# reading material on the sense of Scripture 'not manifold but one'?



## a mere housewife (Feb 2, 2010)

I was wondering if someone might be able to recommend something to read about the reformed approach to interpreting Scripture -- that the true and full sense is 'not manifold but one'? Ruben pulled out Turretin for me and I have read that (and it only raised a few questions which I am going to ask him later -- I fell asleep last night while he was answering my previous questions with Patrick Fairbairn, a rather soporific gentleman, it would seem  and I am going to read some sections in Ruben's PRRD tomorrow -- is there something else I could read that would be clear for a lay-person and not overly lengthy?

(I am interested and somewhat confused that Augustine uses the same 'proof text' that the Westminster Confession cites, to uphold his position that basically truth is one and common to all, but our approaches to it are different -- so a passage is patient of many different interpretations; and to say that one interpretation is what the author intended, when other interpretations are equally _true _is to advance a 'private interpretation'. It's also interesting because he seems to think Scripture reflects truth, more than our knowledge of truth arising from Scripture -- he does not seem to mistrust his own philosophical approach to spiritual things nearly so much as Calvin advises us to in the first part of the Institutes? I have really loved reading Augustine and find the way he deals with Scripture very compelling, so I'm trying to understand better.)


----------



## Prufrock (Feb 3, 2010)

Heidi, do you two have access to Whitaker's _Disputations on Holy Scripture_? There is a very readable section in that work on the sense of scripture, which can serve as a supplement to what you read in Turretin's fine treatment.


----------



## Romans 9:16 (Feb 3, 2010)

Augustine rejected the analogical model of epistemology and revelation that Aquinas would later develop. In _De Magistro_, Augustine argues that divine knowledge and true human knowledge are qualitatively univocal. In this, I would agree with him. However, Augustine (and the Alexandrian school of interpretation in general) had a an allegorical way of interpreting scripture that is less than satisfying. I have his ‘literal commentary on Genesis’ at home (which is anything but literal). Augustine is the master theologian, but Chrysostom is the master exegete of the patristic age (Calvin would agree on both counts!). 

I strongly recommend Milton Terry’s _Biblical Hermeneutics_. It’s a classic. You will find some helpful material on the issue you are reflecting on.


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 3, 2010)

Steve, thank you: I think we have Milton Terry so I will check to see how he deals with the question. I will also hopefully read more of Augustine: I'm very uncertain as to his full position, but just notice that he has some different ideas both about the sense of Scripture, and about the source of our knowledge of truth it seems; yet his own usage of Scripture in the _Confessions_ is mostly far more satisfying and -- has such a depth of light, for lack of any better way of describing it -- than many modern things I've read.

Paul, that was very clear; thank you: it's Question the Fifth, ii, that is most relevant: and in Turretin, it is the nineteenth question on the second topic (Holy Scriptures), in case anyone else is interested. I wasn't able to look around in Muller today: I'm slightly frightened by the index and had cleaning all day; so I will hopefully look that up tomorrow and if I find further references there or in the book by Mr. Terry will add them, in case anyone else is interested.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Feb 3, 2010)

a mere housewife said:


> I was wondering if someone might be able to recommend something to read about the reformed approach to interpreting Scripture -- that the true and full sense is 'not manifold but one'? Ruben pulled out Turretin for me and I have read that (and it only raised a few questions which I am going to ask him later -- I fell asleep last night while he was answering my previous questions with Patrick Fairbairn, a rather soporific gentleman, it would seem  and I am going to read some sections in Ruben's PRRD tomorrow -- is there something else I could read that would be clear for a lay-person and not overly lengthy?
> 
> (I am interested and somewhat confused that Augustine uses the same 'proof text' that the Westminster Confession cites, to uphold his position that basically truth is one and common to all, but our approaches to it are different -- so a passage is patient of many different interpretations; and to say that one interpretation is what the author intended, when other interpretations are equally _true _is to advance a 'private interpretation'. It's also interesting because he seems to think Scripture reflects truth, more than our knowledge of truth arising from Scripture -- he does not seem to mistrust his own philosophical approach to spiritual things nearly so much as Calvin advises us to in the first part of the Institutes? I have really loved reading Augustine and find the way he deals with Scripture very compelling, so I'm trying to understand better.)


