The Church precedes Scripture pedagogically

[Aco]

It is very interesting to read Bavinck on the issue of hermeneutics and exegesis (I give the whole context):

"The dogmatician will be most fully equipped to carry out his task if he lives in communion of faith with the Church of Christ and confesses Scripture as the only and sufficient basis (principium) of the knowledge of God. Accordingly, the dogmatician receives the content of his faith from the hands of the church. Pedagogically he comes to Scripture through the church. But no more than any other believer can he stop here. He is called to analyze the very fiber of the dogmas he has come to know from the church and to examine how they are rooted in Holy Scripture. Thus his task is sometimes said to consist in forst objectively reproducing the dogmas and then tracing them to Holy Scripture—a method called historical-analytical. For a few dogmas as such this method may be highly commendable, and it may be true that theologians undervalue it. Nonetheless, the objection to it is that by using this method one cannot achieve a scientific system. The dogmatician therefore will do better taking a different road. Instead of proceeding from the river of the source, it is preferable to travel from the source to the river. Without shortchanging the truth that IN A PEDAGOGICAL SENSE THE CHURCH PRECEDES SCRIPTURE, a theologian can nevertheless be positioned in Scripture itself as the foundation of theology (principium theologiae) and from there develop dogmas. What a theologian does in that case is replicate, as it were, the intellectual labor of the church. We are shown how dogmas have arisen organically from Scripture—that the firm and broad foundation on which the edifice of dogmatics rises is not a single text in its isolation but Scripture as a whole."
(Reformed Dogmatics, H. Bavinck, p. 93)

Also reading Van Til that there is no neutrality, pondered me where do we get our hermeneutics from? There is no neutral sphere outside revelation where we can get it. After reading Bavinck on that it seems to me that I got the answer, maybe.
Nobody comes neutrally to the Scriptures, everybody has presuppositions and regeneration precedes the grasping of the Gospel. An unregenerate person cannot understand the core message; the gospel and the whole of Scripture, God must open the eyes. So it might be said that an believer after that, receives theology from the church (through preaching) and brings that to the Scriptures, and interpreting them in light of that while thr Scriptures function as a corrective. Through that the theology becomes modified more and more progressively.
That seems also to be interesting in light of a need for Confessions in churches.

What are your thoughts on that?
How do you understand Bavinck here?

 

[Aco]

By the way it is from the first volume of Bavinck‘s Dogmatics; Prolegomena, p. 93

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The Bible does not hand us "the alphabet," teach us to write and diagram sentences, or compose a paragraph containing sustained thought. Instead, it hands us a product that presupposes a grammar stage. Yet, in that it contains words of letters, sentences, and paragraphs; and those combined with many others to form scenes, sermons, collections and the whole; then it is a reasonable conclusion that we need such tools for useful interpretation. The Bible itself teaches us (in that manner) that those things are a kind of pre-hermeneutics.

The content of the Bible goes on to explain, in the simplest of terms, that the God revealed in its pages is also the God of creation, that men are created (and in his image); thus, they arrive with "hardware" and "firmware" installed (so to speak). If it were not so, it is hard (I'd say it's impossible) to explain how children learn their (various) native tongues. They come into the world with some kind of already functioning mental processor that is designed (!) for taking linguistic building blocks (which preexist them) and turning an unconstructed puzzle into coherence--they join a shared, verbal communication platform.

This is implicit rather than explicit in Scripture. It is something like the "preconditions for intelligibility" as it relates to the question: can we even understand Scripture as communication at all, let alone as divine communication? We presume/hypothesize, and then test; and lo, we find a message--not individual messages, but a shared message. It may be that men dispute over the meaning or significance of the message, but except for a few outliers the message understood as sent is within the receiving capacity of most men.

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.

Because of this reliance upon Scripture (which is replete in the ancient church record) the fathers were able to address aberrant teaching, errors and heresies that alleged consistency with the rule of faith (and hence Scripture), but which could be shown from Scripture to be at variance with it. So, the creed of the church was amplified in statements like Nicea, or Chalcedon. Later councils (great and small, wide and local) have also made further and more elaborate statements of faith and confessions.

