# Bavinck on Pantheism and Deism



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 25, 2022)

I have previously quoted a majestic statement on the covenant by Bavinck on the Puritan Board



Stephen L Smith said:


> Here is one of my favourite Bavinck quotes from vol 2 of his Reformed Dogmatics:
> 
> "Because God is the creator, man a creature; ... an infinite distance between the two is a given. No fellowship, no religion between the two seems possible; there is only difference, distance, endless distinctiveness. If God remains evated above humanity in His sovereign exaltedness and majesty, then no religion is possible, at least no religion in the sense of fellowship. Then the relation between the two is exhaustively described in the terms of "master" and "servant". ... Accordingly, if there is truly to be religion, if there is to be fellowship between God and man ... then religion must be the character of a covenant. For then God has to come down from His lofty position, condescend to is creatures, impart, reveal, and give Himself away to human beings; then He who inhabits eternity and dwells in a high and holy place must also dwell with those who are of a humble spirit (Isa 57:15). But this set of conditions is nothing other than the description of a covenant. If religion is called a covenant, it is thereby described as the true and genuine religion.This is what no other religion has ever understood; all peoples either pantheistically pull God down into what is creaturely, or deistically elevate Him endlessly above it. In neither case does one arrive at true fellowship, at covenant, at genuine religion. But scripture insists on both: God is infinitely great and condescendingly good; He is sovereign but also Father; He is creator but also Prototype. In a word, He is the God of the covenant."
> Reformed Dogmatics 2:568 ff.


Pantheism is a major feature of much pagan spirituality today. I was wondering - is Islam a modern example of Deism?


----------



## ZackF (Dec 25, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have previously quoted a majestic statement on the covenant by Bavinck on the Puritan Board
> 
> 
> Pantheism is a major feature of much pagan spirituality today. I was wondering - is Islam a modern example of Deism?


I don’t think so. Islam would reject the “watchmaker” who has taken his hands off of the world.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 25, 2022)

ZackF said:


> I don’t think so. Islam would reject the “watchmaker” who has taken his hands off of the world.


At the same time, it seems like Islam shares with some forms of Deism an ultra-transcendent, virtually unknowable and essentially impersonal god. I could be mischaracterizing Islam at this point.


----------



## ryanpresnell (Dec 26, 2022)

Taylor said:


> At the same time, it seems like Islam shares with some forms of Deism an ultra-transcendent, virtually unknowable and essentially impersonal god. I could be mischaracterizing Islam at this point.


This is an accurate estimation in my opinion. The extent to which this is true varies across schools of Islamic jurisprudence, but not drastically. Some schools, e.g. the Hanbali madhhab, are opposed to any non-woodenly-literal interpretations of the Quranic text. Consequently, they affirm that Allah has "attributes" such as hands, feet, knowledge, etc. that are distinct from Allah. They also affirm that "There is nothing like unto [Allah]" (Quran 42:11). Thus, Allah has hands and feet (or one foot?), but they are nothing like ours, so we have no idea what these "hands" truly are and never can. It follows from this line of thought that we will never be able to know _anything _about Allah in terms of his "attributes"; otherwise, something in creation would have to be "like unto [Allah]". I distinctly remember Shabir Ally defending the view that Allah has body parts, but somehow not like ours, in a debate (most likely James White or Bob Morey). On the other hand, schools of thought that are more philosophically inclined, such as the Isma'ili madhhab, are open to non-literal interpretations of the Quran and, as such, are (in theory) able to avoid the hand-but-not-a-hand nonsense. However, the Isma'ili school has been heavily influenced by Neoplatonism, and this seems to be a general rule with Islamic philosophy. Islamic Neoplatonic schools of thought - characterized in part by the unknowable, indescribable Allah creating through his emanation(s), whether in the form of his "pen" or something else - by definition fit the criteria for belief in a "virtually unknowable and essentially impersonal god". Both "rational" and anti-rational Islam commit this same error. With all of this being said, there are still clear examples in the Islamic sources of the principle of Allah's ultimate transcendence being violated. Sunan Ibn Majah 190 (Grade - Hasan) reads:


> "I head Jabir bin 'Abdullah say" 'When 'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin )Haram) was killed on the Day of Uhud, the Messenger of Allah met me, and said: "O Jabir, shall I not tell you what Allah has said to your father?" Yahya said in his Hadith: "And he said: 'O Jabir, why do I see you broken-hearted?' I (Jabir) said: 'O Messenger of Allah, my father has been martyred and he has left behind dependents and debts.' He said: 'Shall I not give you the glad tidings of that with which Allah met your father?' I said: 'Yes, O Messenger of Allah.' He said: '*Allah never spoke to anyone except from behind a screen, but He spoke to your father directly,* and He said: "O My slave! Ask something from Me and I shall give it to you." He said: "O Lord, bring me back to life so that I may be killed in Your cause a second time." The Lord, Glorified is He, said: "I have already decreed that they will not return to life." He said: "My Lord, then convey (this news) to those whom I have left behind." Allah said: "Think not of those as dead who are killed in the way of Allah, Nay, they are alive, *with their Lord*, and they have provision."



