Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics

[John The Baptist]

The balance of objective special revelation and subjective special revelation:

“Scripture clearly teaches that God's full revelation has been given in Christ and that the Holy Spirit who was poured out in the church has come only to glorify Christ and take all things from Christ (John 16:14).
But to that end, accordingly, the activity of the Spirit is continually needed. For the special revelation in Christ is not meant to be restricted to himself but, proceeding from him, to be realized in the church, in humanity, in the world. The aim of revelation, after all, is to re-create humanity after the image of God, to establish the kingdom of God on earth, to redeem the world from the power of sin and, in and through all this, to glorify the name of the Lord in all his creatures. In light of this, however, an objective revelation in Christ is not sufficient, but there needs to be added a working of the Spirit in order that human beings may acknowledge and accept that revelation of God and thereby become the image of the Son. Just as in the sciences the subject must correspond to the object, and in religion subjective religion must answer to objective religion, so external and objective revelation demands an internal revelation in the subject. Many people, accordingly, rightly attach great value to such an internal revelation. But it can come into its own only if it is positioned in relation to the objective revelation granted in Christ. Detached from or elevated above this revelation, it loses its criterion and corrective and opens the door to all sorts of arbitrariness and fanaticism. Even the very concept of subjective revelation is determined and controlled by that of objective revelation.”

347-348

I found myself nodding my head a lot during this section. As someone who grew up in a part of the church that is rife with ‘fanaticism,’ it’s refreshing to see the connection between objective and subjective. It seems growing up that the church I was in acknowledged both but did not consider their relationship, especially the ‘corrective’ nature of the scriptures. If God told/called you, God told/called you no matter what anyone/anything else said.

 

[John The Baptist]

Sorry for the delay, it has been a busy 7 days.

Here is Bavinck working through what he calls ‘monism’ and ‘theism’

“The worldview that is opposed to Scripture and must in principle oppose all revelation can best be labeled monism. Monism, both in its pantheistic and in its materialistic form, strives to reduce all the forces, materials, and laws perceptible in nature to a single force, material, and law. Materialism only accepts qualitatively identical atoms, which everywhere and always work according to the same mechanical laws, and, by combination and separation, make and break all things and all phenomena. Pantheism only recognizes the existence of a single substance, which is the same in all creatures and which everywhere transmutes and transforms itself in accordance with the same laws of logic. Both materialism and pantheism are driven by the same urge, the urge and drive toward unity, which is characteristic of the human mind. But there is a difference. Materialism attempts to rediscover the unity of matter and law that holds sway in the physical world, in all other historical, psychological, religious, and ethical phenomena as well, and thus to transform all sciences into natural science. Pantheism, on the other hand, attempts to explain all phenomena, including the physical, in terms of the mind and to convert all sciences into the science of the mind. Both are naturalistic insofar as they may perhaps still make room for the supersensible, but not in any case for the supernatural, and with respect to so.
Pace and art, religion and morality, are content with this cosmos and the here-and-now.

The worldview of Scripture and of all of Christian theology is a very different one. Its name is theism, not monism; its orientation is supernatural, not naturalistic. According to this theistic worldview, there is a multipliciry of substances, forces, materials, and laws. It does not strive to erase the distinctions between God and the world, between spirit (mind) and matter, between psychological and physical, ethical and religious phenomena. It seeks rather to discover the harmony that holds all things together and unites them and that is the consequence of the creative thought of God. Not identity or uniformity but unity in diversity is what it aims at. Despite all the pretensions of monism, this theistic worldview has a right and reason to exist. It is a fact, after all, that monism has not succeeded in reducing all the forces and materials and laws to just one element. While materialism stumbles into psychological phenomena, pantheism cannot find a bridge between thought and existence and does not know what to do with multiplicity. Existence itself is a mystery and a miracle. That anything exists at all compels astonishment in the thinking mind, and this astonishment, accordingly, has rightly been called the beginning of philosophy. The more deeply human beings penetrate this existence intellectually, the more astonished they become, for within the sphere of existence, of the cosmos, we see various forces in action: in the mechanical, vegetative, animal, and psychological world, bus also in religious and ethical, aesthetic and logical, phenomena.”

367-368

 

[John The Baptist]

Sorry for the delay, will be getting to this as soon as I am able.

 

[John The Baptist]

Again, apologies for my inconsistency, please forgive me. We should now be back to our regularly scheduled program, d.v.

Here is Bavinck with a rather encouraging section on revelation. No revelation=no hope of a world to come. No revelation=a victory for death, in the end.

