In Doctrinal Preaching, we proposed that dogmatic preaching serves as a primary and regular means for promoting sound, life-giving theology in the context of the local church. Preaching combines the normative and social elements of dogmatics and accords with the theoretical-practical nature of theology. But, in order to engage in the task of doctrinal preaching, one must realize that it requires a dogmatic reading of Holy Scripture. The expositor does not read the text as if no doctrine existed. Nor does he take the text of Scripture and transform its contents into dogma, as if theology needed him. Further, he does not read his theology alongside Holy Scripture as if the two never touch. Rather, he seeks to discern the doctrines in Scripture, praying that the Spirit would enlighten the eyes of the hearer’s heart that they might behold the glory of Christ. Thus, he affirms the real presence of dogma in Scripture.
How might one go about this task? First and foremost, one must recognize the divine authority of Holy Scripture, which comes from its immediate and efficient cause, the Holy Spirit. Immediate inspiration affirms that the words of Scripture find the source and origin in God. Inspiration recognizes the Spirit as the efficient cause of Scripture, acknowledging that this work is appropriate to the Spirit as the efficient cause of all the external acts of God while affirming that the external operations of the Triune God are undivided. The Spirit of God reveals the mind of God through Scripture and illuminates the minds of men to understand the mysteries of faith freely given by God. The Spirit, being omniscient, knows the contents and entailments of Scripture before, during, and after their delivery. For this reason, William Perkins says, “The principal interpreter of the Scripture is the Holy Spirit… He who makes the law is the best and highest interpreter of the law,” (Works of William Perkins, X.303).
William Whitaker reasons similarly in Disputations On Holy Scripture. He states, “The supreme judge of controversies and legitimate interpreter of Scripture should have these three properties: the first is, that we should certainly know that the sentence which he delivers is true, and that we can acquiesce in it; the second, that no appeal from that sentence shall be lawful; the third, that he be influenced by no partiality. Now the church or the pope possess none of these; whereas the scripture, and the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture, have them all,” (Whitaker, Disputations On Holy Scripture, 448). When interpreting Scripture, deference must be paid to the primary author, the Spirit of God.
Second, the interpreter of Scripture recognizes the role of the Spirit when they adhere to the following principle offered by Perkins: “The supreme and absolute means of interpretation is the Scripture itself,” (Works of William Perkins, X.303). In order to discern what the Spirit says in one passage the interpreter must heed what the Spirit says elsewhere. The divine mind is revealed through the many pens of human authors without being confined by the human intellect, taken individually or as a whole (1 Pet 1:10-12).
Third, the interpreter must utilize the analogy of faith, which is, “a certain abridgement (or sum of the Scriptures collected out of [the] most manifest and familiar places, (Works of William Perkins, X.303). The analogy of faith is composed of the rule of faith and the rule of love. The rule of faith refers to the contents of the faith which have been handed down to the saints, of which the Apostle’s Creed serves as a faithful summary. Faith refers to that which ought to be believed whereas the rule of love refers to that which ought to be done, summarily presented in The 10 Commandments. Perkins identifies the analogy of faith as a subordinate means of interpreting Scripture but places it before other means—such as the circumstances and collation of the text with like texts—because a text’s theological situatedness ought to be given preeminence. Scott Swain, referring to the rule of faith, states why: “The rule of faith has functioned historically not only as a standard for measuring the faithfulness of one’s exegetical results, but also as a means for producing faithful exegetical results,” (Swain, Trinity, Revelation, and Reading, 112).
According to Swain, the rule of faith functions as a means to a proper interpretation of Scripture. Thus, we do not merely think about the rule of faith and the rule of love; we use them as tools when we interpret Scripture. However, Swain also rightly notes, “The rule of faith does not obviate reading. Nor does it validate every orthodox reading,” (Swain, Trinity, Revelation, and Reading, 113). In other words, only the text, rightly understood, can warrant a proper reading of Scripture.
In this article, we sought to demonstrate how one might read a text doctrinally. One must begin with the Holy Spirit as the perfect interpreter of the words that are rightly attributed to him. This requires that the reader of Scripture interprets Scripture with Scripture in order to understand the mind of God as revealed by the Spirit. Subordinate means, such as the analogy of faith, which is comprised of the rule of faith and the rule of love, serve as tools with which the reader understands Holy Scripture. We set these pieces in place in order to lead to our next article, which will examine two commentators and the role of theology in their interpretation.