If one looks it up online, the expression “plain sense of Scripture” refers to the literal sense of Bible interpretation. But this doesn’t help at all. Why? Because both “plain sense” and “literal” are somewhat technical terms that sound as if they are anything but technical.
Both “Plain Sense” and “Literal” focus on the grammatical-historical context of the writing in the originating setting, as well as the apparent authorial intent of the writer as evidenced by the surrounding text. Relatedly, it takes into account the genre in which the writing is part of.
And if people used the terms that way, I would agree that the plain sense or literal understanding of Scripture is good.
But… that often is not the way it is used. I have seen this in the battle going on in my denomination regarding women in ministry. What happens is that the Complementarian quotes a passage from one of the Epistles to Timothy or to the Church at Corinth, or from the first three chapters of Genesis, as evidence of their position. Then an Egalitarian responds by showing there are problems with their interpretation based on the broader literary and historical contexts. Then the Complementarian responds by denigrating the egalitarian use of context to challenge the “plain and literal” understanding of the passages in question.
You probably see the problem. Plain and literal understanding of a passage of Scripture is absolutely dependent on context.
I don’t wish to argue about women in ministry. The Egalitarians have plenty of shaky arguments on this issue, but in terms of verse dropping, the failure has tended to be with the Complementarians. Why might this be?
Well, one way of describing “plain sense” has been… “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” The problem is that common sense is a horrible interpretative tool. It can be understood as meaning that, “If my interpretation makes sense to me, that is the way to go. If it doesn’t then, and only then, start the process of literary, grammatical, and historical analyses.”
As Dennis Bratcher said, we “most often assume our own frame of reference for the text and assume that what makes sense to us from our own cultural, social, religious, or emotional context is what the text itself means to say.” (See article https://www.crivoice.org/plainsense.html)
For the battle going on in my denomination there is a frame of reference, a faith tradition that leans quite heavily toward one perspective. As such the verses whose “plain sense” seems to jibe with that frame of reference just seem clear to the readers in their context. However, passages that challenge that perspective seem unclear and thus must be reviewed more to ‘sort it all out.’
That really is not the way to go. We should always be suspicious of our unconscious tendency to NOT be challenged by Scripture. Our common sense is likely to steer us wrong as often (if not more) than right.
I was listening to Preston Sprinkle on his podcast (Theology in the Raw) where he suggested we throw out the expression “the plain sense of Scripture.” It tends to be misused and abused too much to be helpful as a term. Certainly it should never be used to discourage people to analyze the passage through the tools that one is SUPPOSED TO USE to understand its literal plain sense.
I will note that the term “literal” meaning is also often confusing. After all, often the genre of a passage or its grammar, means that the literal meaning is figurative, metaphorical, allegorical, poetic, and more. In other words, the literal meaning (in a technical sense) of a passage may be non-literal (in a non-technical sense). This is another problem of using a common, non-technical, term for a technical purpose. The two terms can become conflated or confused.
