Contra_Mundum on the Puritan Board:
We would expect the Bible itself to contain further directions, hints, and clues as to growing in appreciation of its message. As a complex book, there could be doubts as to its overall coherence. This raises the question of how the Bible was put together; is it a haphazard collection, more a product of time and accident? Or is it a deliberate collection, brought together on some principle of unity (even if one does not grasp it)? If one has found (has been given) an accurate orientation to it, then its coherence seems to show itself effortlessly in major things; and rewards further investigation on more obscure/minor things.
One of the major helps to judging the overall coherence of the Bible (developing a faithful hermeneutic) is finding how later human authors within the Bible express their understanding of previous revelation. Later OT writers express an “authoritative” interpretation of previous writers, beginning with Moses. We take it on faith (again, as a presupposition) that any purported prophet of a later era, who spoke “not according to this word,” was regarded by believers and preservers of the sacred text as unreliable. His word was not preserved, nor included in the growth of the canon.
This idea is extended into the NT/Apostolic age. Jesus’ interpretation is definitive, he is the Prophet par excellence, the One Moses commanded Israel not to miss or despise. He explained the OT entirely in reference to himself as the Chief Fulfillment. And so also labor the apostles to express the same in their Acts and epistles. The hermeneutic of the apostles becomes the true hermeneutic of the church. It gains an early, almost childlike expression in “the rule of faith,” the so-called “Apostles’ Creed.” This is the lens by which the Bible is to be interpreted, and the Bible is the judge of the church’s teaching.