I want to clarify something: the way that I approach scripture, theology, and interpretation. First of all I want to make clear that scripture is not our “answer book!” I first learned this truth in my Bible Study Methods class, and it has been a helpful little axiom to remember ever since. In other words, when we approach scripture, we need to approach it with the realization that it has its own agenda, its own set of questions and expectations. The goal for the interpreter is to discern those, and try to avoid, at all costs, imposing ‘our’ own questions that the text never really intended to answer in the first place. Grant Osborne has a helpful word on this:

In contrast to the regula fidei (“rule of faith”) of the Roman Catholic Church, Luther propounded the analogia fidei (“analogy of faith”). Luther opposed the centrality of ecclesial tradition and believed that Scripture alone should determine dogma. On the basis of the unity and clarity of Scripture, he proposed that the basic doctrines must cohere with and cannot contradict the holistic teaching of Scripture. However, for Luther the system still had a certain predominance. Therefore, I would suggest the analogia scriptura (“analogy of Scripture”) as an alternative. Terry’s dictum still stands: “No single statement or obscure passage of one book can be allowed to set a aside a doctrine which is clearly established by many passages”. . . . I would strengthen this by adding that doctrines should not be built upon a single passage but rather should summarize all that Scripture says on that topic. If there are no clarifying passages (for example, on baptism for the dead in 1 Cor 15:29 or compartmentalized Hades in Lk 16:22-26), we must be careful about seeing a statement of dogma.

Moreover, all such doctrinal statements (for instance, on the lordship of Christ or on eternal security) should be made on the basis of all the texts that speak to the issue rather than on the basis of proof-texts or “favorite” passages. Such an approach results in a “canon within a canon,” a phenomenon in which certain passages are subjectively favored over others because they fit a system that is imposed on Scripture rather than drawn from it. This is a dangerous situation, for it assumes that one’s preconceived ideas are more important than is the text. Also, it misinterprets Scripture. Few biblical statements are theoretical — that is, holistic — descriptions of dogma. Rather, a biblical author’s statements apply a larger doctrine to a particular issue in a specific church setting and stress whatever aspect of the larger teaching applies to that situation. For instance, Paul’s epistles are occasional letters addressing problems and issues in local communities rather than theological treatises summarizing doctrine. This does not mean that they are not theological; rather, the epistles take one aspect of a larger theology (which we derive from a “biblical theology” approach . . . ) and apply it to the situation addressed. Therefore, to establish a doctrine we must place all the statements on the issue side by side and work out how best to summarize scriptural teaching on a topic. The analogia scriptura is the method by which we do this. (Grant R. Osborne, “The Hermeneutical Spiral,” 11)

I think there is wisdom in what Osborne is getting at. The one point that he overlooks in his discussion is what role Jesus Himself plays within the interpretive project. As we know John 5:39 makes clear that scripture is about Jesus; so this should also be an integral part in our interpretive work. In other words, we should take the whole and parts of scripture, and see all of it hung together by the life of God in Jesus Christ (i.e. how is it centered in Him?). We need to start from the center of scripture, and work from there — relative to all the other parts (doctrine) that hang together webbed as it were to the touchstone, Jesus.

I just wanted to post this to identify some of the interpretive assumptions that I have. Some of these assumptions are why I have always rejected the TULIP style of Calvinism, for example. I see it, in many ways, asking questions of scripture that scripture itself — given its themes and motifs — never intended to answer. Beyond that, I don’t see the TULIP or that style of Calvinism ‘starting’ with Jesus as its interpretive center. Maybe you disagree, it is what it is 🙂 .