Examples of the "analogy of faith"
- Thread starter Eoghan
- Start date
- Status
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
On a basic level, "Scripture interprets Scripture."
The “analogy of faith” also called the "analogy of Scripture" is a principle in hermeneutics which states that, since all scriptures exist in harmony, united with no essential contradictions, then every proposed interpretation of any passage must be compared with what the other parts of the bible teach. The Bible holds in itself the answers and meaning.
God speaks in the Scriptures as the supreme judge of all cases, against whom there is no discussion or appeal. Equally, Scripture will inform Scripture as to its use of words, phrases etc., and what they mean because God is speaking clearly, and sufficiently to us on everything he speaks about. The faith once entrusted to the saints is noncontradictory in this light.
If there are two different interpretations of a verse, one that Augustine gives in distinction to the interpretation that Pelagius gives, any interpretation that contradicts the clear teaching of any other scriptures must be ruled out.
The “analogy of faith” also called the "analogy of Scripture" is a principle in hermeneutics which states that, since all scriptures exist in harmony, united with no essential contradictions, then every proposed interpretation of any passage must be compared with what the other parts of the bible teach. The Bible holds in itself the answers and meaning.
God speaks in the Scriptures as the supreme judge of all cases, against whom there is no discussion or appeal. Equally, Scripture will inform Scripture as to its use of words, phrases etc., and what they mean because God is speaking clearly, and sufficiently to us on everything he speaks about. The faith once entrusted to the saints is noncontradictory in this light.
If there are two different interpretations of a verse, one that Augustine gives in distinction to the interpretation that Pelagius gives, any interpretation that contradicts the clear teaching of any other scriptures must be ruled out.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
When you say "in relation to the psalms" do you mean the book of psalms, or psalm singing?
If you are talking about that long thread on psalmody, thats a good example. The NT use of a number of phrases is informed by Scripture. First one has to consider, what was Paul's Scripture? James Scripture? Jesus' Scripture? The OT. The whole counsel of God is found there, and it is more fully explained in the explanations of the NT which interpret the coming of the Sin of Man, the Christ from the OT.
We'd need to go back to the OT to responsibly agree with what it means about singing, praise, psalms, sings, eyc., so we understand what James said in singing psalms, or what Paul said in psalms, hymns and songs. They were, in all their letters, expouding the OT.
More light, for us, on God's truth, already set down.
If you are talking about that long thread on psalmody, thats a good example. The NT use of a number of phrases is informed by Scripture. First one has to consider, what was Paul's Scripture? James Scripture? Jesus' Scripture? The OT. The whole counsel of God is found there, and it is more fully explained in the explanations of the NT which interpret the coming of the Sin of Man, the Christ from the OT.
We'd need to go back to the OT to responsibly agree with what it means about singing, praise, psalms, sings, eyc., so we understand what James said in singing psalms, or what Paul said in psalms, hymns and songs. They were, in all their letters, expouding the OT.
More light, for us, on God's truth, already set down.
Last edited:
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Example of the analogy of Scripture:
"And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them." Acts 16:25
"Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms." James 5:13.
What did Paul and Silas sing together in unison?
"And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them." Acts 16:25
"Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms." James 5:13.
What did Paul and Silas sing together in unison?
Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
It is the exposition of the psalms that is my primary concern. Devoid of context and anonymous for the most part and being poetic in style, I think the analogy of scripture/faith becomes extremely important in constraining possible meanings.
That's what my gut tells me
That's what my gut tells me
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Then try this as an example in a Messianic Psalm:
"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Psa. 110:1).
Jesus cleverly asks, "He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?"(Mat. 22:43-45).
Hebrews says, "For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Act. 2:34-36).
They are all dependent on one another. The OT verses give the NT its context, and the NT verses substantiate the intention of the Spirit in the Psalm.
Or try:
"Psalm 51:1 <To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.>" (Psa. 51:1).
"And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" (2Sa. 11:3ff).
And in that considering her role in 1 Kings 1-2.
"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Psa. 110:1).
Jesus cleverly asks, "He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?"(Mat. 22:43-45).
Hebrews says, "For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Act. 2:34-36).
