.
14:50
So you literally have the devil using the Bible proof texting.
14:54
Right. And notice how Jesus responds.
14:56
He doesn't say, well, I don't feel like that's right or that's
14:58
not what that means to me. He doesn't debate feelings or
15:01
personal interpretation. What does he do?
15:03
He quotes other scripture. He says it is also written do
15:08
not put the Lord your God to the test.
15:11
He uses a clear, direct command from the Book of Deuteronomy to
15:15
correct the devil's misuse of a promise from the Psalms.
15:18
So he's letting Scripture interpret scripture.
15:21
That is the analogy of scripture in action.
15:23
He's allowing 1 clear text to set the boundaries and proper
15:26
application for another. And he does it again, famously
15:29
on the Emmaus Rd. He does.
15:31
After his resurrection, he meets those two disciples and it says
15:35
he interpreted in all the scriptures, starting with Moses
15:38
and all the prophets, the things concerning himself.
15:41
He treats the entire Old Testament Canon as a single
15:44
unified witness that points to him.
15:46
That's incredible. OK, let's get into a specific
15:48
case study now, one that often trips people up.
15:51
Does God repent? This is a classic example that
15:53
people bring up all the time as a supposed contradiction.
15:56
So you have Genesis 6 where it says after the flood that God
15:59
regretted or the King James says it repented the Lord that he had
16:02
made man on the earth. Right.
16:04
But then you go to Numbers 23 and it says very clearly God is
16:07
not a man that he should lie, or a son of man that he should have
16:11
regret. So on the surface that looks
16:13
like a direct flat out contradiction.
16:15
One verse says God regretted something, another verse says he
16:19
is incapable of regret and. This is exactly where the rule
16:22
of governance we talked about applies.
16:24
We have to ask which of these passages is the clearer, more
16:28
didactic, more direct teaching on the nature of God's being?
16:32
And that would be the one in numbers.
16:34
The one in numbers and others like it.
16:35
Malachi 3.6 for I the Lord do not change.
16:39
James 1.17 that in God there is no variation or shadow due to
16:43
change. These are the governing texts.
16:46
So those clear doctrinal statements control how we read
16:48
the narrative in Genesis 6. Correct.
16:50
The regret described in Genesis is not describing a change in
16:54
God's internal being or a flaw in His knowledge.
16:57
He didn't suddenly discover that man was wicked and say, oops, I
17:00
didn't see that coming. I made a mistake.
17:01
So what does it mean? It's what we call
17:03
anthropomorphic language. It's God speaking in relatable
17:07
human terms so that we can understand the depth of his
17:10
sorrow over sin and the change in his external administration
17:14
toward humanity. He shifted his dealings from
17:17
patience to judgement. OK, so it's describing a change
17:20
in his actions, not a change in his character.
17:23
Precisely. His eternal plan and His perfect
17:26
nature remain the same, but His relationship to man changed
17:30
because of man's sin. The didactic texts tell us his
17:34
nature is unchangeable. That is so helpful.
17:36
It resolves the tension without making us throw out either verse
17:39
or say the Bible is wrong. It holds them in proper
17:42
theological harmony. OK, what about the second case
17:45
study? This one is huge in theological
17:47
history, Paul versus James on justification.
17:49
Ah. Yes, the great battleground.
17:52
So Paul says in Romans 3 that we are justified by faith apart
17:55
from the works of the law. Unequivocally.
17:58
But then James says in James chapter 2 that a person is
18:00
justified by works and not by faith alone.
18:03
I mean, if you just read those two sentences back-to-back, they
18:05
sound like they're in a boxing match with each other.
18:07
They absolutely do, and if you don't have the analogy of
18:10
Scripture as a tool, you're stuck.
18:13
You either have to pick one and ignore the other, or you
18:15
conclude the Bible contradicts itself.
18:17
But the principle forces us to look deeper.
18:19
It forces us to look at the context and the author's intent.
18:23
We have to ask what problem is each author addressing?
18:27
Who are they writing to? So what's Paul's issue?
18:30
Paul is addressing legalism. He's fighting against the idea
18:34
that you can earn your way to God.
18:36
He's answering the fundamental question, how is a guilty Sinner
18:40
declared righteous before a holy God?
18:43
And his answer is by faith alone in the work of Christ alone.
18:47
OK. And James?
18:49
James is addressing a completely different problem.
18:51
He's writing to people who claim to have faith, but whose lives
18:54
are barren of any fruit. He's fighting against a dead
18:56
faith. So he's answering a different
18:58
question. What does true living, saving
19:01
faith actually look like in a person's life?
19:03
So they're almost using the keyword justify in slightly
19:06
different ways to make the different points.
19:08
That's a huge part of it. Paul uses Justify primarily in a
19:11
legal, forensic sense, to be declared righteous in God's
19:16
courtroom. James uses justify more in the
19:19
sense of to demonstrate or to vindicate that one's faith is
19:22
real. The sources point out something
19:24
fascinating here, how they both use Abraham as their prime
19:27
example, but they use different events from his life.