“Revelation is not an individual act of God in time, isolated from nature as a whole, but a world by itself, distinct from nature, to be sure, but still made for it, akin to it, and intended for it. In this system of revelation, which begins in paradise and ends only in the parousia, there is still much that is obscure and unexplained. But the outline of it can be discerned. Both in the history of prophecy and that of miracles there is discernible order and development. Revelation, too, has its own laws and rules. It is the beautiful assignment of the "history of revelation" to track them down and to discover the system that is concealed in its history. There are still many facts in it that cannot be understood in their true significance for, and connection with, the whole; also many words and deeds that cannot be subsumed under a specific rule. This need not surprise us and may by no means be exploited as a ground for unbelief. The philosophy of nature and history is likewise far from being finished with its work. It, too, is confronted at every moment by cruxes that it cannot unravel. Nevertheless, no one questions the unity of nature and the existence of a plan of history. By comparison with it, the situation of revelation is even quite favorable. Its outline is established. Beginning in paradise and ending in the parousia, it forms a grand story line that casts light on all of nature and history and thus, as Augustine puts it, by the ordinary protects the extraordinary from extravagance and ennobles the ordinary by the extraordinary. Without it we walk in darkness and go to the eternal rest of death without an answer to the question: what is the purpose of it all? But with it, we find ourselves in a world that, despite all the power of sin, is led to restoration and perfection. Israel is the preparation, Christ the center, the church the consequence, and the parousia the crown--that is the cord that binds the facts of revelation together.
Accordingly, faith in special revelation is ultimately one with faith in another and better world. If this world with its naturally immanent forces and laws is the only world and the best world, then of course we have to be content with it. Then the laws of nature are identical with the decrees of God; then the world is the Son, the Logos, the true image of God; then the order of nature in which we live is already the full and exhaustive revelation of God's wisdom, power, goodness, and holiness. But then what right do we have to expect that the "there" will one day become the "here,” that the ideal will become reality, that the good will triumph over evil, that the "world of values" will one day prevail over the "world of reality"? Evolution will not take us there. Nothing comes out of nothing (nihil fit ex nihilo). This world will never turn into a paradise. Nothing can come forth from it that is not in it. If there is no beyond (Jenseits), no God who is above nature, no supernatural order, then sin, darkness, and death have the last word. The revelation of Scripture makes known to us another world, a world of holiness and glory. This other world descends into this fallen world, not just as a doctrine but also as a divine power (δυναμις), as history, as reality, as a harmonious system of words and deeds in conjunction. It is work, no, as the work of God by which he lifts this world out of its fall and leads it out of the state of sin, through the state of grace, to the state of glory. Revelation is God's coming to humankind to dwell with it forever.”

376-377, bolded emphasis mine.

 

[John The Baptist]

Here’s Bavinck on OT historical books.

“All the historical books of the OT were written by the prophets and in a prophetic spirit (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29; 20:34; etc.). In their speeches and writings the prophets not only refer repeatedly to Israel's history, but they are also the people who preserved, edited, and handed it down. But their purpose is by no means to furnish us with an accurate, connected story of the fortunes of the Israelitish people, as other historiographers aim to do. Also in the historical books of the OT, the prophets base themselves on the torah and from its viewpoint regard and describe the history of Israel Judg. 2:6-3:6;
2 Kings 17:7-23, 34 41). The historical books are commentary on the facts of God's covenant with Israel. They are not history in our sense of the word but prophecy; they are meant to be judged by another standard than the history How do books of other peoples. It is not their aim that we should acquire accurate knowledge of Israel's history but that in the history of Israel we should gain understanding of the revelation of God, his thought and his counsel. The prophets, both when they look back upon history and when they look forward into the future, are always messengers of the word of YHWH.”

393

This section got me thinking, how should be deal with their historical accuracy? If the point (which I tend to agree) is gain understanding in the revelation of God, does that give it a pass to be less accurate? These are things I’ve likewise thought about when it comes to the Gospels. How accurate, when it comes to details, should we expect the Gospels to be?

 

[No Other Name]

But their purpose is by no means to furnish us with an accurate, connected story of the fortunes of the Israelitish people, as other historiographers aim to do

I have no idea what Bavinck is referring to when he says "other historiographers aim to do" but in his essay and theological and religious studies, he seems to focus on the development of religions in cultures against facts and dates. In context here, it seems likely that he is teaching to leave fluid the possibility of dates of events and any systems that seek to "fill in the blanks" from king to king and prophet to prophet so that the commentaries can focus on the true history of covenant theology in Scripture and perhaps that that view should hold supreme in any history of any nation.

I would add that this is my two cents of course, except I am not sure it is even worth that much.

