In his sermon, Eric Bechler discusses the principles of interpreting the Holy Scriptures, focusing on the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. He emphasizes that Scripture is its own infallible rule of interpretation, advocating for a careful approach to understanding biblical texts. Bechler references Martin Luther's advocacy for personal interpretation, noting the historical debate over this practice. While Luther supported the individual's right to interpret Scripture, he also warned against misinterpretation. Bechler underscores the importance of hermeneutics, the science and art of biblical interpretation, which involves understanding the text literally, historically, grammatically, and contextually. He cautions against seeking esoteric meanings and highlights the necessity of comparing Scripture with Scripture to resolve seeming contradictions. The sermon underscores that Scripture is clear and consistent, urging believers to turn to clearer passages to interpret more difficult ones, maintaining that the sense of Scripture is one, not manifold.

Our reading today from the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 comes again from chapter one of the Holy Scriptures. 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 by other places that speak more clearly. We are getting closer to the end of our discussions about the Holy Scriptures we have today and next week, before moving on to the next chapter, we take a look today at interpretation. And I previously quoted Dr. Sproul regarding the debate that took place after the Reformation about interpreting scripture.

Luther argued for the right and responsibility of Christians to read the scriptures for themselves and for the right of private interpretation and that the basic message of the scriptures what was necessary for salvation was clear. But he also warned against reading into scriptures things that are not there. To Luther, the importance of getting the message of salvation to every person in the world far outweighed the dangers of corruption from private interpretation. The Roman Catholic hierarchy feared that if people were left to interpret the Bible for themselves, sex denominations and splinter groups would arise, And that was exactly what happened, which perhaps is not such a bad trade. But don't understand Luther, he's not arguing to ignore or throw away church history, its traditions, the teaching of the fathers and councils.

Their input is helpful and instructive, but not infallible. Only the Scriptures have infallible authority. But Luther's warning still stands true for us today. We must be careful as we interpret Scripture. Paul writes, be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2nd Timothy 2 15. We must take great care if we are to rightly divide the word of truth. How do we do this? No one wants to misinterpret God's word, at least on purpose, and yet look at the various denominations within Protestantism, which come from differing interpretations of scripture. And look at the differences found even within the Reformed churches.

So what do we do? How can we rightly divide the Word of Truth? There is something called hermeneutics. It is the science and art of biblical interpretation. It is a science because there are rules and it is an art because you must know when to apply the proper principles.

Of course the Bible is not monolithic. It was written over a long period of time by various authors in different languages and thus has many different genres and styles found in it. One must discern which rules to apply to find the intended meaning of any given text. Although asking yourself what does this text mean to me, is an important question because we want to find applications, but it should not be our first question. We should first seek what the author intended to communicate in the given text.

Where do we turn to find more on this? There are many books on hermeneutics, there are college and seminary courses on it, and you can find an overwhelming amount of information from the internet. As a recommendation, Dr. Sproul has a short book titled, Knowing Scriptures, which often offers guidance on how to study the Bible, including some practical guidelines. Louis Berkoff also has a small book, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, that would be a helpful starting point in the sacred hermeneutics.

For our purposes today here, I will not go into any great detail, it'd take too long, but just a basic overview that I found on a commentary. The most important law of biblical hermeneutics is that the Bible should be interpreted literally. We're to understand the Bible in its normal or plain meaning unless the passage is obviously intended to be symbolic or if figures of speech are employed. Some interpreters make the mistake of trying to read between the lines of Scripture to come up with esoteric meanings that are not truly in the text, as if every passage has a hidden spiritual truth that we should seek to decrypt. Biblical hermeneutics keeps us faithful to the intended meaning of Scripture and away from allergizing Bible verses that should be understood literally.