19:30
This is the absolute key to unlocking it.
19:33
Paul to prove justification is by faith alone quotes from
19:36
Genesis 15. That's when Abraham simply
19:39
believed God's promise, and it says it was counted to him as
19:41
righteousness. And that happened long before he
19:44
did. Long before but James, to prove
19:47
that real faith works, quotes from Genesis 22.
19:50
That's the story of Abraham offering up Isaac on the altar,
19:52
which happened decades later. James is showing that Abraham's
19:55
genuine faith from Genesis 15 was demonstrated and vindicated
19:58
by his radical obedience in Genesis 22.
20:00
So what's the synthesis? How do we put it all together?
20:03
The synthesis is this. We are justified by faith alone,
20:06
but the faith it justifies is never alone.
20:09
It always produces fruit. It's a living faith that results
20:12
in works. Paul is focused on the root of
20:15
salvation, which is faith. James is focused on the fruit of
20:18
salvation, which is works. They aren't contradicting.
20:22
They're describing two sides of the same coin.
20:25
That's a brilliant synthesis. It saves us from legalism on the
20:28
one side, the idea that we can earn our salvation.
20:31
And from antinomianism or lawlessness on the other side,
20:34
the idea that you can say you have faith, but live however you
20:37
want. Which is so critical.
20:39
It is. And this whole discussion leads
20:41
us directly into our next segment.
20:43
Because if you refuse to use Scripture to interpret
20:45
Scripture, you are absolutely going to use something else.
20:48
You have to. So we need to talk about the
20:50
rival authorities. We have to.
20:52
Confront the counterfeits. So if not the Bible itself, what
20:55
do people use as their ultimate interpreter?
20:58
Who are the rivals here? Well, the first major historical
21:00
rival is Rome, the Roman Catholic system.
21:03
In that system, the final authority for interpreting the
21:07
Bible is not the Bible itself, but the Church, specifically
21:11
Church tradition and the infallible Magisterium, meaning
21:14
the Pope and the bishops in communion with him.
21:17
They would say you need the Church to tell you what the
21:19
Bible means. And the reformed rebuttal to
21:22
that. The classic Reformed rebuttal is
21:23
that the church's authority is ministerial, not magisterial,
21:28
meaning the church serves the Word, it doesn't Lord over the
21:31
Word. The church is under the
21:32
authority of Scripture, it does not create or define the meaning
21:36
of Scripture. The Bible stands above the Pope,
21:38
above the councils, above all tradition.
21:41
OK, so that's rival #1 what's the second?
21:43
The second is mysticism, or what the older theologians often
21:46
called enthusiasm. This is the error of relying on
21:51
subjective inner voices, special leadings, or private revelations
21:55
as your interpretive key. This is the Lord told me kind of
21:58
thing. Exactly, I was praying and I
22:00
just feel like this verse means. The immense danger here is that
22:04
a statement like the Spirit told me cannot be tested.
22:07
It's totally subjective. It puts the individual's
22:10
feelings or alleged private revelation on par with or even
22:14
above the public, objective Word of God.
22:17
So what's the check on that? The reformed rebuttal is that
22:20
the Holy Spirit leads us through the Word that He himself
22:24
inspired. He doesn't bypass it.
22:26
We don't need a new revelation from the Spirit.
22:28
We need the Spirit to eliminate the one perfect revelation we
22:31
already have in the 66 books. OK.
22:34
The third rival authority mentioned in our sources is
22:36
liberalism and what's called critical scholarship.
22:39
Yes, this is the main academic attack on the Bible's authority.
22:42
This approach treats the Bible not as the unified word of God,
22:45
but is a messy patchwork of evolving, contradictory human
22:49
religious experiences from a primitive culture.
22:51
It denies the divine Author from the start.
22:54
And this is where you see modern frameworks being imposed on the
22:56
text. Exactly.
22:58
The sources mention things like critical race theory or
23:00
evolutionary dogma. They're described as foreign
23:04
frameworks that are imposed on the text from the outside.
23:06
So the interpreter stands over the Bible.
23:08
Precisely. The interpreter, armed with
23:11
their modern secular worldview, sits in judgment above the Bible
23:15
and decides which parts are true, which are culturally
23:17
conditioned, and which are just wrong.
23:20
We reject this whole hermeneutics of suspicion.
23:22
We start with a hermeneutic of trust.
23:24
We assume unity because we believe in the divine author.
23:27
We let the Bible judge our philosophies, not the other way
23:30
around. OK.
23:30
And the 4th and final rival. Pragmatism, and this is maybe
23:36
the most common one in the American church today.
23:38
This is the seeker sensitive model.
23:40
The error here is that the ultimate question is not what is
23:43
true, but what works, or what feels good, or what will draw a
23:48
crowd. The sources use that old phrase
23:50
avoiding the nose of wax. A nose of wax can be shaped into
23:53
any form you want it to be. If your primary goal is just to
23:57
be culturally relevant or to get more people in the building, you
24:01
will inevitably twist scripture to fit the culture.