 

[John The Baptist]

Bavinck here is dabbling in the NT’s use of the OT, something I find fascinating and complicated. Bavinck seems to go the ‘deeper meaning’ route; the NT authors find meaning that the OT authors were ignorant of. What are we to make of this? How does authorial intent inform our understanding of a passage? How do we safeguard against any number of crazy interpretations?

“In that connection we are often surprised by the meaning that the NT authors find in the text of the OT (esp. in Matt. 2:15, 18, 23; 21:5; 22:32; 26:31; 27:9, 10, 35; John 19:37; Acts 1:20; 2:31; 1 Cor. 9:9; Gal. 3:16; 4:22f.; Eph. 4:8f; Heb. 2:6-8; 10:5). In the case of Jesus and the apostles, this exegesis of the OT in the NT assumes the understanding that a word or sentence can have a much deeper meaning and a much farther reaching thrust than the original author suspected or put into it. This is often the case in classical authors as well. No one will think that Goethe, in writing down his classical poetry, consciously had before his mind the things that are now found in it. ‘Surely that person has not gotten far in poetry / In whose verses there is nothing more than what he had [consciously] written into them.’ In Scripture this is even much more strongly the case since, in the conviction of Jesus and the apostles, it has the Holy Spirit as its primary author and bears a teleological character. Not only in the few verses cited above but in its entire view and interpretation of the OT, the NT is undergirded by the thought that the Israelitish dispensation has its fulfillment in the Christian. The whole economy of the old covenant, with all its statutes and ordinances and throughout its history, points forward to the dispensation of the new covenant. Not Talmudism but Christianity is the rightful heir of the treasures of salvation promised to Abraham and his seed.”

396-397

 

[John The Baptist]

A little jab from Bavinck that feels especially apt right now…

“Holy Scripture nowhere offers a clearly formulated dogma on inspiration but confronts us with the witness of its God-breathed character and in addition furnishes us all the components needed for the construction of the dogma. It contains and teaches the God-breathed character of Scripture in the same sense and in the same way—just as firmly and clearly but just as little formulated in abstract concepts—as the dogma of the Trinity, the incarna-tion, vicarious atonement, etc. This has repeatedly been denied. Every sectarian and heretical school of thought initially begins with an appeal to Scripture against the confession and would have us believe that its deviation from the doctrine of the church is required by Scripture. But in most cases further investigation leads to the admission that the confession of the church has the witness of Scripture on its side.”

422-423, emphasis mine

 

[John The Baptist]

An interesting bit about God’s work in choosing/designing the biblical languages:

“If, then, the prophets and apostles so witness as they write, they also retain their own character, language, and style. At all times this stylistic variation in the books of the Bible has been recognized, but it has not always been satisfactorily explained. It is not to be explained by saying that the Holy Spirit out of sheer caprice decided to write one way today and another at some other time. Rather, entering these authors, he also entered into their style and language, their character and unique personality, which he himself had already prepared and shaped for this purpose. Integral to this purpose is also that in the OT he chose the Hebrew and in the NT Hellenistic Greek as the vehicle of divine thoughts. This choice was not an arbitrary one either. (Purism, let it be said in passing, in its own awkward way defended an important truth.) Judged by the Greek of Plato and Demosthenes, the NT is full of barbarisms and solecisms; but the marriage between pure Hebrew and pure Attic that resulted in Hellenistic Greek, between the mind of the East and the mind of the West, was the linguistic realization of the divine idea that salvation is from the Jews but intended for all humankind. From a grammatical and linguistic viewpoint, the language of the NT is not the most beautiful, but it is certainly the best suited for the communication of divine thoughts. In this respect, too, the word has become truly and universally human.”

And moving on to this fact’s relationship to the Word made flesh:

“In view of all this, the theory of organic inspiration alone does justice to Scripture. In the doctrine of Scripture, it is the working out and application of the central fact of revelation: the incarnation of the Word. The Word (Λόγος) has become flesh (σαρξ), and the word has become Scripture; these two facts do not only run parallel but are most intimately connected. Christ became flesh, a servant, without form or comeliness, the most despised of human beings; he descended to the nethermost parts of the earth and became obedient even to the death of the cross. So also the word, the revelation of God, entered the world of creatureliness, the life and history of humanity, in all the human forms of dream and vision, of investigation and reflection, right down into that which is humanly weak and despised and ignoble. The word became Scripture and as Scripture subjected itself to the fate of all Scripture. All this took place in order that the excellency of the power, also of the power of Scripture, may be God's and not ours. Just as every human thought and action is the fruit of the action of God in whom we live and have our being, and is at the same time the fruit of the activity of human beings, so also Scripture is totally the product of the Spirit of God, who speaks through the prophets and apostles, and at the same time totally the product of the activity of the authors. "Everything is divine and everything is human"”