A second crucial law of biblical hermeneutics is that passages must be interpreted historically, grammatically, and contextually. Interpreting passages historically means we must seek to understand the culture, the background, and situation that prompted the text. Interpreting a passage grammatically requires one to follow the rules of grammar and recognize the nuances of Hebrew and Greek. Interpreting a passage contextually involves considering the verses immediately preceding and following or even the chapters, the books, and most broadly the entire Bible. A third law of biblical hermeneutics is that scripture is always the best interpreter of scripture.

For this reason, we always compare scripture with scripture when trying to determine the meaning of a passage. For example, Isaiah's condemnation of Judah's desire to seek Egypt's help and their reliance on a strong calvary in Isaiah 31.1 was motivated in part by God's explicit command that his people not go to Egypt to seek horses, Deuteronomy 17, 16. It is this last part that is the focus of our talk today. Some call it the analogy of faith or the rule of faith. Charles Hodges comments, if scriptures be what they claim to be, the Word of God, they are the work of one mind and that mind divine.

From this it follows that scripture cannot contradict scripture. God cannot teach in one place anything which is inconsistent with what he teaches in another. Hence scripture must explain scripture. If a passage admits of different interpretations, the true one must be the one which agrees with what the Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject. We read in Acts 15, 15, and with this the words of the prophets agree just as it is written.

Here is shown the harmony among the prophets, all speaking by one spirit in agreement. What one said is as if all had said it. Furthermore, there are places in the Bible that are more difficult to understand than others. Peter tells us this as also in Paul's epistles, speaking in them of things in which are some things hard to understand, 2nd Peter 315. But we can count on the fact that God does not contradict Himself, that His Word contains no contradictions.

We also know that Scripture is sufficient and clear. It is our final authority. And we covered these particular points in previous weeks. Because of this when we try to understand difficult passages in Scripture, we can look to the clearer portions to help us rightly interpret them. Our confession states, when there is a question about the true and full meaning of any part of scripture, and each passage has only one meaning and not many, it must be understood in light of other passages that speak more clearly.

We must turn to the infallible Word of God to help us interpret Scripture and we must search out and confirm our interpretation by the authority of other passages in Scripture and the overall teaching of Scripture. If we find a contradiction, be assured it's not from the Bible. It is from us and our faulty interpretation. Here's an example. In 1st Corinthians 15 22 it states, for as an Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

This verse can be confusing to some and some may consider it to support universal salvation. Since all mankind are corrupted by Adam's sin and carry a sinful nature, you could conclude also that all mankind will also be made alive in Christ. But this is not the case. To clarify its meaning, we can refer to clearer passages. In Romans 9 13 as it is written, Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated indicating that there are some who God does not love and who will not receive salvation.

Hebrews 9 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many To those who eagerly wait for him. He will appear a second time apart from sin for salvation Christ here bears the sin sins of many not all also to those who eagerly await again not all those who eagerly await will be saved. In John 3, 18, whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. There are those not condemned and those condemned, those who will be saved and those not saved, not all will be saved. Matthew 22 14, for many are invited but few are chosen.

John 10 27 my sheep hear my voice again indicating that there are sheep out there that are Jesus's and implying that there are sheep that are not. There are many other verses that we can point to that are relatively clear and easy to understand that help us come to a better understanding or better interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15 22. Robert Shaw concludes, the best and only infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself. Some things that are briefly and obscurely handled in one place are more fully and clearly explained in other places. And therefore, when we would find out the true sense of scripture, we must compare one passage with another, that they may illustrate one another.

And we must never affix a sense to any particular text, but such as is agreeable to the analogy of faith or the general scheme of divine truth. The compilers of the confession affirm that the sense of scripture is not manifold or many but one. No doubt many passages of scripture have complex meanings. As some prophecies have several steps of fulfillment in the Jewish nation, in the Christian church, and the heavenly state. And some passages have one thing that is typical of another.

Yet these only make up that one and entire sense intended by the Holy Ghost. No scripture can have two or more meanings properly different and no wise subordinate one to another Because the unity of truth and because of the clarity of scripture Amen