Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics

[gkterry]

I have many of the most highly touted Reformed Systematic Theologies in my library. After viewing and reviewing (multiple times) as many posts on Bavinck's RD as I could find on the Puritan Board and other locations, I am still left with one question to which I would like an answer.

I have Bavinck's Abridged RD and find it quite insightful. Would it be worth getting Bavinck's four volume set of RD?

 

[lynnie]

Well, compared to other people here I don't feel very qualified to answer, but since you had no replies yet I'll throw in my experience.

I never went to Seminary but I love to read theology. I spent several months on and off reading that a year or two ago during a hard time in my life ( mostly Christology and some parts on the Church, but snips of sections all over).

On the plus side, I felt that he could be- without exception- the most beautiful writer ever and it was like a worship experience. In many ways he became my default theologian- ie, his opinion is weighty for me if he thinks something differently than other highly regarded Reformed theologians, like say lapsarianism for one example. So in that sense I think owning his books would be very valuable. He is a very deep thinker.

But, if you want to just pleasure read in the evening for your own edification, his digressions can be overwhelming. He'll be going along on some great subject and the next thing you know you are into the intricacies of every error and heresy and liberal opinion for hundreds ( or 2,000) of years. That is fine for intense scholarly study on a subject and understanding every single whacky kooky twist that ever has been invented, but, it is hard to wade trhough if you just want to read theology and what the bible teaches.

I ended up going back to Culver for my ST reading- I love his ST and all the history, and he does cover errors but he pretty much sticks to the point of what scripture teaches without all the intricate analysis of errors and heretics.

So if you want a resource to study subjects in-depth, by all means buy it. But if it is for pleasure reading, I don't think I would recommend it.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am going to be the odd-ball out and say "no," it's not worth getting. For all of Bavinck's genius, his 4 volume set has numerous and lengthy forays into dense philosophical discussions which aren't immediately relevant for today (I know, he had to deal with them then).

 

[Philip]

I am going to be the odd-ball out and say "no," it's not worth getting. For all of Bavinck's genius, his 4 volume set has numerous and lengthy forays into dense philosophical discussions which aren't immediately relevant for today (I know, he had to deal with them then).

I'm currently reading them and I would dispute this because the issues he is addressing (in Volume 1 at least) are still relevant today. We're dealing with the grandchildren of the ideas he was dealing with.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am going to be the odd-ball out and say "no," it's not worth getting. For all of Bavinck's genius, his 4 volume set has numerous and lengthy forays into dense philosophical discussions which aren't immediately relevant for today (I know, he had to deal with them then).

I'm currently reading them and I would dispute this because the issues he is addressing (in Volume 1 at least) are still relevant today. We're dealing with the grandchildren of the ideas he was dealing with.

True, and volume 1 is one of the most influential and formative books I've ever read. Still, few people can follow an extended analysis of Fichte, Hegel, and Wolff. That was all I was getting at. I remember in my Systematic Theology class the prof evens aid that none of us could understand volume 1 of Bavinck (somewhat of an overstatement).

 

[Philip]

True, and volume 1 is one of the most influential and formative books I've ever read. Still, few people can follow an extended analysis of Fichte, Hegel, and Wolff. That was all I was getting at.

I guess my advice could be taken with a grain of salt given my philosophy background.

 

[py3ak]

I hadn't commented because I haven't had the opportunity to compare the abridgement to the full set. But though I don't have Philip's philosophy background, I enjoyed Bavinck tremendously, and found him a very lucid thinker with a beautiful apprehension of truth. The translators did an excellent job of keeping his language compelling and elegant. I wouldn't settle for the abridgement; some of the most wonderful lines come in the middle of the refutations of error. And they are valuable in their own right, not just because many of them are relevant today, but also because Bavinck gives a magnificent example of appreciation - he is able to learn something from everyone, even the Arians, yet without getting sucked into their error.