434-435

 

[John The Baptist]

On organic inspiration:

“Nonetheless, the organic view of inspiration does furnish us with many means to meet the objections advanced against it. It implies the idea that the Holy Spirit, in the inscripturation of the word of God, did not spurn anything human to serve as an organ of the divine. The revelation of God is not abstractly supernatural but has entered into the human fabric, into persons and states of beings, into forms and usages, into history and life. It does not fly high above us but descends into our situation; it has become flesh and blood, like us in all things except sin. Divine revelation is now an ineradicable constituent of this cosmos in which we live and, effecting renewal and resto-ration, continues its operation. The human has become an instrument of the divine; the natural has become a revelation of the supernatural; the visible has become a sign and seal of the invisible. In the process of inspiration, use has been made of all the gifts and forces resident in human nature.
Consequently, and in the first place, the difference in language and style, in character and individuality, that can be discerned in the books of the Bible has become perfectly explicable. In the past, when a deeper understanding was lacking, this difference was explained in terms of the will of the Holy Spirit. Given the organic view, however, this difference is perfectly natural. Similarly, the use of sources, the authors' familiarity with earlier writings, their own inquiries, memory, reflection, and life experience are all included, and not excluded, by the organic view. The Holy Spirit himself prepared his writers in that fashion. He did not suddenly descend on them from above but employed their whole personality as his instrument. Here too the saying “grace does not cancel out nature but perfects it” is applicable.
The personality of the authors is not erased but maintained and sanctified.
Inspiration, therefore, in no way demands that, literarily or aesthetically, we equate the style of Amos with that of Isaiah or that we deny all barbarisms and solecisms in the language of the NT.”

442-443

 

[John The Baptist]

Here is an interesting bit about scripture and the Church. For Bavinck, Protestantism denies an infallible organism by which scripture is judged/understood. Not the pope, the church, or the individual believer.

“In Orthodox Protestantism, all these ideas, those of Rome, Anabaptism, mysticism, rationalism, Lessing, Schleiermacher, etc., are mutually and intimately connected. Especially Schleiermacher, by his reversal of the Scripture-church relation, has offered strong support to Rome. All of these groups and persons agree that Scripture is not necessary but at most useful and that the church can also exist from and by itself. The difference is only that, whereas Rome finds the ground and possibility for the continued existence of the Christian religion in the institutional church, i.e., the infallible pope, Schleiermacher and his kind find it in the church as organism, i.e., in the religious community, while mysticism and rationalism find it in religious individuals. All of them explain the continued existence of the church in terms of the leading of the Holy Spirit, the indwelling of Christ, but this has its organ, the pope in the case of Rome, the organism of the church in the case of Schleiermacher, and for Anabaptism, in every believer individually.

It is not hard to see that in this lineup Rome occupies the strongest position. For certainly, there is a leading of the Holy Spirit in the church, Christ did rise from the dead, does live in heaven, and dwells and works in his church on earth. There is a mystical union between Christ and his body. The Word alone is insufficient: the external principle also requires an internal principle. Protestantism knew all this very well and confessed it heartily. But the question was whether or not the church was bound to the Word, to Scripture, for the conscious life of religion. Religion, surely, is not only a matter of the heart, the emotions, the will, but also of the head. God must also be served and loved with the mind. For the conscious life, accordingly, the church must have a source from which it draws the truth.
Now Rome, with its infallible pope, can assert that Scripture is not necessary; the infallibility of the church indeed renders Scripture superfluous. But Protestantism has no such infallible organ, neither in the institution, nor in the organism, nor in the individual members of the church. If Protestantism should deny the necessity of Scripture, it would weaken itself, strengthen Rome, and lose the truth, which is an indispensable element of religion. For that reason the Reformation insisted so firmly on the necessity of Holy Scripture. Scripture was the place for the Reformation to stand. It succeeded because, against the authority of church councils and the pope, it could pose the authority of God's Holy Word. One who abandons this position of the Reformation unintentionally works for the upbuilding of Rome. For if not Scripture but the church is necessary to the knowledge of religious truth, then the church becomes the indispensable means of grace.
The Word loses its central place and only retains a preparatory or pedagogical role. While Scripture may be useful and good, it is not necessary, neither for the church as a whole, nor for believers individually.”