And some (paradoxically) have written out shorter and simpler statements; this seems to me like a unwise course, since it is not strictly the elaboration of the creed that has been harmful to the church. Reversal may be necessary, if the church has taken a false road and mapped it out. I'm thinking of the Medieval church (East or West) that adopted icons (east) and later on images (west). In the east, they made iconodulia a concilliar decision, and imposed it on the church by way of confession. That direction should be repudiated, and was (largely) by the 16th Century western church reformers.

But for the most part, the churches of the Reformation retained their profession of the classic formulae of church doctrine--because it was biblical. And the lengthy confessions they compiled were declarations of their conformity to the apostolic faith, as found in Scripture and confessed in the consent of the creeds and fathers of antiquity. We don't become purer by (attempting) turning the clock back on "scientific progress" in doctrine or learning. It would be as if--due to corruption in e.g. the medical industry--it was decided we were just better off without advances in dentistry.

So, there is in some sense an ongoing duty to receive the church's doctrine; while being Bereans and searching the Scriptures for continual affirmation of the truth, and for course-correction if needful. The history of the church has shown that more often than not, it is the rise of false-doctrine that drives the church once more to summon from Scripture fresh argument and witness unto the truth. Proper development is stimulated by reaction against that which tries to pull the church in improper directions. And so, the church is driven to make a clearer-than-ever affirmation of truth, and a repudiation of error. This inevitably draws a fine line for the church's teaching between that which is agreeable, and that which is not.

Not sure if this is all the direction you were thinking of going, but... there is my contribution.

 

[Aco]

The Bible does not hand us "the alphabet," teach us to write and diagram sentences, or compose a paragraph containing sustained thought. Instead, it hands us a product that presupposes a grammar stage. Yet, in that it contains words of letters, sentences, and paragraphs; and those combined with many others to form scenes, sermons, collections and the whole; then it is a reasonable conclusion that we need such tools for useful interpretation. The Bible itself teaches us (in that manner) that those things are a kind of pre-hermeneutics.

Yes, the written Word does not hand us an alphabet, but Special Revelation precedes the inscripturation of the Word. God has spoken and communicated from all
eternity (innetrinitarian communication). He has spoken to Adam from the very beginning. That‘s where we have to start, I think, with our Epistemology and Hermeneutics. The meaning of everything (any fact, thing, entity...), the very idea of a biblical creation implies that. God says what it is. There is no "neutral" or "grey" area where we get our "gammar" or "alphabet" and apply it to the Word, may it be so called "general self-evident truths" (Rationalism) or by our senses and experience (Empiricism). God created languages and therefore determined their meaning too. Meaning cannot be determined arbitrarily by a creature. Now, temporarily speaking (since we are time-bound creatures) we learn languages, grammar etc. through their use and application through experience, but ultimately it lies in the Trinity.

The content of the Bible goes on to explain, in the simplest of terms, that the God revealed in its pages is also the God of creation, that men are created (and in his image); thus, they arrive with "hardware" and "firmware" installed (so to speak). If it were not so, it is hard (I'd say it's impossible) to explain how children learn their (various) native tongues. They come into the world with some kind of already functioning mental processor that is designed (!) for taking linguistic building blocks (which preexist them) and turning an unconstructed puzzle into coherence--they join a shared, verbal communication platform.

Could you elaborate on that idea of "hardware" and "firmware" in a person? I don‘t follow you there.

This is implicit rather than explicit in Scripture. It is something like the "preconditions for intelligibility" as it relates to the question: can we even understand Scripture as communication at all, let alone as divine communication? We presume/hypothesize, and then test; and lo, we find a message--not individual messages, but a shared message. It may be that men dispute over the meaning or significance of the message, but except for a few outliers the message understood as sent is within the receiving capacity of most men.

I emphatically disagree with the assertion of "presume/hypothesise, and then test". That would be the inductive method in some form. Now, there might be a limited application of it in some contexts of usage. We cannot arbitrarily (without reference to special revelation already) presume meanings (based on anything outside of special revelation; autopistos!), then extrapolate them further, and lo behold we got our meaning. But there must be some coherent preestablished "uniformity of meaning", if I may called it that way. The relation of Words, syntax etc. and deriving the meaning from there. Thats why I emphasised regeneration in my thread above. God‘s revelation is not conditioned by creation, it penetrates through it. I would say Romans 1 is clear on that. That‘s why nobody has any excuse whatsoever.

