# Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics vs. Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 11, 2011)

I can only by one of these two sets. 

Help Backwoods decide. An option I have thought of is buying PRRD and "Our Reasonable Faith" by Bavinck. 

Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Four Volumes 



Reformed Dogmatics, 4 Volume Set


----------



## discipulo (Mar 11, 2011)

Rev. Glaser, that is a tough choice to make.
But I would choose Bavinck, no doubt.

Arguably Bavinck is the best comprehensive reformed dogmatics available.

PRRD, that I use much less than Bavinck, only deals with some areas of Dogmatics, and although it is a priceless work, tends to be repetitive since it recollects the writing of several different theologians on those fewer aspects.
It is great to understand nuanced differences, for instance on Scripture between Musculus and Vermigli, and the list of theologians would go on and on.

But with Bavinck you also get a lot of the history of Reformed Dogmatics on each subject while covering all topics of Systematic Theology and with the great solid mature covenantal thought of Bavinck. 

Bavinck gave everything he got, and he had a lot to give, to his Dogmatics, Bavinck was a generous man and God gave him many gifts and talents and used him mightily.

It is not just Dogmatics, well as it should never only be per se, it is Dogmatics grounded on Exhaustive Scripture locci yes, but also abundant Exegetical skills, it includes History of the Church, Theology, Philosophy, even Speculative Theology, it covers Covenantal Redemptive History (BT) and it also has its part of Pastoral Practical Theological insights. 

Not easy to find, but Bavinck was both a champion of doctrinal purity and a man of catholicity with great love for the Church of Christ.

(right now that we are sharing about Common Grace here on PB, how I wish I could have brought Bavinck's volumes with me...)

Btw, whatever you may choose to buy, if possible get Ron Gleason's biography of Herman Bavinck (definitely it makes a great companion to his RD), it is so deeply researched and well written, in my opinion is one of the best biographies ever written. Who says Theologians' lives are not exciting?


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 11, 2011)

I personally find Bavinck to be more interesting and far easier to read. That is, the more recent translation (Reformation Heritage's version, If I recall correctly) is easy enough to read, and is actually easier to read than an American writing in English! :O


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Mar 11, 2011)

Bavinck


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 11, 2011)

I see several have made their pitch for Bavinck. I will make my pitch for Muller. It is a simple point (and, of course, you should eventually have both), but Muller is a prerequisite to reading any of the Reformed scholastics in a way that Bavinck is not (although Bavinck knew the scholastics well, too, of course). Muller is therefore more foundational for understanding Turretin, a'Brakel, Van Mastricht, etc. By the way, if you buy Muller now, you might just get enough of him read in order to enjoy truly the Van Mastricht when it comes out, D.V., at the end of this year. I find Muller simply awe-inspiring.


----------



## FenderPriest (Mar 11, 2011)

Bavinck all the way. Muller is obviously amazingly helpful (like Lane skillfully pointed out), but if it were me, and being me, I'd go for Bavinck who stands after Calvin in the magisterial display of the glory of God in a single Systematic. Muller will be helpful in looking to our forefathers and understanding them more accurately. Bavinck, I'd say, will be more helpful in not merely dogmatic theology, but also the critique he gives of the development of doctrine that is extremely relevant to our own theological atmosphere today.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 11, 2011)

How is "Our Reasonable Service"? Is it just a "dumbed down" version of the RD or an abridged version?


----------



## discipulo (Mar 11, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> I see several have made their pitch for Bavinck. I will make my pitch for Muller. It is a simple point (and, of course, you should eventually have both), but Muller is a prerequisite to reading any of the Reformed scholastics in a way that Bavinck is not (although Bavinck knew the scholastics well, too, of course). Muller is therefore more foundational for understanding Turretin, a'Brakel, Van Mastricht, etc. By the way, if you buy Muller now, you might just get enough of him read in order to enjoy truly the Van Mastricht when it comes out, D.V., at the end of this year. I find Muller simply awe-inspiring.


 
Very good point Rev. Keister, so far I found Muller´s PRRF very dense, very well detailed, but too exhaustive and too difficult for me.
Didn't give up yet though 

But yes Muller has been immensely relevant in clearing Reformed Orthodox Scholasticism from an unfair bad reputation, bad "P.R." from those like Barth, Kendall, even some dutch reactions back to balance away from Kuyper (who republished Voetius for instance and was pretty scholastic in methodology and terminology)

As I just ordered á Brakel's TCRS, the first english edition still on stock, from Inheritance Publications, Alberta, Canada, and I wonder how I will struggle with his categories and language. I expect it to be filled also with Pastoral practical precious insights.

But as you said Muller Prolegomena gives a good basis to engage works from that period. But is PRRD a Systematic Theology in the full sense of the word?

Rev Glaser I would suggest you also the *Concise Reformed Dogmatics by Genderen and Velema*, translated to *P&R*, 
it owes a lot to Bavinck, coming from Professors of the CGK Theological School where Bavinck first taught Dogmatics, still in Kampen at that time, now in Appeldoorn.

It is a smaller work of course (yet concise but not so much : ) but I find it always very helpful as it also engages more recent authors like Berkouwer, etc.

Just as an example, after a sermon on Lord's day 16 from the HC, I read about the article on the apostles creed concerning the descent of our Lord to the hades, and the Authors of the CRD, who confess the 3FU, they actually in this particular point favor the formulation of the WCF in contrast with the HC and Ursinus' commentary, that shows great intelectual honesty and humbleness. And it completely answered my questions on the subject.