468-469

 

[Drhabost]

Great to read through this thread. I started reading Vol 1 towards the end of October, and I'm pretty much halfway through. I have to say that I'm enjoying it more the longer it goes on - the first few chapters were a real drag. I think my ignorance of philosophy didn't help. A friend of mine is a minister who reads a wee bit of a systematic theology every day, and he said that if you read a section every day (you'll know yourself, about 5 pages give or take) barring weekends, you'll read all four volumes in just over 2 years.

 

[John The Baptist]

Some stuff about the perspicuity of scripture:

“The doctrine of the perspicuity of Holy Scripture has frequently been misunderstood and misrepresented, both by Protestants and Catholics. It does not mean that the matters and subjects with which Scripture deals are not mysteries that far exceed the reach of the human intellect. Nor does it assert that Scripture is clear in all its parts, so that no scientific exegesis is needed, or that, also in its doctrine of salvation, Scripture is plain and clear to every person without distinction. It means only that the truth, the knowledge of which is necessary to everyone for salvation, though not spelled out with equal clarity on every page of Scripture, is nevertheless presented throughout all of Scripture in such a simple and intelligible form that a person concerned about the salvation of his or her soul can easily, by personal reading and study, learn to know that truth from Scripture without the assistance and guidance of the church and the priest. The way of salvation, not as it concerns the matter itself but as it concerns the mode of transmission, has been clearly set down there for the reader desirous of salvation. While that reader may not understand the "how" (πως) of it, the "that" (ότι) is clear…

“The church fathers, accordingly, know nothing of the obscurity of Scripture in the later Roman Catholic sense. They do indeed speak often about the
depths and mysteries of Holy Scripture,
but with equal frequency they
praise its clarity and simplicity. Thus Chrysostom, comparing the writings of the prophets and apostles with those of the philosophers, writes: "The prophets and the apostles did the complete opposite; for they established for all the things that are sure and clear, inasmuch as they are the common teachers of the whole world so that each person by himself or herself might be able to understand what was said from the reading alone." And elsewhere he says: "All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain." Similarly in Augustine we read: "Hardly anything may be found in these obscure places which is not found plainly said elsewhere";and "Among those things which are said openly in Scripture are to be found all those teachings which involve faith and the mores of living.

“Familiar also is the saying of Gregory I, in which he compares Scripture
"to a smooth and deep river in which a lamb could walk and an elephant could swim." Even today Roman Catholic theologians still have to admit
that much material in Scripture is so plain that not only can the believer understand
it, but even the unbeliever, who rejects the plain sense of it, is inexcusable. The church fathers, accordingly, did not dream of forbidding the reading of Scripture to laypeople. On the contrary, over and over they insist on the study of Scripture and tell of the blessing they themselves received from reading it. Gregory I still recommended the reading of Scripture to all laypersons. The restriction of Bible reading did not come up until the twelfth century, when a number of sects began to appeal to Scripture against the church. At that point the idea that the practice of Bible reading by lay-persons was the prime source of heresy began to prevail. In self-defense Rome then increasingly taught the obscurity of Scripture and tied the reading of it to consent from the church authorities…

“By contrast, the Reformation asserted that a church, however venerable, can still err. Its interpretation is not "magisterial" but "ministerial." It can bind a person in conscience only to the degree that a person recognizes it as divine and infallible. Whether it indeed agrees with God's Word no earthly power can decide, but it is for everyone to judge solely for himself or her-self. The church can then cast someone out as a heretic, but ultimately that person stands or falls before his or her own master [Rom. 14:4]. Even the most simple believer can and may if necessary, Bible in hand, stand up to an entire church, as Luther did to Rome. Only thus the freedom of the Christian, and simultaneously the sovereignty of God, is maintained. There is no higher appeal from Scripture. It is the supreme court of appeal. No power or pronouncement stands above it. It is Scripture, finally, which decides matters in the conscience of everyone personally. And for that reason it is the supreme arbiter of controversies.”

477-481.

 

[John The Baptist]

Short today, but something that stuck out to me last week. I find this a strong defense against the RC view of scripture and tradition:

“Rome, accordingly, can list no other dogmas than those of Mariolatry, the infallibility of the pope, and the like that have developed apart from Scripture out of tradition. All those that pertain to God, humanity, Christ, salvation, and other basic doctrines can also be found in Scripture itself, as Rome admits. Then, what further need of witnesses have we? The Roman Catholic tradition serves only to prove specifically Roman Catholic dogmas, but the Christian dogmas, the truly catholic dogmas, are all, according to Rome itself, grounded in Scripture. This also shows that Scripture is sufficient and that the nature of the NT dispensation logically brings with it and demands this sufficiency of Holy Scripture. Christ has fully —personally and orally, or by his Spirit—revealed everything to the apostles. Upon this word we believe in Christ and have fellowship with God (John 17:20; 1 John 1:3). The Holy Spirit no longer reveals any new doctrines but takes everything from Christ (John 16:14). In Christ God's revelation has been completed. In the same way the message of salvation is completely contained in Scripture. It constitutes a single whole; it itself conveys the impression of an organism that has reached its full growth. It ends where it begins. It is a circle that returns into itself. It begins with the creation of heaven and earth and ends with the recreation of heaven and earth.”