 
Hello Heidi,

I truly do not think I am qualified to respond to your question . . .but I will answer anyway!!!

(God help my  worth)

My recent studies have centered on thoughts and teachings garnered from a more recent theologian, Gordon Clark, who posits Holy Scripture can be reasonably (logically) understood and interpreted according to unequivocal propositional truths contained therein.

Versus the dominant VanTillian theory, that all Scripture must be understood analogically.

Does this address your question?


----------



## Wayne (Feb 4, 2010)

> I'm slightly frightened by the index



It's a well known fact that Muller's index is commonly used to frighten small children, too. 

Quoting from a wonderful volume that you might consult with profit, _Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation_, (Zondervan, 1996), in the chapter by Moises Silva, page 62:



> . . . The main contribution of the Protestant Reformers to biblical hermeneutics is their insistence on _the plain meaning_ of Scripture. Their concern, however, focused specifically on the need to rescue the Bible from the allegorical method. We see this element strikingly expressed in many of Luther's remarks: "The Holy Spirit is the plainest writer and speaker in heaven and earth and therefore His words cannot have more than one, and that the very simplest sense, which we call the literal, ordinary, natural sense. . . Indeed, for Luther, all heresies arise from neglecting the simple words of Scripture.


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 4, 2010)

It would be under 'literal sense' in the index of the volume on 'Holy Scripture' that one would find most help in Muller: especially section 7.3: "The Divers Senses and the Unity of Scripture", p. 469. Chapters 3&4 of Terry's work contain the history and explanation of various hermeneutical methods. (I can't find where he deals with the 'one sense', but I'm not on my mental toes today  We also have Robert Rollock on Effectual Calling, and as I saw him referenced by Mr. Muller, I looked it up and he deals very briefly in Ch. 11 with the one sense of Scripture. Patrick Fairbairn in Opening Scripture has some brief comments (but I found them helpful) in the fourth section, point 2.

Ronda, thank you (it's always nice to see you around, and it's kind of you to comment  that is related to perhaps, but not quite the question that I have in mind -- except that perhaps the reduction of meaning or communicability to propositions has something to do with the lack I sense in various modern handlings of Scripture? (I am personally not likely to read either Clark or Van Til as those whose judgment I most trust say there are writers who approach the issues with greater clarity and insight about the problems and the historic reformed answers; I'm afraid I read more slowly than most people so am unlikely to invest in reading something of doubtful gain to me .

Wayne, thanks much for the reference to Mr. Silva: we do have that volume, and I pulled it off the shelf today and greatly enjoyed poking around in his part of it. 

I think things are becoming clearer in my mind. I often feel that I am stuck peering at God's Word over a high wall without someone to open a door to let me in: and when I read on my own I worry that for instance, I have committed the sin of numbering the people and all my loved ones will suffer bitter death on that account (I can almost believe that's ridiculous, but not knowing what the boundaries are for how I am to understand and apply a passage I have no ability to answer such fears, esp as I might be hardening my conscience against the conviction of the Holy Spirit) so it's very helpful to understand better about this. I will be reading/rereading things more carefully for a bit to make sure I understand.

Also I will remember that about small children: it may come in handy when babysitting.

(Can't you hear their small screams: 'No no, Heidi, not the *index*!)


----------



## CharlieJ (Feb 4, 2010)

a mere housewife said:


> I often feel that I am stuck peering at God's Word over a high wall without someone to open a door to let me in: and when I read on my own I worry that for instance, I have committed the sin of numbering the people and all my loved ones will suffer bitter death on that account (I can almost believe that's ridiculous, but not knowing what the boundaries are for how I am to understand and apply a passage I have no ability to answer such fears, esp as I might be hardening my conscience against the conviction of the Holy Spirit) so it's very helpful to understand better about this. I will be reading/rereading things more carefully for a bit to make sure I understand.