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.

I would doubt that there is any justification for doubts about the coherence of the Word. Coherence presupposes it already. To go to history and to look to the "evidence" how the Word was preserved and its compilation in time, is certainly valuable but misses the point. An unbelieving researcher would draw compeletely different conclusions, based on his presumptions what the evidence means and says, as well as what its implications are.

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.

I think we agree all on that, and the Scriptures imply it.

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.

Yes, I thought also about how the rule of faith might have played a role, especially when we think about the Early Church before the final recognition of the Canon of Holy Scripture.

Because of this reliance upon Scripture (which is replete in the ancient church record) the fathers were able to address aberrant teaching, errors and heresies that alleged consistency with the rule of faith (and hence Scripture), but which could be shown from Scripture to be at variance with it. So, the creed of the church was amplified in statements like Nicea, or Chalcedon. Later councils (great and small, wide and local) have also made further and more elaborate statements of faith and confessions.

Certainly, but how would that have worked with the Apostolic Fathers or Justin the Martyr who seemingly didn‘t know Paul‘s writings after I read him. Certainly they had the OT, but the Rule of Faith might have also played a role.

And some (paradoxically) have written out shorter and simpler statements; this seems to me like a unwise course, since it is not strictly the elaboration of the creed that has been harmful to the church. Reversal may be necessary, if the church has taken a false road and mapped it out. I'm thinking of the Medieval church (East or West) that adopted icons (east) and later on images (west). In the east, they made iconodulia a concilliar decision, and imposed it on the church by way of confession. That direction should be repudiated, and was (largely) by the 16th Century western church reformers.

But for the most part, the churches of the Reformation retained their profession of the classic formulae of church doctrine--because it was biblical. And the lengthy confessions they compiled were declarations of their conformity to the apostolic faith, as found in Scripture and confessed in the consent of the creeds and fathers of antiquity. We don't become purer by (attempting) turning the clock back on "scientific progress" in doctrine or learning. It would be as if--due to corruption in e.g. the medical industry--it was decided we were just better off without advances in dentistry.

"We don‘t become purer by (attempting) turning the clock back on "scientific progress" in doctrine or learning." I don‘t know if you refer with that to something I wrote. Otherwise I agree with that.

So, there is in some sense an ongoing duty to receive the church's doctrine; while being Bereans and searching the Scriptures for continual affirmation of the truth, and for course-correction if needful. The history of the church has shown that more often than not, it is the rise of false-doctrine that drives the church once more to summon from Scripture fresh argument and witness unto the truth. Proper development is stimulated by reaction against that which tries to pull the church in improper directions. And so, the church is driven to make a clearer-than-ever affirmation of truth, and a repudiation of error. This inevitably draws a fine line for the church's teaching between that which is agreeable, and that which is not.

Not sure if this is all the direction you were thinking of going, but... there is my contribution.

Thank you for your reply. It was certainly helpful.

 

[RamistThomist]

Could you elaborate on that idea of "hardware" and "firmware" in a person? I don‘t follow you there.

He means we have the faculties to interpret speech, etc.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

He has spoken to Adam from the very beginning. That‘s where we have to start, I think, with our Epistemology and Hermeneutics.

You and I weren't present beside Adam. So, you may begin (if you please) with a certain theorizing about interpretation of immediate verbal revelation, a non-repeatable, individual experience. The same quality was essential in a prophet's immediate speech to an audience, when the human instrument for the divine Voice was present to repeat and clarify his revelatory word, all the while the Spirit is giving utterance. God gets-through to man, both unfallen and fallen.

But is this terribly useful? Is it Bavinck's concern? It is the text that tells us what came before the text. We cannot get behind the text. It is the text that shapes our epistemology, explaining how we were created to know, and how the fall warped human knowledge (but not so much that men are unable to know anything by the light of nature, WCF/LBC 1:1).

With the Bible, we have an artifact of purported revelation. As soon as it is inscripturated and handed off from Moses, in that form the recipients have the word in a fixed, a specific form. For us, there is no ongoing interrogating Moses for further clarification. Now, we have to interrogate the text itself; but (as Moses himself writes) the word is not too far away now, making the effort futile. It is close by, and of such a nature that it rewards a studious and reverential/receptive stance.