I found the entire section from 489-494 to be very helpful, clear, and convincing.

 

[John The Baptist]

Bavinck on Schleiermacher and the subjective starting point of religion and apologetics:

“When historical and speculative argumentation failed to bear fruit, many theologians took their stance in the experience of believers, seeking to derive from it grounds for the certainty of faith as well as for the truth of Christianity. Perhaps the influence of Schleiermacher on modern theology nowhere comes out more clearly than in its acceptance of this subjective starting point. The reasons for this influence are not hard to find.
In the first place, Schleiermacher himself had taught [his students] that religion was not a matter of knowing or doing but of a certain state of feeling and, in keeping with this, that dogmatics is a description of pious states of mind. In this connection people frequently forget that Schleiermacher had antecedently assigned the task of arguing the truth of Christianity to apologetics and could therefore consider himself free from this obligation in dogmatics. They nevertheless adopted his dogmatic position and sought proof for the truth of Christianity in the certainty of the Christian.
In the second place, to the degree that Bible criticism made progress, an appeal to the Bible no longer seemed to yield sufficient warrant for the truth of what they confessed. Not even all the external historical or rational proofs people could scrape together in support of Christianity any longer made any impression in a time that, as a result of Kant's and Schleiermacher's own teaching, had learned to see the limitations of our cognitive powers and had consigned all invisible things, scientifically speaking, to an unknowable world.
Thirdly, people entertained the conviction that, by taking its position in religious experience, Christian theology would regain its honorable status in the eyes of secular science. For gradually in the course of the nineteenth century the latter had turned its back on all speculation and metaphysics and, with an appeal to Kant's criticism and Comte's positivism, positioned itself on the basis of pure facts. Theology would all at once seem to regain its scientific position if it became empirical through and through and located the basis for its scientific construction in the facts of religious experience.”

524

 

[No Other Name]

You are in one of my favorite sections of Bavinck's thought. If I may add to this great reading today?

"But what must we understand by this certainty of faith which is so important to theology? Certainty is not the same as truth, although the two are closely related. Truth is agreement between thought and reality and thus expresses a relation between the contents of our consciousness and the object of our knowledge. Certainty, however, is not a relationship but a capacity, a quality, a state of the knowing subject. One's spirit may assume different states in reaction to different statements or propositions. If it knows nothing whatsoever about the matter, it may be completely indifferent. If in weighing the pros and cons it can come to no decision regarding the truth or falsity of the matter, it may be cast in a state of doubt. If for whatever reason it leans more one way than another, it may find itself in various states of opinion, surmise, or trust. But it can also achieve a state of complete certainty with regard to some statement. Certainty exists when the spirit finds complete rest in its object of knowledge."

- Bavinck The Certainty of Faith p. 13 pdf, monergism.org

 

[John The Baptist]

Bavinck’s critique of what he calls the
“ethical-practical method of vindicating religion and Christianity”:

“Yet this method too is open to serious objections. In the first place, we have to grant that the correspondence between a religion and the moral needs of human beings are of great significance. The satisfaction of the human heart and conscience are the seal and crown of religion. A religion that has no consolation to offer in time of mourning and sorrow, in life and in death, cannot be the true religion. From other sciences, from logic, mathematics, physics, etc., we do not expect comfort for the guilty conscience and the saddened heart. But a religion that has nothing to say at sickbeds and deathbeds, that cannot fortify the doubting ones, nor raise up those who are bowed down, is not worthy of the name. The contrast often made between truth and consolation does not belong in religion. A truth that contains no comfort, which does not connect with the religious-ethical life of human beings, ceases by that token to be a religious truth. Just as medical science in all its specialties is oriented to the healing of the sick, so in religion people have a right to look for peace and salvation.

“Yet, however highly we may esteem this element of comfort in religion, and however much it may be considered, along with other proofs, as a powerful motivation toward belief, as proof solely in and by itself it is insufficient. After all, some comfort and satisfaction can be found in all religions. The experiences of misery and guilt, of doubt and confidence, of endurance and hope, are present not only among Christians but also in varying degrees among Muslims and Buddhists. A religion that fails to furnish comfort and satisfaction to the moral needs of people is certainly false. Conversely, not every religion in which people look for comfort or satisfaction is true. Moreover, the needs of heart and conscience that some religion relieves or satisfies are either aroused by the influence of that religion itself-in that case their satisfaction is rather natural and not a strong proof—or they may have originated apart from that religion under other influences and under the impact of another religion, and then the peculiar need that presupposes this religion is not present and satisfaction is totally lacking.

