To my fellow Reformed believers, I have a question. Why do we continue to use the term “analogy of faith”?
Let me preface this by saying I am not afraid of large words in general or specifically theological vocabulary. For example, I am interested by debates on the difference between propitiation and expiation. Rather, I’m coming from a pedagogical perspective.
The concept “Scripture interprets Scripture” (which is what the analogy of faith refers to, as I understand it) is a readily understood concept, and the title makes intuitive sense. Nevertheless, even if I thoroughly understand the principle “Scripture interprets Scripture,” I may have no idea what someone may mean by the term “analogy of faith.” It’s not an intuitive term.
So I must create a new neural pathway that indicates “analogy of faith” = “Scripture interprets Scripture.” But what is the value of doing this? Is it only so that I can understand what the Reformers meant when they spoke of the analogy of faith? Or is there another purpose I’m missing?
My 13-year-old son and 10-year-old daughter are growing up learning the concept “Scripture interprets Scripture.” They can easily understand it (as could my 6-year-old, I expect, if I outlined it for her), and the 13-year-old could probably explain it pretty clearly if asked. So why should I teach them the term “analogy of faith”? Is the reasoning strictly historical?