God definitely knows everything and in advance of everything, but we (you and I) are going to have to define terms, such as what "neutrality" means. You appear to deny there is some human "place" whence arises grammar; I don't know how to make sense of that. "God created languages"--does this mean he has a divine language which he uses internal to the Godhead; and this language he made as some kind of "pattern" for all creaturely languages? God surely imparted to Adam a formed language; do you mean all other languages are in some way derivative of that original? Or do you mean that God as a matter of direct creation instantiated all (or a limited number of ur-) languages? Your assertion is unclear to me.

I think it is simpler to grant that there is a created human capacity for language, and the various languages of the earth demonstrate this, along with profuse variation within the range of useful options, and the general limits of utility for that capacity. God knows all this ahead of time, he determines which options will be found in time and space; he is also aware of all the forks of possibility that will never be found.

But to say that language is not a human product in a meaningful sense is like saying the Eiffel Tower (ET) is not a human product--"God created the ET, because he is the One and Only Creator and he created everything." The ET is a physical product. Language is a mental product. The ET is possible in this world (and beautiful, etc.) because of divine power and order imposed on created elements by laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. Language is possible also, and not just by anything thrown together and labeled "language;" no more than throwing a bunch of odds and ends in a pile is anything like the ET.

The phrase, "no neutrality," should not be used as a kind of proprietary power-play; especially one that ends up denying what it ought to affirm concerning realities that are held in common by creatures by virtue of their creaturehood. Whatever men may claim about their autonomy and self-reliance, the Christian claim is that we all live together in God's world, hence there is "no neutrality" in that sense.

There is, however, a realm of creation inhabited by both rebels and reconciled occupying the same plane; and another realm of redemption that excludes and expels rebels . Unbelievers may function in the fallen world according to rules established by the Ruler they consciously and unconsciously refuse. But note that they manage--often quite effectively, and often better than believers--to use the former in spite of their refusal of the latter. I don't care if you call the one sphere "neutral" or "common" or "nature;" as a matter of fact, believers and unbelievers practically behave in many ways that are (to human detection) morally indistinguishable.

To return, then, to my observation that the reader brings to the Bible an ability to read--not an ability that was given him by a special dispensation unavailable to ordinary men, but a common gift--the capacity to make natural sense of the text is unremarkable. The capacity to make spiritual sense, or saving sense is something very different; but this is something in addition to nature. It is also possible that spiritual deformity may handicap some man's natural sense of the text. What I find wry is how often the natural sense is skewed not by those devoid of the spiritual sense (who may see fine what the text says, and simply deny its truth), but by those who seem to have some spiritual sense, but do not like the natural sense of the text; and so they render it "true" as they think it ought to be. I have to admit that, in theory at least, this could describe me as well as someone I disagree with.

Bavinck has a robust doctrine of nature, and of general revelation come along with it. He writes, "Nature precedes grace; grace perfects nature. Reason is perfected by faith, faith presupposes nature." (vol.1, p.322) And with respect to "common grace,"

The Reformed theologians were even better positioned to recognize [pagans must ever have at least a speck of truth in their knowledge] by their doctrine of common grace. By it they were protected, on the one hand, from the Pelagian error, which taught the sufficiency of natural theology and linked salvation to the sufficiency of natural theology, but could, on the other hand, recognize all the truth, beauty, and goodness that is present also in the pagan world. Science, art, moral, domestic, and societal life, etc., were derived from that common grace and acknowledged and commended with gratitude. As a rule this operation of common grace, though perceived in the life of morality and intellect, society and state, was less frequently recognized in the religions of pagans. In the latter context the Reformed only spoke of natural religion, innate and acquired, but the connection between this natural religion and the [pagan] religions was not developed. The religions were traced to deception or demonic influences. However, an operation of God’s Spirit and of his common grace is discernible not only in science and art, morality and law, but also in the religions.

(1:319)​

This response is already long enough. As I look further at your replies, I'm seeing a number of places where we seem to be talking past one another. And philosophically, I'm wondering if you are not only opposed to the (false) engines of Rationalism and Empiricism, but to the tools of rational and empirical inquiry, and to the use of induction as a method of inquiry. These are human activities, and in some sense they are inescapable, even if you intend for some reason to avoid them.