“In the real world one finds almost no sign of an unconscious aspiration of the soul toward Christianity. The history of missions teaches us almost nothing about a ripeness of people for the gospel. The gospel is not to the liking of human nature, not a ready match for the needs of people as they themselves picture those needs. Outside of revelation human beings do not even know themselves. The often-repeated claim that Christianity corresponds to human needs brings with it the very real danger that the truth is tailored to suit human nature. The thesis that the truth is authentically human because it is so intensely divine so easily turns into its opposite, viz., that it is only divine because it is human. The preaching that, rather than speaking to the heart of Jerusalem, flatters it is not uncommon even on Christian pulpits. In that setting we need no longer speak of religious experience. However important it may be, it cannot serve as adequate proof for the truth of Christianity. And those who elevate it to the status of a source or standard of the truth of the Christian faith gradually rob the latter of its historical character and permit it to be reduced to a number of vague religious-ethical proposi-tions. This, however, is nothing but a new form of the frequently but futilely attempted split between "idea" and "fact" in Christianity. Cut down the tree, and its fruit can no longer be picked. Stop up the spring, and fresh clear water will no longer flow from it.”

552-553

I found the bolded part interesting.

I went to a public university for my undergrad where I took a religious studies course. In this course we read Marcus Borg’s and N.T. Wright’s book on Jesus. I constantly found myself wanting to cuss at Borg. This chapter (especially the parts of the above quote) reminded me much of Borg’s content along with the rest of the Jesus seminar. They are content with removing the truth value of Christianity from the historical reality of His life, death, and resurrection. In this way they try to marry the conclusions of modern day science and the religious importance of Christianity.

 

[No Other Name]

Bavinck’s critique of what he calls the
“ethical-practical method of vindicating religion and Christianity”:

“Yet this method too is open to serious objections. In the first place, we have to grant that the correspondence between a religion and the moral needs of human beings are of great significance. The satisfaction of the human heart and conscience are the seal and crown of religion. A religion that has no consolation to offer in time of mourning and sorrow, in life and in death, cannot be the true religion. From other sciences, from logic, mathematics, physics, etc., we do not expect comfort for the guilty conscience and the saddened heart. But a religion that has nothing to say at sickbeds and deathbeds, that cannot fortify the doubting ones, nor raise up those who are bowed down, is not worthy of the name. The contrast often made between truth and consolation does not belong in religion. A truth that contains no comfort, which does not connect with the religious-ethical life of human beings, ceases by that token to be a religious truth. Just as medical science in all its specialties is oriented to the healing of the sick, so in religion people have a right to look for peace and salvation.

“Yet, however highly we may esteem this element of comfort in religion, and however much it may be considered, along with other proofs, as a powerful motivation toward belief, as proof solely in and by itself it is insufficient. After all, some comfort and satisfaction can be found in all religions. The experiences of misery and guilt, of doubt and confidence, of endurance and hope, are present not only among Christians but also in varying degrees among Muslims and Buddhists. A religion that fails to furnish comfort and satisfaction to the moral needs of people is certainly false. Conversely, not every religion in which people look for comfort or satisfaction is true. Moreover, the needs of heart and conscience that some religion relieves or satisfies are either aroused by the influence of that religion itself-in that case their satisfaction is rather natural and not a strong proof—or they may have originated apart from that religion under other influences and under the impact of another religion, and then the peculiar need that presupposes this religion is not present and satisfaction is totally lacking.

“In the real world one finds almost no sign of an unconscious aspiration of the soul toward Christianity. The history of missions teaches us almost nothing about a ripeness of people for the gospel. The gospel is not to the liking of human nature, not a ready match for the needs of people as they themselves picture those needs. Outside of revelation human beings do not even know themselves. The often-repeated claim that Christianity corresponds to human needs brings with it the very real danger that the truth is tailored to suit human nature. The thesis that the truth is authentically human because it is so intensely divine so easily turns into its opposite, viz., that it is only divine because it is human. The preaching that, rather than speaking to the heart of Jerusalem, flatters it is not uncommon even on Christian pulpits. In that setting we need no longer speak of religious experience. However important it may be, it cannot serve as adequate proof for the truth of Christianity. And those who elevate it to the status of a source or standard of the truth of the Christian faith gradually rob the latter of its historical character and permit it to be reduced to a number of vague religious-ethical proposi-tions. This, however, is nothing but a new form of the frequently but futilely attempted split between "idea" and "fact" in Christianity. Cut down the tree, and its fruit can no longer be picked. Stop up the spring, and fresh clear water will no longer flow from it.”