I understand some anxiety about correctly interpreting Scripture, but what you express here seems more what Thomas Boston might have called "slavish fear." God loves you. The Father elected you from all eternity. The Son gave Himself on your behalf. The Spirit dwells within you, transforming you into the image of Christ. God is not waiting for you to sin so he can zap you. If He wished to do so, He already has abundant justification completely irrelevant to your Scripture reading. No, God is the one most interested in you growing into a fuller knowledge of Him through the understanding of His Word.

The most important thing to realize is that there is no such thing as "hermeneutics" if by that term we mean a science that is prior to engaging with the text of Scripture and controls our engagement with it. The only place in which one can learn to interpret Scripture is within the Scripture itself. It is through intimate familiarity with the whole canon that one can relate the parts. Even these books and writings of men that deal with the interpretation of Scripture were (ideally) formed from their own interaction with it and observation of how it interprets itself. As such, their works are accurate only insofar as they correctly observe Scripture's self-revelation. For anyone who is fearful of misinterpreting Scripture, the solution is not to shrink back in timidity, but to boldly embrace the challenge through an even more intimate engagement. You are not alone.


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 4, 2010)

Charlie, thanks very much: that is an important reminder, about hermeneutics ultimately being comparing Scripture with Scripture and not shying away from it or trying to approach it via a mediator of a system etc.

Re: the misapplied fear though -- it isn't that I am in doubt of God's volition towards me in Christ -- I know that God also loved David in Christ, yet -- or rather, _so_ -- He disciplined him for his sins. God loving you doesn't mean that He won't let very bad things happen, even to people you love, in response to the very bad things you've done; He has never promised that: He has promised that the chastening is for our profit. I trust Him to do what is right -- and when He does whatever that is, I can only lay my hand on my mouth; but what is right evidently often involves the natural consequences of many sins even of the righteous. I must have some sort of parameter of application to such passages, otherwise I lie awake half the night praying against the destruction of others on account of my most recent sin (God stayed His destroying angel when David prayed to Him) and fear that I resist the Word and the Holy Spirit if I do not -- and resistance brings other consequences. In this regard, I think the hermeneutical boundaries must help: if I can say, no, that is not what this particular passage is supposed to cause me to focus on, etc?


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 4, 2010)

Heidi, it's very interesting that you should be researching this question so soon after the Knox Seminary issue with Warren Gage, for it was precisely on this question that the whole situation developed. Warren Gage was advocating a return to the Medieval quadriga (literal, analogical, anagogical, and moral). So the Westminster section has to do with how many methods there are of interpreting Scripture. That section is not meant to limit interpretation to one level of meaning per passage. For instance, there are puns in Scripture, typological references, etc. Turretin is helpful on this point. I merely want to point out the difference between more than one method of interpretation versus an often composite meaning of particular passages (which still winds up being only one meaning, ultimately).


----------



## a mere housewife (Feb 4, 2010)

Rev. Keister, this is what I had read in various places as well, but that's put very clearly: thank you. If I understood what I read so far correctly, the various composite aspects of a passage are subordinate to its main (? is that a correct way to speak) sense, and so they are not all _different_ interpretations? Nor does one then have liberty simply to draw any random inference, however *true* morally, allegorically, etc. and slap it onto the face of a passage as its intended meaning: rather one has to submit these considerations to the unity of the passage itself? (I'm sorry if this is stated badly: I'm still working with rather a mental rough draft of this) I can see how this is both more demanding in that one must truly submit the mind to Scripture, and quite liberating in that one is not merely being victimised by one's own thoughts under the guise of the Holy Spirit; and why it was an important part of the reformation. 

I'm probably happily ignorant as to such developments, but it boggles my mind at the moment, having just begun to grasp this, to think that someone who understands what it does for conscience etc would wish to let it go.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 4, 2010)

Yes, this is a good way of putting things.


----------

