Clear passages interpret less clear passages

[sotzo]

WCF Chap 1 Part IX states:
"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

I'm interested in finding out the appropriate way to put this into practice when studying Scriptures. (Of course, study that is within the bounds of the Church and not a "me and my Bible" type of study.)

As an example, let's take I Cor 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

This passage, in and of itself, could be / has been used to teach universal salvation ("...all will be made alive"). It even roots the "in Christ all will be made alive" in the fact that "in Adam all die". Therefore, taking 15:22 on its own, if particular redemption is the interpretation, then one would be left with a strange outcome...that is, not all die in Adam. Yet, in Adam, all indeed die.

What clearer passage(s) of Scripture would be put forth to properly exegete I Cor 15:22? Taken simply by itself, it seems to teach either universal redemption or that not all die in Adam.

 

[MMasztal]

Ephesians 2 would be a good place to start. Also Romans 3

 

[sotzo]

Ephesians 2 would be a good place to start. Also Romans 3

Thanks Michael. So:

1. how why do we deem those passages "more clear" than I Cor 15:22?

2. how do those passages resolve the dilemma between either saying I Cor 15:22 teached universal salvation or that not all die in Adam?

BTW, I'm certainly not advocating universal salvation...I'm trying to use this as an example to understand application of the WCF's teaching on "clear passages interpret less clear".

 

[toddpedlar]

I'm not sure that this is directly a "more clear" vs. "less clear" example. What you're dealing with is more of a question of how you interpret the word "all" which, in the verse taken by itself, is relatively clear. Those class of people who are said to be "made alive" are the "all". What you're dealing with in this is more broadly an example of letting Scripture interpret Scripture - by allowing the whole voice of Scripture in all the places mentioned and many more that make clear that not all are saved. Since Scripture teaches this, then the "all shall be made alive" cannot be speaking of universal salvation, though on the face of it and completely torn from context, it seems to teach that.

I think the "more clear" vs "less clear" that the WCF is speaking of might be better illustrated by some other example - like any number of the parables that Christ doesn't explain directly. They can be obscure, and easily misinterpreted unless clearer passages of Scripture can be brought to bear on them.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Joel,

The clarity is found in the explicit character of Ephesians 2. 1 Cor 15:22 may be construed, implicitly, to include all men but it does not say that. All could refer to "all in Adam" and "all in Christ". We could infer that it means "all men that ever lived" but then we have to use the principle of the Analogy of the Faith where the Scriptures do not speak against themselves.

Are there men in hell? Christ says so.
Do some walk according the the Prince of the Power of the Air? Ephesians says so.
Was Esau hated and Jacob loved? Romans 9 says so.
Is the Atoning work of Christ's High Priesthood applied only to His own? Hebrews says so and warns so.

Are you listening to R.C. Sproul right now because this came up in today's podcast.

For me, I think a good example of how the implicit/explicit rule is violated is not only in typical Arminian defenses but in the way that Baptists infer from Historical Narrative to make the form didactic (i.e. All the examples we have in the New Covenant are believer's baptisms.) This is a very tenuous basis for overthrowing the didactic teaching throughout the Scripture that teaches on the nature of God's Covenant with households of faith.

 

[sotzo]

I'm not sure that this is directly a "more clear" vs. "less clear" example. What you're dealing with is more of a question of how you interpret the word "all" which, in the verse taken by itself, is relatively clear. Those class of people who are said to be "made alive" are the "all".

So, even in the first part of the verse, when Paul says "all die in Adam" he is referring still to the class of people made alive and not to all men...correct?

So, proper exegesis of this verse would be something along the lines of "the class of people who are made alive were once all dead because of the one man Adam...but just as that one man brought death, the one man Jesus brought them all llife."

I see your point about this maybe not being a good example of my OP on WCF Chap 1 Part IX. In general, what is the hermeutical principle that governs what we should deem to be a "clear passage" versus a "less clear passage"?

 

[cih1355]

When using clear passages of Scripture to interpret abstruse passages, it would be helpful to know the context of those passages. It is helpful to know what was said before and after those passages. Taking verses or passages out of context can lead to mistakes in interpretation. Prooftexts are usually included in different confessions of faith. It would be helpful to study those prooftexts.

1 Corithians 15:22 is saying that everyone in Adam will die and that everyone in Christ will be made alive. The verse is not teaching that every person in Adam is also in Christ