552-553

I found the bolded part interesting.

I went to a public university for my undergrad where I took a religious studies course. In this course we read Marcus Borg’s and N.T. Wright’s book on Jesus. I constantly found myself wanting to cuss at Borg. This chapter (especially the parts of the above quote) reminded me much of Borg’s content along with the rest of the Jesus seminar. They are content with removing the truth value of Christianity from the historical reality of His life, death, and resurrection. In this way they try to marry the conclusions of modern day science and the religious importance of Christianity.

Thanks for always doing these. I own Vos, Turretin and Beeke systematics but Bavinck and Muller are on my to-own and read list before I die.

 

[John The Baptist]

Thanks for always doing these. I own Vos, Turretin and Beeke systematics but Bavinck and Muller are on my to-own and read list before I die.

This first volume is tough to get through - a lot of random philosophers he counters which I know nothing about. I can follow along most of the time but there are large sections I have no clue the context of his argument.

I’m looking forward to future volumes which, from skimming through them, seem to be more positive (in the sense of actually proclaiming doctrine instead of combatting false philosophies).

I was recently given Turriten; I don’t think I can do both at once lol

 

[No Other Name]

I don’t think I can do both at once lol

Oh me neither. Turretin's vol. 1 with theology proper is also intensely dense, but in my daily interactions with Roman Catholics, I needed to pick up Turretin before Bavinck despite my love for almost everything he wrote: I have Certainty of Faith, Christian Worldview, Essays on Science, Religion and Society and his thinking is so deep and yet so crystal clear and eminently Biblical no matter how philosophical the subject is.

 

[John The Baptist]

Here we have Bavinck explaining the internal principle of faith in relation the the self-authenticating nature of scripture. In other words, how do we become convinced that scripture is the word of God? External proofs are not enough…

“The Reformation — deliberately and freely — took its position in the religious subject, in the faith of the Christian, in the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Admittedly, only a few statements about the Holy Spirit occur in the works of Luther, Zwingli, and Melanchthon." But Calvin developed this doctrine at length and related the subject matter to the content as well as to the form and authority of Scripture. That Scripture is the word of God, says Calvin, was not established by the church but was certain prior to the church's decision, for the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets. Scripture brings with it its own authority; it is self-based and self-attested as trustworthy. Just as light is distinguished from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter, so Scripture is recognized by its own truth. But Scripture acquires certainty as God's own Word with us by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Though proofs and reasonings are of great value, this testimony surpasses them by far; it is more excellent than all reason. Just as God can only witness concerning himself in his Word, so his Word does not find belief in the hearts of human beings before it is sealed by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. The same Spirit who spoke through the mouths of the prophets must work in our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been commanded by God. The Holy Spirit, accordingly, is the "seal" and "guarantee" for confirming the faith of the godly. If we have that testimony within us, we do not rest in any human judgment but observe without any doubt as if we were gazing upon God himself in it—that Scripture came from the mouth of God through the ministry of human beings. We subject our judgment to it ‘as to a thing far beyond any guesswork!’

“But that must not be understood as if we blindly submit to a thing that is unknown to us. No; we are conscious that in Scripture we possess unassailable truth and feel that ‘the undoubted power of his divine majesty lives and breathes there,’ a power by which we are drawn, knowingly and willingly, yet vitally and effectively, to obey him. Calvin knew that in this doctrine of the testimony of the Holy Spirit he was not describing some private revelation but the experience of all believers. " Nor was this testimony of the Holy Spirit isolated from the totality of the work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers but integrally united with it. By it alone the entire church originates and exists. The entire application of salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit; and the witness to Scripture is but one of many of his activities in the community of believers. The testimony of the Holy Spirit is not a source of new revelations but establishes believers in relation to the truth of God, which is completely contained in Scripture. It is he who makes faith a sure knowledge that excludes all doubt. It finds its analogy, finally, in the testimony our conscience offers to the law of God and in the assurance we have concerning God's existence. This doctrine of the testimony of the Holy Spirit, incorporated in the French, the Belgic, and Westminster Confessions, was developed in the spirit of Calvin by Ursinus, Zanchius, Polanus, and numerous others. It found acceptance also outside of Reformed theology, among the Lutherans, not as yet in the work of Chemnitz, Heerbrand, et al. but in Hutter, Hunnius, Gerhard, Questedt, and Hollaz”

583-584