The Bible does not come to us (as the Kuran allegedly did) handed down out of heaven; nor is there an accompanying oracle for testing the interpretation. When I say men presume and hypothesize, I mean there are tasks for translators and other interpreters to perform. You try one way of reading the text, and see if that option makes (rational) sense. And then you try another, and see if it makes more sense than the first attempt. That may be induction, but that's how it's done, and there's no other way.

Anyway, I don't want to impute to you a view you do not admit. There may be a language barrier to our effective communication. I recommend letting Bavinck just teach you essential Reformed Theology, and allow yourself to be shaped by one so well regarded as a generally sound instructor. Try not to first filter everything through a strict philosophical-apologetic grid of VanTil. Better that he should "color" your approach, than "condition" it.

 

[Aco]

You and I weren't present beside Adam. So, you may begin (if you please) with a certain theorizing about interpretation of immediate verbal revelation, a non-repeatable, individual experience. The same quality was essential in a prophet's immediate speech to an audience, when the human instrument for the divine Voice was present to repeat and clarify his revelatory word, all the while the Spirit is giving utterance. God gets-through to man, both unfallen and fallen.

"You and I weren‘t present beside Adam". That is certainly the case, but Special Revelation/ the Word tells us that it happened. Now it follows from that the meaning and usage of Words was instantiated from the very beginning.

But is this terribly useful? Is it Bavinck's concern? It is the text that tells us what came before the text. We cannot get behind the text. It is the text that shapes our epistemology, explaining how we were created to know, and how the fall warped human knowledge (but not so much that men are unable to know anything by the light of nature, WCF/LBC 1:1).

In a sense it seems to be a concern for Bavinck. Maybe I‘m wrong. Since he says what method or methods shall be used in interpreting the text.
Exactly, the text shapes our epistemology and even our hermeneutics. My point was that the meaning existed before we existed and even before the text. While the text is that which communicates it to us. I don‘t know what you mean when you wrote that we cannot get behind the text. As I far as I think about that, it is the point of the text to illumante whats behind him.

With the Bible, we have an artifact of purported revelation. As soon as it is inscripturated and handed off from Moses, in that form the recipients have the word in a fixed, a specific form. For us, there is no ongoing interrogating Moses for further clarification. Now, we have to interrogate the text itself; but (as Moses himself writes) the word is not too far away now, making the effort futile. It is close by, and of such a nature that it rewards a studious and reverential/receptive stance.

No objection to that.

God definitely knows everything and in advance of everything, but we (you and I) are going to have to define terms, such as what "neutrality" means. You appear to deny there is some human "place" whence arises grammar; I don't know how to make sense of that. "God created languages"--does this mean he has a divine language which he uses internal to the Godhead; and this language he made as some kind of "pattern" for all creaturely languages? God surely imparted to Adam a formed language; do you mean all other languages are in some way derivative of that original? Or do you mean that God as a matter of direct creation instantiated all (or a limited number of ur-) languages? Your assertion is unclear to me.

I would disagree that we define terms (May be you could clarify what you mean by that, to avoid misrepresentation). I didn’t come into existence in a void. I had parents who taught me how to use words and what they mean and other persons too. As well as they had their parents and people who preceded them. Through life you learn how language is used and applied. Now, certainly language modifies and has a range of possibilities what it could mean etc. depending on the context and conditions. Nothing can be known without "context." In the biblical worldview the ultimate context for everything is te self-existent Trinity, because God is his own context. That‘s where we start with all predication, epistemology etc. That is what I mean with "no neutrality" or special revelation, even if we come to it through the text in space and time.

I think it is simpler to grant that there is a created human capacity for language, and the various languages of the earth demonstrate this, along with profuse variation within the range of useful options, and the general limits of utility for that capacity. God knows all this ahead of time, he determines which options will be found in time and space; he is also aware of all the forks of possibility that will never be found.

I don‘t deny the capacity of humans for languages. I object to the justification and determination of the meaning of it without reference to special revelation.

But to say that language is not a human product in a meaningful sense is like saying the Eiffel Tower (ET) is not a human product--"God created the ET, because he is the One and Only Creator and he created everything." The ET is a physical product. Language is a mental product. The ET is possible in this world (and beautiful, etc.) because of divine power and order imposed on created elements by laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. Language is possible also, and not just by anything thrown together and labeled "language;" no more than throwing a bunch of odds and ends in a pile is anything like the ET.

