Reformed Quest
Puritan Board Freshman
I have questions about what some persons call “The Golden Rule of Interpretation” (a.k.a The First Cardinal Rule):
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.”
I question the phrase: “makes common sense“. Isn’t this a subjective criterion because it is based on a reader’s personal context and beliefs?
I also question “seek no other sense”. Doesn’t this result in the under appreciation of symbolic language in Scripture, e.g. seven, Israel?
(Note, the complete GR quote is: Perhaps the best expression of the literal method is the one penned in 1942 by David L. Cooper, known as the “Golden Rule of Interpretation.” Cooper wrote, “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” Source: Journal of dispensational theology volume 17, number 50, page 77)
For comparison, note the Westminster Confession (WCF), Chapter 1, IX. “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 must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”
The complete quote of the Golden Rule of Interpretation does indicate that the method takes into account the light of other passages and truths; however, it appears that is a secondary emphasis, if I am reading it correctly. Whereas, the WCF indicates that method of comparing with other Scriptures is “infallible” and therefore is a primary method.
When I have heard the Golden Rule of Interpretation, it has been by persons influenced by dispensational theology. But recently, I heard this from a Reformed person.
Is the Golden Rule of Interpretation compatible with the WCF?
“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.”
I question the phrase: “makes common sense“. Isn’t this a subjective criterion because it is based on a reader’s personal context and beliefs?
I also question “seek no other sense”. Doesn’t this result in the under appreciation of symbolic language in Scripture, e.g. seven, Israel?
(Note, the complete GR quote is: Perhaps the best expression of the literal method is the one penned in 1942 by David L. Cooper, known as the “Golden Rule of Interpretation.” Cooper wrote, “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” Source: Journal of dispensational theology volume 17, number 50, page 77)
For comparison, note the Westminster Confession (WCF), Chapter 1, IX. “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 must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.”
The complete quote of the Golden Rule of Interpretation does indicate that the method takes into account the light of other passages and truths; however, it appears that is a secondary emphasis, if I am reading it correctly. Whereas, the WCF indicates that method of comparing with other Scriptures is “infallible” and therefore is a primary method.
When I have heard the Golden Rule of Interpretation, it has been by persons influenced by dispensational theology. But recently, I heard this from a Reformed person.
Is the Golden Rule of Interpretation compatible with the WCF?