24:04
You'll emphasize the parts people like, and you'll ignore
24:07
the hard parts about sin, judgment, and repentance.
24:10
But the analogy of Scripture doesn't let you do that.
24:13
It absolutely does not. It forces you to deal with the
24:15
whole counsel of God, even the parts that are unpopular or
24:18
uncomfortable. It holds you accountable to the
24:20
entire text. Which brings us perfectly to the
24:22
application. Why does all of this, which can
24:25
feel a bit technical? Why does it matter for the
24:28
person listening right now? Segment 6 covers head, heart and
24:31
hands. Because the goal of all biblical
24:33
interpretation is not just to be smart or to win theological
24:37
debates. It's not academic correctness
24:39
for its own sake. The biblical goal, as Paul says
24:43
in Colossians, is to present everyone mature in Christ.
24:47
So let's look at this three fold cord the sources talk about.
24:49
First, the head. This is doctrine.
24:52
What must we believe? The analogy of Scripture is
24:55
essential for building a sound orthodox theology.
24:59
We need to establish clear categories.
25:01
We need to understand justification, sanctification,
25:04
the Trinity, the Person of Christ.
25:07
This principle gives us the biblical boundaries so we can
25:10
think God's thoughts after Him. OK, from the head to the heart.
25:13
This is our affections. What must we love?
25:16
Right interpretation should lead to right worship.
25:19
When we see the beautiful, consistent, harmonious character
25:22
of God revealed across all of Scripture, should stir our
25:25
hearts to love and adore Him. It prevents us from worshipping
25:29
a God of our own imagination, a God we've made in our own image.
25:32
And then finally, the hands. This is obedience.
25:35
What must we do? This is what we in the Reformed
25:38
tradition call the third use of the law.
25:40
The whole council of God, properly understood, guides the
25:43
believers life of gratitude. It shows us how to live in a way
25:46
that pleases the God who saved us.
25:48
But our sources are really emphatic that this must always
25:50
be Christ centered. Always.
25:53
Every interpretation from any part of the Bible must
25:56
eventually ask the question, How does this testify to Christ?
26:00
And all our application has to ground the imperatives in the
26:03
indicative. Can you just unpack that for US
26:05
imperatives and indicatives? Sure.
26:07
The indicative is the statement of fact.
26:09
It's what Christ has done for us.
26:11
The imperative is the command. It's what we must do.
26:13
OK, bad preaching is all imperative.
26:16
Do better, try harder, be more loving.
26:19
That's just moralism and it crushes people, right?
26:22
Good gospel centered application always grounds the imperative in
26:26
the indicative. It says because Christ has
26:28
already died for you and risen for you and secured your
26:30
righteousness, That's the indicative.
26:32
Therefore walk in love and put sin to death.
26:34
That's the imperative. We looked at Christ and what
26:37
He's done is the power and the motivation for our obedience.
26:40
And finally, there's a deep pastoral comfort in all of this.
26:44
This is so, so important. This method protects the sheep.
26:47
It keeps God's people from being, as Paul says, tossed to
26:50
and fro by every wind of doctrine.
26:52
If you, as a believer, know this basic principle of how to let
26:56
Scripture interpret Scripture, you won't be so easily blown
26:59
over by the latest theological fad, the newest bestseller, or
27:04
some heresy that's going viral on YouTube.
27:06
It provides stability. It really does.
27:08
When you are suffering, you do not want a confused Bible.
27:13
You don't want a God who seems to change his mind.
27:16
You want to know God's true character from the whole Bible.
27:20
You want to know that the God who is utterly sovereign in the
27:22
historical books is the very same God who loves you with a
27:26
tender, steadfast love in the Psalms.
27:29
You need that consistent, unified, trustworthy voice.
27:32
This has been a true deep dive. This has been so helpful.
27:36
As we start to wrap up, let's just try and summarize the main
27:39
point of everything we've said. I think if you boil it all down,
27:42
the analogy of Scripture is a safeguard.
27:43
It's a guardrail, and ultimately it's an act of humble listening.
27:47
It's how we honor the God who has spoken, by letting Him have
27:50
the final word on what He means. And with that, here's the
27:53
challenge for you, the listener. Stop reading verses in
27:56
isolation. Please.
27:58
Stop treating the Bible like it's a fortune cookie where you
28:00
can just pull out one line that you like for the day.
28:03
Trust the Symphony of the word rather than the solo of a single
28:07
isolated text. Listen for the harmony.
28:10
And here's a thought to leave you with If we refuse to let
28:13
Scripture interpret scripture, we will inevitably install
28:17
something else as the master interpreter.
28:20
It might be our culture, it might be our feelings, it might
28:22
be our political party, or it might be our own traditions.
28:26
The question isn't if you have an ultimate authority for what
28:29
you believe. The question is what is it?
28:32
That is the question. Thanks for listening to Reform
28:34
Thinking It. Was great to be with you.