I thought I tried to say exactly that. Now, you explained it probably better than I did it right here.

The phrase, "no neutrality," should not be used as a kind of proprietary power-play; especially one that ends up denying what it ought to affirm concerning realities that are held in common by creatures by virtue of their creaturehood. Whatever men may claim about their autonomy and self-reliance, the Christian claim is that we all live together in God's world, hence there is "no neutrality" in that sense.

I hope I don‘t use "no neutrality" wrongly. I used it in this discourse exclusively as "without reference to/ apart from special revelation." I certainly don‘t intend to deny what is held commonly by creatures. Because everybody lives in God‘s world, is there the possibility to hold anything in common. The fallen creature holds to common beliefs with the regenerate, inspite of his suppression and covenant-breaking, because of the common grace of God. But special revelation defines general revelation.

There is, however, a realm of creation inhabited by both rebels and reconciled occupying the same plane; and another realm of redemption that excludes and expels rebels . Unbelievers may function in the fallen world according to rules established by the Ruler they consciously and unconsciously refuse. But note that they manage--often quite effectively, and often better than believers--to use the former in spite of their refusal of the latter. I don't care if you call the one sphere "neutral" or "common" or "nature;" as a matter of fact, believers and unbelievers practically behave in many ways that are (to human detection) morally indistinguishable.

No objection to that.

To return, then, to my observation that the reader brings to the Bible an ability to read--not an ability that was given him by a special dispensation unavailable to ordinary men, but a common gift--the capacity to make natural sense of the text is unremarkable. The capacity to make spiritual sense, or saving sense is something very different; but this is something in addition to nature. It is also possible that spiritual deformity may handicap some man's natural sense of the text. What I find wry is how often the natural sense is skewed not by those devoid of the spiritual sense (who may see fine what the text says, and simply deny its truth), but by those who seem to have some spiritual sense, but do not like the natural sense of the text; and so they render it "true" as they think it ought to be. I have to admit that, in theory at least, this could describe me as well as someone I disagree with.

I think that is not even in dispute here. I wholeheartedly agree with that.

Bavinck has a robust doctrine of nature, and of general revelation come along with it. He writes, "Nature precedes grace; grace perfects nature. Reason is perfected by faith, faith presupposes nature." (vol.1, p.322) And with respect to "common grace,"

(1:319)​

I have to read Bavinck on that more clearly and think that through. As far as I‘ve read him he bases knowledge in some kind of Realism. Maybe I understood his intentions wrongly.

This response is already long enough. As I look further at your replies, I'm seeing a number of places where we seem to be talking past one another. And philosophically, I'm wondering if you are not only opposed to the (false) engines of Rationalism and Empiricism, but to the tools of rational and empirical inquiry, and to the use of induction as a method of inquiry. These are human activities, and in some sense they are inescapable, even if you intend for some reason to avoid them.

Yes, I think we talked past each other. I‘m completely with you if we ask the question "how we come to know the meaning of things etc." My concern was, if I may called it, more a "metaphysical" grounding. It wasn‘t my intention to deny the tools of inquiry. But the tools are also from God and are what God determines them to be and how it should be used. We come to know things by our experience, reason etc. But the justification or arbitration is finally by special revelation.

The Bible does not come to us (as the Kuran allegedly did) handed down out of heaven; nor is there an accompanying oracle for testing the interpretation. When I say men presume and hypothesize, I mean there are tasks for translators and other interpreters to perform. You try one way of reading the text, and see if that option makes (rational) sense. And then you try another, and see if it makes more sense than the first attempt. That may be induction, but that's how it's done, and there's no other way.

That‘s certainly the case. if you mean that with "presume and hypothesise" then there is no objection from me. But, here could be the place where "the rubber meets the road" in relation to my thread here. How does the church precede Scripture? Does it refer to the Rule of Faith?

Anyway, I don't want to impute to you a view you do not admit. There may be a language barrier to our effective communication. I recommend letting Bavinck just teach you essential Reformed Theology, and allow yourself to be shaped by one so well regarded as a generally sound instructor. Try not to first filter everything through a strict philosophical-apologetic grid of VanTil. Better that he should "color" your approach, than "condition" it.

Thank you for your clarfications.