They are all dependent on one another. The OT verses give the NT its context, and the NT verses substantiate the intention of the Spirit in the Psalm.
Or try:
"Psalm 51:1 <To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.>" (Psa. 51:1).
"And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" (2Sa. 11:3ff).
And in that considering her role in 1 Kings 1-2.
Eoghan
Puritan Board Senior
My own example would be 1 Corinthians 15:29.
"Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?"
This verse causes a lot of confusion (Mormons particularly) but put it beside
Hebrews 9:27 "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment"
"Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?"
This verse causes a lot of confusion (Mormons particularly) but put it beside
Hebrews 9:27 "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment"
Hopefully this comment is more light (not less).
Unless I'm mistaken, the original phrase (in English) is "analogy of faith," and "analogy of Scripture" comes after it, both to explain and expand the original expression. The term "faith" in the phrase is coordinate with "the faith," ala Jude 1:3. Thus, in ancient parlance it would be summed up (e.g.) in the Apostle's Creed.
A true synonym for the word "faith" in this context is "theology." In other words: "analogy of theology," or (as was already indicated by CMM) the claim that our faith/theology is non-contradictory, internally consistent, self-referentially explanatory.
One might say "analogy of faith" is equivalent to "systematic theology," provided that the systematic theology one conceives is a functional system, and not a barely coherent collection, or a hodgepodge of beliefs or doctrines that have been (supposedly) extracted from Scripture and set forth as a body of dogma.
"Analogy of Scripture" is language intended (as I apprehend) to explain or clarify that no true theology (or faith element) is born of any source other than Scripture. Thus, in one sense the two phrases are also synonymous.
However, it has come about that because the term "faith" has popularly become linguistically separated from "theology," a new level of confusion has arisen. Furthermore, "theology" has become something to bash; even many so-called Bible believing people dismiss a well developed body/system of doctrine as essentially philosophical and therefore suspect. The Faith is not a definite/defined object to be believed in; faith is subjective personal complex of attitudes and convictions characterized by the believer.
For people and pastors like this, they may use a phrase like "analogy of Scripture" (if they know such a term) to describe their individualistic approach to interpretation. It boils down to "My view makes sense; therefore, all right-thinking right believing people agree with my reading." They may make some attempt at consistency of interpretation across the Bible--or they may not, which is actually a thoroughgoing abuse of the sola scriptura principle--but often they self-consciously pit the "analogy of Scripture" against the "analogy of faith/theology" (whether they use the language or not). Theology, being a human construct, is suspect to them; and they "just go with the Bible."
But if they are only thinking of "faith" in a subjective (rather than objective) sense, and if you tell them they are pitting one analogy against another, they don't see it at all! You've just insulted them. They have sincere "faith" and they "just go with the Bible (Scripture);" so how dare you say they could be at odds with the truth to one side or the other?! Very hard to offer any corrective in this situation. They may not be that interested in a truly consistent interpretation of the Bible; and they may not appreciate their sincere conviction (moral intuitions) challenged.
A brief word about interpreting the Psalms, using the analogy of faith. Fundamentally, you don't use the AoF any differently there than you use it to interpret any other place. You possess an inheritance (however it was acquired) of a basic--and possibly advanced--theological framework. You also have some presuppositions about interpretation, a hermeneutic (well defined or not). You apply your tools of understanding the text within the framework, and according to those rules that arise out of your interpretive axioms.
The absence of detailed historical context for most Psalms only throws aside one category of helpful data. The general historical context is not unavailable: it is the OT, and overwhelmingly the kingdom era and the exile (notable exception Ps.90). For half the Psalms the years can be specified to the lifetime of David (within which some of those Psalms are given a specific historic reference).
The fact that much of the Psalter is not historically defined (narrowly) increases the interpreter's dependence on the other areas of context for any given Psalm. History is only the beginning; then there is the general biblical context, starting with the Psalter it is located within (the literary context), as well as Poetic books (or the Writings, to use the Heb. divisions); and the OT at large. By now, obviously, one is already committed to the analogy of Scripture; and the addition of the NT is an afterthought; we simply do not exclude it.