----------



## jogri17 (Mar 11, 2011)

discipulo said:


> (right now that we are sharing about Common Grace here on PB, how I wish I could have brought Bavinck's volumes with me...)



Get it on Logos Bible software!

---------- Post added at 12:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

Here is what you do:
-WAIT a couple of months and buy Bavinck abridged in 1 volume (coming out edited by John Bolt) and a used copy of our reasonable faith (not the same tome; Bavinck wrote that for sunday school teachers and laity)
- buy Muller's work from Reformation Heritage Books... they have it at the cheapest price I've seen online. less than 90 bucks. Can't beat that eh! 

Also remember both works are available on Logos Bible software so call them asnd ask for a special price and you can pay with a payment plan!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 11, 2011)

I use to have Bavink. But I gave it away to someone inclined toward ministry. 

How does the newer translation read compared to this?

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/herman-bavinck-law-gospel-611/

This is not to debate the subject I truly want to know how the newer translation reads in comparison. I have Muller and have read some of it. It is great. But I haven't spent anytime in Bavink.


----------



## nicnap (Mar 11, 2011)

I voted buy something else, just so I could be a smart aleck and say, buy both. Seriously though; I would go with Bavinck first then Muller. Both are excellent works, but Bavinck gets my vote.


----------



## jogri17 (Mar 11, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I use to have Bavink. But I gave it away to someone inclined toward ministry.
> 
> How does the newer translation read compared to this?
> 
> ...



Ok.- The 4 volume Dogmatics (Reformed Dogmatics, 4 volumes - Reformation Heritage Books) is brand new. 
-The existing doctrine of God is a partial translation of volume 2 and is considered an inferior translation. (The Doctrine of God - Reformation Heritage Books)
-Our reasonable faith is a separate work, it is very good, and Bavinck wrote it not as an abridgement to RD. Here is what the editor of RD in English wrote to me when I asked him this question: «Our Reasonable Faith is a translation of Bavinck's Magnalia Dei (Not the world's greatest translation of a title!).
It is a work completely different that the RD; intended as a more biblical theology work for lay use in the church than for theologians.»
-And finally Bolt is putting out an abridgement out of the RD. So it will be more advanced than ORF but not as long and more affordable than RD. you can preorder it from amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/Reformed-Dogm...6488/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1299875194&sr=8-3

I really love Bavinck and enjoy reading him. Muller is NECESSARY for good historical theological research and for seminary students, *BUT* Bavinck is a must for the average pastor, the spiritually minded church member, and some really interested non believers. Bavinck (in the RD +ORF+abridgement) is useful for all the domains of theology (practical, historical, and systematic), but Muller is very limited in its use though it is fun to read and very insightful. I bought that for Logos and Bavinck in hardback. I intend to have Bavinck till my death.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 11, 2011)

You guys are killing me. I have to work through Jeremiah Burroughs first this year. But I will get Bavinck. I can't help it. I have book lust. I just spent 1 C on Hosea by Burroughs.

Thanks for your help Joseph. I really appreciate it. The four volume set is on my wish list.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Mar 11, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> I see several have made their pitch for Bavinck. I will make my pitch for Muller. It is a simple point (and, of course, you should eventually have both), but Muller is a prerequisite to reading any of the Reformed scholastics in a way that Bavinck is not (although Bavinck knew the scholastics well, too, of course). Muller is therefore more foundational for understanding Turretin, a'Brakel, Van Mastricht, etc. By the way, if you buy Muller now, you might just get enough of him read in order to enjoy truly* the Van Mastricht when it comes out, D.V., at the end of this year.* I find Muller simply awe-inspiring.



What do you know about Mastricht????


----------



## MW (Mar 11, 2011)

For what is the reader looking? Muller provides a detailed historiographical analysis of the first loci of dogmatics -- prolegomena, Scripture, and God. Bavinck provides summary historiographical analysis of all the loci of dogmatics, with the added benefit that he often provides his own school of thought which became fairly influential in numerous Reformed churches.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 11, 2011)

ChristianTrader said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > I see several have made their pitch for Bavinck. I will make my pitch for Muller. It is a simple point (and, of course, you should eventually have both), but Muller is a prerequisite to reading any of the Reformed scholastics in a way that Bavinck is not (although Bavinck knew the scholastics well, too, of course). Muller is therefore more foundational for understanding Turretin, a'Brakel, Van Mastricht, etc. By the way, if you buy Muller now, you might just get enough of him read in order to enjoy truly* the Van Mastricht when it comes out, D.V., at the end of this year.* I find Muller simply awe-inspiring.
> ...


 
I have heard that the first volume (of two) of Mastricht's ST is nearing publication. Todd Rester is doing the translation, and it is sponsored by the Dutch Translation Society.


----------



## DTK (Mar 12, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> I see several have made their pitch for Bavinck. I will make my pitch for Muller.



Ditto.


----------



## johnbugay (Mar 12, 2011)

Around "tax refund time," (having as many kids as I do), I get this type of choice. Last year, I was asking this very question, and in a straight-up choice between Bavinck and Muller, I think I would have chosen Muller. 

Instead, I bought a handful of commentaries. 

Given the same choice this year, I still think I'd go with Muller, as was mentioned, for his "detailed historiographical analysis of the first loci of dogmatics..."


----------