At the risk of misinterpreting Bavinck, it seems to me from this quotation that he is not suggesting that those who elevate God "endlessly above" creation are _Deists _proper, but that they err in a Deist_ic_ manner - i.e., their error is the same as that of the Deists. I think that Islam provides us with an illustration of what Bavinck is describing, but I wouldn't categorize Islam primarily as an example of _Deism_ despite its emphasis on the transcendence of Allah. I'm partial to Bahnsen's view that Islam ought to be viewed as a Christian heresy in light of its claim on Abraham, Moses, and even Christ. In the same way, a Mormon would certainly be guilty of pantheistic behavior according to Bavinck, but Mormonism is primarily a cheap imitation of Christianity rather than pantheism.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 27, 2022)

ryanpresnell said:


> At the risk of misinterpreting Bavinck, it seems to me from this quotation that he is not suggesting that those who elevate God "endlessly above" creation are _Deists _proper, but that they err in a Deist_ic_ manner - i.e., their error is the same as that of the Deists. I think that Islam provides us with an illustration of what Bavinck is describing, but I wouldn't categorize Islam primarily as an example of _Deism_ despite its emphasis on the transcendence of Allah. I'm partial to Bahnsen's view that Islam ought to be viewed as a Christian heresy in light of its claim on Abraham, Moses, and even Christ. In the same way, a Mormon would certainly be guilty of pantheistic behavior according to Bavinck, but Mormonism is primarily a cheap imitation of Christianity rather than pantheism.


Bavinck seems to leave us with two choices:


Stephen L Smith said:


> This is what no other religion has ever understood; all peoples either pantheistically pull God down into what is creaturely, or deistically elevate Him endlessly above it. In neither case does one arrive at true fellowship, at covenant, at genuine religion.


He seems to be saying that all false religions fall into either pantheism or deism. The apologetic significance to me is that it is the doctrine of the covenant that preserves the Creator- creature significance, yet also explains how God can relate to humanity (WCF 7:1). 

I may have read him over literally and stand corrected, but I am fascinated how he links the covenant to true religion.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## ryanpresnell (Dec 27, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> He seems to be saying that all false religions fall into either pantheism or deism. The apologetic significance to me is that it is the doctrine of the covenant that preserves the Creator- creature significance, yet also explains how God can relate to humanity (WCF 7:1).


I think we are more or less on the same page. If deism and pantheism are defined by Bavinck's comment above, I think he _is _saying that all false religions fall under deism or pantheism. Even if he is not defining them in that manner, he is saying that all false religions are either deistic or pantheistic-- communicating the exact same idea. I apologize for the misunderstanding; I assumed that you were operating under the aforementioned "hands-off" definition of deism - I don't think Bavinck is suggesting that all false deistic religions fall into _that_ category. As I argued above, Islam does "elevate [God] endlessly above [creation]", and, as such, ought to be considered a deistic religion, properly defined.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 29, 2022)

ryanpresnell said:


> I think we are more or less on the same page. If deism and pantheism are defined by Bavinck's comment above, I think he _is _saying that all false religions fall under deism or pantheism. Even if he is not defining them in that manner, he is saying that all false religions are either deistic or pantheistic-- communicating the exact same idea. I apologize for the misunderstanding; I assumed that you were operating under the aforementioned "hands-off" definition of deism - I don't think Bavinck is suggesting that all false deistic religions fall into _that_ category. As I argued above, Islam does "elevate [God] endlessly above [creation]", and, as such, ought to be considered a deistic religion, properly defined.


Thank you for the insights Ryan. I am writing an article for our denominational magazine on the sexual revolution and worldviews and was considering using Bavinck's quote (in more understandable English  ). This is making me think through the implications of this quote.

There is one thing where I remain uncertain. Zach said:


ZackF said:


> Islam would reject the “watchmaker” who has taken his hands off of the world.


Does this mean Islam remains a deistic religion in many respects, but does reject the 'watchmaker' argument?


----------



## ryanpresnell (Dec 29, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Does this mean Islam remains a deistic religion in many respects, but does reject the 'watchmaker' argument?


It seems to me that Zack made the same assumption that I did— that by ‘deism’, you were referring to the idea that a god created the cosmos and subsequently ceased interacting with it. This form of deism is rejected by Islam; I think that’s what Zack was intending to say. But maybe Muslims should be this type of deist. They seem to want their cake and eat it too with Allah being apparently unable to condescend to the level of his creation yet simultaneously interacting with it in such a manner that should only be possible through condescension. Maybe it follows from the Islamic belief that Allah is unable or unwilling to condescend to the level of his creation that Allah does not interact with his creation, and Muslims are just inconsistent deists. This prima facie seems consistent with Bavinck’s comments on the matter, but I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around what types of “interaction” a deistic (as defined by Bavinck) god could have with his creation. It seems to me to be an act of condescension to create the creation in the first place.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 30, 2022)

ryanpresnell said:


> but I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around what types of “interaction” a deistic (as defined by Bavinck) god could have with his creation. It seems to me to be an act of condescension to create the creation in the first place.


Dallimore, in his insightful biography of George Whitefield 1:20, describes Deism as a form of religious rationalism and uses the standard definition that God is a form of first cause that made the world and that he revealed himself only in creation. You might say this is a form of impersonal condescension. I think the contradiction is within Deism itself. 

It is possible Bavinck was speaking in general principles. His main concern, I think, is to show that Reformed theology does what other religions cannot do - relate to His people by way of covenant. WCF 7:1.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Dec 31, 2022)

Taylor said:


> At the same time, it seems like Islam shares with some forms of Deism an ultra-transcendent, virtually unknowable and essentially impersonal god. I could be mischaracterizing Islam at this point.



That's true. Muslims wouldn't consider themselves Deistic, but their view of transcendence comes very close to Barth's Wholly Other god.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