But also, one should come to the interpretation of any place in Scripture using (without embarrassment) the analogy of faith, meaning the analogy of theology or systematic theology. It is foolish and artificial--it cannot actually be done--to try to interpret Ps.23, or Ps.90, or any other "as if" he wasn't a Christian, wasn't living in the NT age, supposing that this Christ-free angle would offer an initial, pristine evaluation of the text. Nonsense.
In the first place, our theology (faith) argues that Christ is ineradicably present in the Psalter; why should we be interested in first seeing the Psalm without him? Our theology (because of NT Scripture data) teaches us that David wrote self-consciously as a type of the Son that should come. He himself may not have fully grasped all that the H.S. was imparting to him, as he wrote under inspiration. But then, as a prophet he searched his own writings (and former prophets) for a clearer grasp of that Faith that was in process of being revealed.
So, we may be able, by a kind of "double-vision," squinting to see what might have been his viewpoint of the same material; but as we open our eyes fully we see clearly what remained shadowed somewhat for him. We sympathize with the OT saint's limitations, but are thankful that we have the NT illumination we do. And we embrace David (and the other Psalmists) and generations of Israelite believers who continued to use his Psalms and to gain understanding of their fulfillment as time went by.
Then, we have (especially in devotional poetry of the Psalter) a biblical psychology of man. This book is a timeless expression of the believing, worshipping heart. The ethics of the Psalter are not distinct from anything in the OT or the NT (no matter what modernist interpreters claim). The fact that the Psalter selections are so seldom attached to one moment in time helps to universalize them. We shouldn't confine them to an occasional expression of one man's experience, and thus argue that men today may have a different nature. We don't view them as possibly containing immoral (to us) feelings, unless the Psalmist questions himself--I'm thinking of Ps.73:15.
Thus, the analogy of faith teaches me that the believer's spirit is dynamically expressed in the Psalter. It is perfectly embodied by Jesus Christ, whether in his own Person as fulfillment (of the Righteous or Blessed Man, e.g. Ps.1:1; or of prophecy), or (as when he names himself a sinner, e.g. Ps.51:1) in his occupying the place of our Mediator and Substitute or Surety. But also, I relate to the Psalmist as an ethical and psychological being. The joy and the sorrow of the believer who writes or sings the Psalms are the same things, though felt in different bodies and experiences. And the faith (here, subjective) is also the same for both parties even after the NC era arrives; but only the same because it is consistently united (because of the AoF) in the Person of Jesus as the singular Object.
Unless I'm mistaken, the original phrase (in English) is "analogy of faith," and "analogy of Scripture" comes after it, both to explain and expand the original expression. The term "faith" in the phrase is coordinate with "the faith," ala Jude 1:3. Thus, in ancient parlance it would be summed up (e.g.) in the Apostle's Creed.
A true synonym for the word "faith" in this context is "theology." In other words: "analogy of theology," or (as was already indicated by CMM) the claim that our faith/theology is non-contradictory, internally consistent, self-referentially explanatory.
One might say "analogy of faith" is equivalent to "systematic theology," provided that the systematic theology one conceives is a functional system, and not a barely coherent collection, or a hodgepodge of beliefs or doctrines that have been (supposedly) extracted from Scripture and set forth as a body of dogma.
"Analogy of Scripture" is language intended (as I apprehend) to explain or clarify that no true theology (or faith element) is born of any source other than Scripture. Thus, in one sense the two phrases are also synonymous.
However, it has come about that because the term "faith" has popularly become linguistically separated from "theology," a new level of confusion has arisen. Furthermore, "theology" has become something to bash; even many so-called Bible believing people dismiss a well developed body/system of doctrine as essentially philosophical and therefore suspect. The Faith is not a definite/defined object to be believed in; faith is subjective personal complex of attitudes and convictions characterized by the believer.
For people and pastors like this, they may use a phrase like "analogy of Scripture" (if they know such a term) to describe their individualistic approach to interpretation. It boils down to "My view makes sense; therefore, all right-thinking right believing people agree with my reading." They may make some attempt at consistency of interpretation across the Bible--or they may not, which is actually a thoroughgoing abuse of the sola scriptura principle--but often they self-consciously pit the "analogy of Scripture" against the "analogy of faith/theology" (whether they use the language or not). Theology, being a human construct, is suspect to them; and they "just go with the Bible."
But if they are only thinking of "faith" in a subjective (rather than objective) sense, and if you tell them they are pitting one analogy against another, they don't see it at all! You've just insulted them. They have sincere "faith" and they "just go with the Bible (Scripture);" so how dare you say they could be at odds with the truth to one side or the other?! Very hard to offer any corrective in this situation. They may not be that interested in a truly consistent interpretation of the Bible; and they may not appreciate their sincere conviction (moral intuitions) challenged.
A brief word about interpreting the Psalms, using the analogy of faith. Fundamentally, you don't use the AoF any differently there than you use it to interpret any other place. You possess an inheritance (however it was acquired) of a basic--and possibly advanced--theological framework. You also have some presuppositions about interpretation, a hermeneutic (well defined or not). You apply your tools of understanding the text within the framework, and according to those rules that arise out of your interpretive axioms.
The absence of detailed historical context for most Psalms only throws aside one category of helpful data. The general historical context is not unavailable: it is the OT, and overwhelmingly the kingdom era and the exile (notable exception Ps.90). For half the Psalms the years can be specified to the lifetime of David (within which some of those Psalms are given a specific historic reference).
The fact that much of the Psalter is not historically defined (narrowly) increases the interpreter's dependence on the other areas of context for any given Psalm. History is only the beginning; then there is the general biblical context, starting with the Psalter it is located within (the literary context), as well as Poetic books (or the Writings, to use the Heb. divisions); and the OT at large. By now, obviously, one is already committed to the analogy of Scripture; and the addition of the NT is an afterthought; we simply do not exclude it.
But also, one should come to the interpretation of any place in Scripture using (without embarrassment) the analogy of faith, meaning the analogy of theology or systematic theology. It is foolish and artificial--it cannot actually be done--to try to interpret Ps.23, or Ps.90, or any other "as if" he wasn't a Christian, wasn't living in the NT age, supposing that this Christ-free angle would offer an initial, pristine evaluation of the text. Nonsense.
In the first place, our theology (faith) argues that Christ is ineradicably present in the Psalter; why should we be interested in first seeing the Psalm without him? Our theology (because of NT Scripture data) teaches us that David wrote self-consciously as a type of the Son that should come. He himself may not have fully grasped all that the H.S. was imparting to him, as he wrote under inspiration. But then, as a prophet he searched his own writings (and former prophets) for a clearer grasp of that Faith that was in process of being revealed.
So, we may be able, by a kind of "double-vision," squinting to see what might have been his viewpoint of the same material; but as we open our eyes fully we see clearly what remained shadowed somewhat for him. We sympathize with the OT saint's limitations, but are thankful that we have the NT illumination we do. And we embrace David (and the other Psalmists) and generations of Israelite believers who continued to use his Psalms and to gain understanding of their fulfillment as time went by.
Then, we have (especially in devotional poetry of the Psalter) a biblical psychology of man. This book is a timeless expression of the believing, worshipping heart. The ethics of the Psalter are not distinct from anything in the OT or the NT (no matter what modernist interpreters claim). The fact that the Psalter selections are so seldom attached to one moment in time helps to universalize them. We shouldn't confine them to an occasional expression of one man's experience, and thus argue that men today may have a different nature. We don't view them as possibly containing immoral (to us) feelings, unless the Psalmist questions himself--I'm thinking of Ps.73:15.
Thus, the analogy of faith teaches me that the believer's spirit is dynamically expressed in the Psalter. It is perfectly embodied by Jesus Christ, whether in his own Person as fulfillment (of the Righteous or Blessed Man, e.g. Ps.1:1; or of prophecy), or (as when he names himself a sinner, e.g. Ps.51:1) in his occupying the place of our Mediator and Substitute or Surety. But also, I relate to the Psalmist as an ethical and psychological being. The joy and the sorrow of the believer who writes or sings the Psalms are the same things, though felt in different bodies and experiences. And the faith (here, subjective) is also the same for both parties even after the NC era arrives; but only the same because it is consistently united (because of the AoF) in the Person of Jesus as the singular Object.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
